DOCSLIB.ORG

Case Monopolies Kb1602.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Case Monopolies Kb1602.Pdf 1260 CASE OF MONOPOLIES CO REP 84a CO REP 85 CASE OF MONOPOLIES 1261 judgment was affirmed in the Kings Bench in writ of error and therewith agrees 27 in Vide 29 any playing cards nor should make or cause to be Aid Statham made any playing cards within the said The heir law should have of waste tenant in realm upon pain of the Queens at common prohibition against highest displeasure and of such fine and punish ment as offenders in the case of dower but if the heir granted over his reversion his grantee should not have voluntary contempt deserve And afterwards the said Queen 11 40 prohibition of waste for it in the 72 that such assignee in an action Aug anno Eliz by her letters the former appears Register made patent reciting grants of the he shall to Ralph Bowes granted the his waste against tenant in dower shall recite statute of Gloucester cr90 plaintiff executors and administrators and their have for then should recite the deputies the same not prohibition of waste at common law he not privileges authorities and other the said premises for twenty-one after the end of the statute vide 55 14 17 years former term rendering to the Queen 100 marks per annum and further .to him Lastly it was resolved that the said woman by force of the said clause of without granted seal to mark the cards And further declared that after the end of the said impeachment of waste had such power and privilege that though in the case at Bar term of twelve years 30 Junii an 42 Eliz the caused no waste be because the house was blown down vim venti without her plaintiff to be made 400 of cards for the 84 done pa grosses necessary uses of the of and also the subjects to be sold within this and had fault yet she should have the timber which was parcel the house realm exRended in making them 50001 and that timber which down with the and when severed from the defendant knowing of the said and trees are blown wind they are grant prohibition in the plaintiffs letters and the inheritance either the of the of the and become the patent other the premises 15 Martii 44 by act party or law chattels anno Eliz without the Queens licence or the plaintiffs at Westminster caused whole property of them is in the tenant for life by force of the said clause of without to be made 80 of and grosses playing cards as well those as 100 other of impeachment of waste And for this cause judgment was given per omnesfusticiarios grosses playing cards none of which were made within the realm or imported within the realm una vote quod querens nihil caparet per billain by the plaintiff or his servants factors or deputies nor marked with his he had seal imported within the realm and them had sold and uttered to sundry and persons unknown shewed some in certain where fore the plaintiff could not utter his playing cards Contra formam prwdict literar et in OF patentium contemptum dicta dominee Regines the 84 THE CASE MonoPoraEs whereby plaintiff was disabled to his pay farm to the plaintiffs damages The defendant except to one half gross 44 Elm pleaded not guilty and as to that that the Trin pleaded City of London is an ancient city and that within the same from time there whereof has been society of Haber dashers and that within Marsden Seville Street Foundry Ex Great Eastern the said city there was Company 1878 206 custom quod gucelibet persona de societate illa uses fuit et consuevit emere Railway Company Goldsmid 1884 App Cas 940 Cozvaty Cowrt Judge of 85 ii xendere et lihere merchandizare omnem rem et omnes res merchandizahiles infra hoc de Halifax 798 263 regnum .dngliw quocunque vet quibuscunque and personis pleaded that he was civic et liter homo de cAvitate et societate illa and sold the said half of grant by the Crown of the sole making of cards within the realm is void gross playing cards being made within the realm as he lawfully might which the dispensation or licence to have the sole importation and merchandising of cards it upon plaintiff demurred in law And this case without limitation is the which was argued at the Bar any or stint against law notwithstanding by Dodderidge Fuller Fleming Solicitor and Coke forfeiture their Attorney-General for the plaintiff and imposes upon importation 671 Noy 173 by Crook .Altham and Tanfield for the defendant And in this case two general questions were moved and argued at the Ba %rising upon the two distinct in the Com Dig Trade Skin 133 169 Carth 270 Lucas 131. Inst grants said letters patent viz If the said grant to the plaintiff of the sole of cards 181 Co 125 Inst 47 Keb 269 Rob 212 making within the realm was good or not If the licence or dispensation to have the sole importation of foreign cards to the granted plaintiff was available or not in law to the Edward Darcy Esquire groom of the Privy Chamber to Quee Elizabeth bar no regard was had because it was no more than the common law would have and brought an action on the case against Allein haberdasher of London and declared said then no such particular custom to ought have been alleged for in hiis de coramuni that Queen Elizabeth 13 Junii anno 30 Eliz intending that her subjects being able qua fare omnibus conceit untur -consuetudo should themselves and that should alicuf us patrice vet loci non sot alleganda and therewith men to exercise husbandry apply therennto they agrees And although the bar was held not employ themselves in making playing cards which had not been any ancient superfluous yet that shall not turn the defendant to any prejudice but that he well take manual occupation within this realm and that by making such multitude of cards may advantage of the insufficiency of the declaration card-playing was become more frequent and especially among servants and apprentices As to the first question it was on the and poor artificers and to the end her subjects might apply themselves to more lawful argued plaintiffs side that the said grant of the sole of letters making playing cards within the and necessary trades by her patent under the Great Seal of the same date realm was good for three reasons Because the said cards were not granted to Ralph Bowes Esq full power licence and authority by himself his playing any merchandize or thing trade concerning of any necessary use but of and servants factors and deputies to provide and buy in any parts beyond the sea all things vanity the occasion of loss of time and decrease of the substance of the loss of the such playing cards as he thought good and to import them into this realm and to many service and work of servants causes of want which is the mother of woe and and sell and utter them within the same and that he his servants factors and deputies destruction therefore it belongs should have and enjoy the whole trade traffic and merchandise of all playing cards Roll 106 and by the same letters patent further 85 granted that the said Ralph Bowes his Moor 672 Noy 173 servants factors and deputies and none other should have the making of playing Doctrin plscit 56 cards within the realm to have and to hold for twelve years and by the same letters it Moor 671 174 the and that said Noy patent Queen charged commanded no person or persons besides the Doctrin placit 56 Carth 270 Ralph Bowes should bring any cards within the realm during those twelve years Br Prescription 71 nor should buy sell or offer to be sold within the said realm within the said term Vide note Combei case Co 75 Doctrin placit 69 Rob 14 Cro Co Lit 28 Dyer 184 pl 63 Moor 321 Poph 194 Latch 262 Car Cro Jac 133 221 312 Co 120 133 Palm 287 Roll Rep 183 Lit Rep 172 252 Bulstr 94 ride note Frauncess case Co 93 Note Ronhams case Co 120 CASE OF MONOPOLIES 11 CD REP 58 CASE OF MONOPOLIES 1263 to the is et totius and as it is said in the benefit and of the and therewith Fortescue in Laudibus Queen who parens patrice paterfamilias regni liberty subject agrees 20 take fol Capitalis Justiciarius Anglice to away the great abuse and to take legum Angli58 cap 26 Davenant order for the moderate and convenient use of them In mattersof recreation and And case was adjudged in this Court in an action of trespass inter of pleasure the Queen has prerogative given her by the law to take such order for such and Hurdis Trin 41 Elm Rot 92 where the case was that the company make ordinances for the moderate use of them as seems good to her The Queen in regard of the great Merchant Taylors in London having power by charter to to law and abuse of them and of the cheat put upon her subjects by reason of them might better rule and government of the company so that they are consonant of the who should utterly suppress them and by consequence without injury done to any one reason made an ordinance that every brother same society put brother of the same might moderate and tolerate them at her pleasure And the reason of the law any cloth to be dressed by any clothworker not being which the these in of recreation and his cloths some brother of the same who gives King prerogatives matters pleasure was society shall put one half of to society and because the greatest part of mankind are inclinable to exceed in them and upon exercised the art of clothworker upon pain of forfeiting ten shillings it had the these grounds divers cases were put se that no subject can make park chace to distrain for it Rca and it was adjudged that the ordinance although because it the or warren within his own land for his recreation or pleasure without the Kings grant countenance of charter was against the common law was against if he of the has freedom and to or licence and does it his own head in quo warranto they shall
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Elements of Negligence Under the Tort of Negligence, There Are Four Elements a Plaintiff Must Establish to Succeed in Holding a Defendant Liable
    Elements of Negligence Under the tort of negligence, there are four elements a plaintiff must establish to succeed in holding a defendant liable. The Court of Appeals of Georgia outlined the elements for a prima facie case of negligence in Johnson v. American National Red Cross as follows: “(1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct; (2) a breach of this duty; (3) a causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) damage to the plaintiff.” Johnson, 569 S.E.2d 242, 247 (Ga. App. 2002). Under the first element, a legal duty to a standard of due care, the plaintiff must prove the defendant had a duty to conform to a standard of conduct for protection of the plaintiff against an unreasonable risk of injury. The duty of care will be determined by the applicable standard of care and several factors can heighten the standard of care depending upon the relationship between the parties, whether the plaintiff was foreseeable, the profession of the defendant, etc. For example, the Red Cross has a duty, when supplying blood donations to hospitals, to make its best efforts to ensure blood supplied is not tainted with any transferable viruses or diseases, such as an undetectable rare strain of HIV. A breach of the duty of care occurs when the defendant’s actions do not meet the required level of applicable standard of care due to the plaintiff. Whether a breach of the duty of the applicable standard of care occurs is a question for the trier of fact.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Dispositive Motions: a Basic Breakdown
    Civil Dispositive Motions: A Basic Breakdown 1) Simplified Timeline: Motion for 12(b)(6) Motions JNOV** Summary Judgment Motions* Motion for New Trial Motion Motion for D.V. for D.V. (Rul 10 days Discovery and Mediation Plaintiff‟s Defendant‟s Evidence Evidence Process Complaint Trial Jury‟s Entry of Judgment Filed Begins Verdict * Defendant may move at any time. Plaintiff must wait until 30 days after commencement of action. **Movant must have moved for d.v. after close of evidence. 2) Pre-Trial Motions: Rule 12(b)(6) and Summary Judgment A. Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss 1. Challenge the sufficiency of the complaint on its face. Movant asks the court to dismiss the complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 2. Standard: The court may grant the motion if the allegations in the complaint are insufficient or defective as a matter of law in properly stating a claim for relief. For example: a) The complaint is for fraud, which requires specific pleading, but a required element of fraud is not alleged. 1 b) The complaint alleges breach of contract, but incorporates by reference (and attaches) a contract that is unenforceable as a matter of law. c) The complaint alleges a claim against a public official in a context in which that official has immunity as a matter of law. 3. The court only looks at the complaint (and documents incorporated by reference). a) If the court looks outside the complaint, the motion is effectively converted to a summary judgment and should be treated under the provisions of Rule 56.
    [Show full text]
  • State Judicial Profiles by County 2019-2020
    ALWAYS KNOW WHAT LIES AHEAD STATE JUDICIAL PROFILES BY COUNTY 2019-2020 PREPARED BY THE MEMBER FIRMS OF ® ® USLAW NETWORK STATE JUDICIAL PROFILE BY COUNTY USLAW is your home field advantage. The home field advantage comes from knowing and understanding the venue in a way that allows a competitive advantage – a truism in both sports and business. Jurisdictional awareness is a key ingredient to successfully operating throughout the United States and abroad. Knowing the local rules, the judge, and the local business and legal environment provides our firms’ clients this advantage. USLAW NETWORK bring this advantage to its member firms’ clients with the strength and power of a national presence combined with the understanding of a respected local firm. In order to best serve clients, USLAW NETWORK biennially updates its county- by-county jurisdictional profile, including key court decisions and results that change the legal landscape in various states. The document is supported by the common consensus of member firm lawyers whose understanding of each jurisdiction is based on personal experience and opinion. Please remember that the state county-by-county comparisons are in-state comparisons and not comparisons between states. There are a multitude of factors that go into such subjective observations that can only be developed over years of experience and participation. We are pleased on behalf of USLAW NETWORK to provide you with this jurisdictional snapshot. The information here is a great starter for discussion with the local USLAW member firm on how you can succeed in any jurisdiction. This conversation supplements the snapshot because as we all know as with many things in life, jurisdictions can change quickly.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Australian Competition Law
    The Evolution of Australian Competition Law CONTENTS The origins of competition law 11 Limitations of the common law 3 Antitrust statutes in the United States 6 Developments in Australia 9 European Union 23 The origins of competition law Competition law can be traced back to ancient times. Thus, for example, the fi rst attempt to comprehensively codify the law, the eighteenth-century bce Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, contains rules that can be interpreted as curtailing the power of monopolists to engage in price gouging, and in the fi fth century ce the East Roman Emperor Zeno prohibited and exiled monopolists in terms remarkably similar to those used in modern statutes. More recently, and closer to the source of modern Australian law, it is possible to discern in the early English common law at least three lines of attack on anti-competitive conduct.1 Attacks on monopolies Before the Case of Monopolies—Darcy v Allein (1602) 77 ER 1260, the Crown had a practice of granting monopolies in certain lines of trade. These allowed the grantee to engage in a particular trade, without competition, in exchange for royalties paid to the Crown. Darcy v Allein (1602) 77 ER 1260 Court of Kings Bench [Darcy held letters patent from the Crown granting him the exclusive right to import, make and sell playing cards in England for 21 years. Contrary to this grant, Allein made and imported playing cards and sold them to consumers. Darcy thereupon took proceedings against Allein for infringing his letters patent. The fi rst issue that arose was whether their grant was valid.] 1 For a more detailed examination of this topic, see Letwin, ‘The English Common Law Concerning Monopolies’ 21 University of Chicago Law Review 355 (1954).
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Stages of Federal Litigation: Overview
    Initial Stages of Federal Litigation: Overview MARCELLUS MCRAE AND ROXANNA IRAN, GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP WITH HOLLY B. BIONDO AND ELIZABETH RICHARDSON-ROYER, WITH PRACTICAL LAW LITIGATION A Practice Note explaining the initial steps of a For more information on commencing a lawsuit in federal court, including initial considerations and drafting the case initiating civil lawsuit in US district courts and the major documents, see Practice Notes, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: procedural and practical considerations counsel Initial Considerations (http://us.practicallaw.com/3-504-0061) and Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Drafting the Complaint (http:// face during a lawsuit's early stages. Specifically, us.practicallaw.com/5-506-8600); see also Standard Document, this Note explains how to begin a lawsuit, Complaint (Federal) (http://us.practicallaw.com/9-507-9951). respond to a complaint, prepare to defend a The plaintiff must include with the complaint: lawsuit and comply with discovery obligations The $400 filing fee. early in the litigation. Two copies of a corporate disclosure statement, if required (FRCP 7.1). A civil cover sheet, if required by the court's local rules. This Note explains the initial steps of a civil lawsuit in US district For more information on filing procedures in federal court, see courts (the trial courts of the federal court system) and the major Practice Note, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Filing and Serving the procedural and practical considerations counsel face during a Complaint (http://us.practicallaw.com/9-506-3484). lawsuit's early stages. It covers the steps from filing a complaint through the initial disclosures litigants must make in connection with SERVICE OF PROCESS discovery.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpleader in Virginia Stephen E
    University of Richmond Law Review Volume 13 | Issue 2 Article 9 1979 Interpleader in Virginia Stephen E. Baril University of Richmond Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview Part of the Civil Procedure Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Stephen E. Baril, Interpleader in Virginia, 13 U. Rich. L. Rev. 331 (1979). Available at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol13/iss2/9 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Richmond Law Review by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INTERPLEADER IN VIRGINIA I. HISTORY Interpleader is a joinder device employed by a stakeholder (as the obligor is called) who does not know to which of several claimants he is or may be liable. It allows him to bring all of the claimants into a single proceeding, and to require them to litigate among themselves to determine who, if any, has a valid claim to the stake.) Although interpleader originated as a common law device whereby a defendant, in a limited number of circumstances, could protect himself from double vexation upon a single liability, it soon became an equitable rather than legal procedure.2 Interpleader had tremendous potential as a device of judicial economy. Not only did it enable the stakeholder to avoid the expense of defending against several vexing claims in separate suits and the hardship of potentially inconsistent results arising therefrom, but also it afforded the court a simple method of avoiding two suits where one would suffice.
    [Show full text]
  • MONOPOLY in LAW and ECONOMICS by EDWARD S
    MONOPOLY IN LAW AND ECONOMICS By EDWARD S. MASON t I. THE TERM monopoly as used in the law is not a tool of analysis but a standard of evaluation. Not all trusts are held monopolistic but only "bad" trusts; not all restraints of trade are to be condemned but only "unreasonable" restraints. The law of monopoly has therefore been directed toward a development of public policy with respect to certain business practices. This policy has required, first, a distinction between the situations and practices which are to be approved as in the public interest and those which are to be disapproved, second, a classification of these situations as either competitive and consequently in the public interest or monopolistic and, if unregulated, contrary to the public in- terest, and, third, the devising and application of tests capable of demar- cating the approved from the disapproved practices. But the devising of tests to distinguish monopoly from competition cannot be completely separated from the formulation of the concepts. It may be shown, on the contrary, that the difficulties of formulating tests of monopoly have defi- nitely shaped the legal conception of monopoly. Economics, on the other hand, has not quite decided whether its task is one of description and analysis or of evaluation and prescription, or both. With respect to the monopoly problem it is not altogether clear whether the work of economists should be oriented toward the formu- lation of public policy or toward the analysis of market situations. The trend, however, is definitely towards the latter. The further economics goes in this direction, the greater becomes the difference between legal and economic conceptions of the monopoly problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Classes of Misdemeanors: Anatomy of a Criminal Case
    The Misdemeanor Process "It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys...not to convict, but to see that justice is done." Art. 2.01 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure The County Attorney handles over XXXXXXX new misdemeanor cases each year. These crimes contribute to the steady erosion of our community's civility, order, and safety. These crimes, if undeterred, can and will erode the quality of life for all of the citizens of Ector County. As Ector County grows, its citizens must remain vigilant to lower the number of these quality of life crimes. The County Attorney thanks all those citizens who contribute to public safety through jury service, volunteer organizations, and reports of crime to law enforcement. Classes of Misdemeanors: This Office is responsible for the prosecution of all misdemeanor cases that are filed in Ector County. “Misdemeanor” is defined in the law as any crime where the maximum possible jail time is one year or less. There are three categories of misdemeanors: Class A; Class B; and Class C. Class A misdemeanors are punishable by a fine of up to $4,000 and/or confinement in jail of up to one year. Some examples of Class A misdemeanor offenses include assault causing bodily injury, driving while intoxicated second offense, theft of property valued at $500 to $1500, and resisting arrest. Class B misdemeanors are punishable by a fine of up to $2,000 and/or confinement in jail of up to six months. Some examples of Class B misdemeanor offenses include driving while intoxicated first offense, possession of marijuana less than two ounces, and telephone harassment.
    [Show full text]
  • Courtroom Terminology.Pdf
    Courtroom Terminology A Accused: formally charged but not yet tried for committing a crime; the person who has been charged may also be called the defendant. Acquittal: a judgment of court, based on the decision of either a jury or a judge, that a person accused is not guilty of the crime for which he has been tried. ADA: Assistant district attorney. An assistant district attorney works for the elected District Attorney. An ADA will review and prosecute cases as assigned. ADA's meet with law enforcement, witnesses, and victims. They generally have authority to dispose of those cases assigned to them. Adjournment: putting off or postponing business or a session of court until another time or place. Adjudication: the judicial decision that ends a criminal proceeding by a judgment of acquittal, conviction, or dismissal of the case. Affidavit: a written statement that the writer swears is true. Aggravating factors: factors that make a crime worse than most similar crimes. Aggravating factors are often defined by law and include such things as: victim very old, gang related, done for hire, especially cruel, defendant does not support his family, or took advantage of a position of trust. Aggravated range: When a person is sentenced, this indicates a sentence that is more severe than the “presumed” sentence for a given crime. A defendant may receive more time if the judge finds aggravating factors. If no aggravating factors are found, the sentence will come from either the “presumptive” or “mitigated” range. Alleged: said to be true, but not yet proven to be true; until the trial is over, the crime may be called the “alleged crime.” Appeal: a request by either the defense or the prosecution that a higher court review the results of a decision on certain motions or in a completed trial.
    [Show full text]
  • Bill of Particulars—A Very Powerful Tool
    Demand for a Bill of Particulars—A Very Powerful Tool What discovery methods do you consider when you are strategizing about the most effective method to obtain the information you need to pin down your opponent? If you are defending a contract case, think about serving a Demand for Bill of Particulars. A Demand for Bill of Particulars is NOT a discovery device, but an extension of the complaint or a cross-complaint [complaint]. It is a cost-effective method with a turnaround time of 10 days and if the court finds that any of the line items are deficient it can strike the entry and preclude plaintiff/cross- complainant [plaintiff] from proving the debt is owed. Unlike interrogatories and deposition responses where contradictory evidence can be admitted by the plaintiff, the Bill of Particulars is conclusive as to the items and amounts claimed and no other evidence is admissible at trial. What is a Demand for Bill of Particulars? The Demand for a Bill of Particulars presumes that the plaintiff suing has a “book” or “contemporaneous ledger” or an “account” to support any charges when the complaint was filed and provides a court process to require that it be presented upon demand. The account, unlike the pleading in a complaint, is supposed to “furnish a defendant with the details of the items charged against him…” Meredith v. Marks (1963) 212 Cal. App. 2d 265, 269. This procedure dates back to early common law when plaintiff sued on an alleged account, and the pleadings gave no specifics as to the nature of the claim –i.e., whether contract, quasi-contract etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Drafting NY Civil-Litigation Documents: Part 10—Bill of Particulars Gerald Lebovits
    Columbia Law School From the SelectedWorks of Hon. Gerald Lebovits October, 2011 Drafting NY Civil-Litigation Documents: Part 10—Bill of Particulars Gerald Lebovits Available at: https://works.bepress.com/gerald_lebovits/200/ OCTOBER 2011 VOL. 83 | NO. 8 JournalNEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION Also in this Issue Planning and the Case Law From Transsexual Client Finding the Mortgagee the Crypt Landlord-Tenant Law 101 The Law of Halloween by Daniel B. Moar THE LEGAL WRITER BY GERALD LEBOVITS Drafting New York Civil-Litigation Documents: Part X — Bill of Particulars bill of particulars isn’t techni- particulars from a defendant seeking or after the answer, but not before. cally a pleading, although the to amplify the defendant’s defenses Plaintiffs wanting a bill of particulars A provisions concerning the bill and counterclaims.11 A plaintiff may from defendants about the defendants’ of particulars are located in Article 30 also demand a bill of particulars defenses may serve a demand any of the CPLR, which cover remedies from a co-defendant about a cross- time after the defendants have served and pleadings. Nor is a bill of particu- claim.12 A third-party defendant may them with an answer to the complaint. lars a disclosure device. A bill of par- demand a bill of particulars not only Plaintiffs wanting a bill of particulars ticulars, instead, is “an amplification from a defendant who impleaded a from defendants about defendants’ of a pleading.”1 It’s an “expansion” third-party defendant but also from a counterclaims may serve a demand of a pleading.2 One party will make a plaintiff.13 “with or after the reply.”17 demand for a bill of particulars from Defendants use bills of particulars You have 30 days to respond to a another party; the response to that in criminal cases to “amplify an demand for a bill of particulars.
    [Show full text]
  • Lawsuits Against the Federal Government: Basic Federal Court Procedure and Timelines
    Updated December 22, 2020 Lawsuits Against the Federal Government: Basic Federal Court Procedure and Timelines Many federal laws and policy initiatives are challenged in cannot succeed as a matter of law. The court may deny a court. In recent years, for instance, plaintiffs have brought motion to dismiss or may grant the motion with respect to cases challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s the case as a whole or only as to certain claims. rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, the Secretary of Commerce’s decision to include a If the court does not grant a motion to dismiss in full, the citizenship question on the 2020 Census, and the case proceeds to discovery, the process by which parties President’s decision to expend certain funds to construct a exchange evidence. Once the factual record is sufficiently “border wall.” Because the defendant in these cases is the developed, either party (or both) may file a motion for United States or an executive official, the cases generally summary judgment, arguing that the other party cannot proceed in federal court. By understanding the procedures prevail in light of the applicable law and the undisputed governing federal court litigation, legislators can consider facts. The district court judge may resolve legal questions at potential outcomes, estimate timelines, and appreciate the this stage but may not resolve factual disputes. As with a importance of a court’s ruling at a particular stage. This In motion to dismiss, the court may grant summary judgment Focus reviews the most common procedures that govern in full or in part; it may also grant summary judgment in civil suits against the federal government, tracing the path favor of the plaintiff on some claims and in favor of the from federal district court to the Supreme Court.
    [Show full text]