User:Notecardforfree/sandbox
Motion to tax costs
[edit]A motion to tax costs is procedure where a party challenges court costs that are claimed by an opposing party.[1] This type of motion is permitted in a number of American jurisdictions,[2] and some state legislatures have set specific guidelines for the types of costs that are recoverable.[3]
Procedures
[edit]A motion to tax costs is filed by the party "against whom costs are sought".[4] Some jurisdictions provide that motions to tax costs may be filed after judgment is entered in a case, and even after the resolution of an appeal, as long as the motion is filed within a reasonable period of time.[5] Some jurisdictions also allow parties to appeal rulings on motions to tax by filing an appropriate motion in an appellate court.[6]
Recoverable costs
[edit]Some jurisdictions have established statutory guidelines for costs that may be recovered by a prevailing party.[3] In California, for example, parties may recover fees that were paid to expert witnesses as long as the costs are "reasonable in amount".[7]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ 2 David Saunders, California Attorney's Guide to Damages, § 4.91 "Procedure for Claiming Costs" 4-57 (2015).
- ^ C.J.S. § 276 (1940).
- ^ a b Timothy J. Thalken, Taxable Costs in Civil Cases under Nebraska Law, 16 Neb. Law. 5, 10 (2013).
- ^ 2 David Saunders, California Attorney's Guide to Damages, § 4.91 "Procedure for Claiming Costs" 4-57 (2015) (citing Cal. Rules of Ct. §3.1700(b)(1)).
- ^ William VanDercreek & Kimberly L. King, Civil Procedure, 10 Nova L.J. 895, 952 n. 332 (1986).
- ^ Philip J. Padovano, Motion Practice in Florida Appellate Courts, 32 Stetson L. Rev. 309, 346 (2003) ("[A] party may seek review of an order on a motion to tax costs by filing a motion in the appellate court.").
- ^ Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5.
Trial article rewrite
[edit]Lead
Definition
[edit]A trial is generally defined as process where a tribunal makes a determination about disputed issues of fact or law.[1]
"The general term for proceedings, civil or criminal, in a court of first instance, leading to the court's determination of the matter in issue. In various kinds of proceedings there are other terms for the same process, such as 'hearing' in the Chancery Division, where the trial is by affidavit, or 'proof' in the Scottish civil courts in cases without a jury."[2]
Historic development
[edit]Form of trials
[edit]Trial by a court or judge
[edit]Bench trials
Summary adjudication
Trial by jury
[edit]Trial by proviso
[edit]Trial by the record
[edit]Trial by certificate
[edit]Trial by witness
[edit]Trial by balance
[edit]Trial by battle
[edit]Trial by ordeal
[edit]Role of judges
[edit]Rights of participants
[edit]Due process
[edit]Publicity
[edit]Right to counsel
[edit]Function of trials
[edit]The exercise of judicial power by courts of law has been described as an "important" component of "national governance."[3]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Black's Law Dictionary 1504 (6th ed. 1990) (defining a trial as "[a] judicial examination and determination of issues between parties to action, whether they be issues of law or fact, before a court that has jurisdiction" or "[a] judicial examination, in accordance with the law of the land, of a cause, either civil or criminal, of the issues between the parties, whether of law or fact, before a court that has proper jurisdiction") (citing Tittsworth v. Chaffin, 741 S.W. 2d 314, 316-17 (Mo. App. 1987)).
- ^ Walker p. 1238
- ^ Judith Resnik, Trial as Error, Jurisdiction as Injury: Transforming the Meaning of Article III, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 925, 926 (2000).
External links
[edit]
- Famous trials by the UMKC
Sharpe
[edit]| United States v. Sharpe | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 27, 1984 Decided March 20, 1985 | |
| Full case name | UNITED STATES v. SHARPE, et al. |
| Docket no. | 81-1574 |
| Citations | 470 U.S. 675 (more) 105 S. Ct. 1568, 84 L. Ed. 2d 605, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 74, 53 U.S.L.W. 4346 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Sharpe v. United States, 712 F.2d 65 (4th Cir. 1983) |
| Holding | |
| HOLDING | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Burger, joined by White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, O'Connor |
| Concurrence | Blackmun |
| Concurrence | Marshall |
| Dissent | Brennan, joined by Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court .....
Background
[edit]Fourth Amendment guidelines for the length of traffic stops
[edit]Arrest of William Sharpe and Donald Savage
[edit]Opinion of the Court
[edit]Subsequent developments
[edit]Analysis and commentary
[edit]See also
[edit]- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 470
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court
References
[edit]External links
[edit]
Alabama v. White
[edit]| Alabama v. White | |
|---|---|
| |
| Argued April 17, 1990 Decided June 11, 1990 | |
| Full case name | ALABAMA, Petitioner v. Vanessa Rose WHITE |
| Docket no. | 89-789 |
| Citations | 496 U.S. 325 (more) 110 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L. Ed. 2d 301, 1990 U.S. LEXIS 3053, 58 U.S.L.W. 4747 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, White v. State, 550 So. 2d 1074 (Ala. 1989) |
| Holding | |
| HOLDING | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White, joined by Rehnquist, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Brennan, Marshall |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court .....
Background
[edit]Fourth Amendment searches and seizures based on anonymous tips
[edit]Before conducting an arrest, law enforcement officers must have probable cause that a suspect has engaged in criminal activity.[1] Officers may also conduct temporary detentions when they have reasonable suspicion "that criminal activity may be afoot", but officers cannot rely upon a mere "hunch".[2] In the 1960s, the Supreme Court of the United States developed a two-step test to determine whether a tip from an anonymous informant can be used to supply probable cause.[3] This test was derived from the Court's decisions in Aguilar v. Texas[4] and Spinelli v. United States,[5] which held that an anonymous tip may provide probable cause if officers can establish the "basis of knowledge" and "veracity" of the anonymous tip.[6] Under this standard, a tip had "veracity" if the informant was "credible" and "reliable".[6] Additionally, the "basis of knowledge" and "veracity" elements were "treated as entirely separate requirements, which must be independently satisfied in every case in order to sustain a determination of probable cause."[6]
In 1983, the Supreme Court abandoned the Aguilar–Spinelli test in Illinois v. Gates, where the Court established that a "totality of the circumstances" test should be used to determine whether an anonymous tip is sufficiently reliable to provide probable cause.[7] The Court held that the Aguilar-Spinelli text could not be "be reconciled with the fact that many warrants are ... issued on the basis of nontechnical, common-sense judgments of laymen applying a standard less demanding than those used in more formal legal proceedings".[8] In Gates, ... TALK ABOUT FACTS OF CASE.
Although the court ultimately endorsed a "totality of the circumstances" test, the Court also concluded that an informant's "veracity," "reliability," and "basis of knowledge" remained "highly relevant in determining the value of his report."[7]
Arrest and trial
[edit]Opinion of the Court
[edit]Subsequent developments
[edit]Florida v. J.L.
[edit]Prado Navarette v. California
[edit]Analysis and commentary
[edit]See also
[edit]- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 496
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court
References
[edit]- ^ Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-76 (1949) ("Probable cause exists where 'the facts and circumstances within their [the officers'] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that' an offense has been or is being committed.'").
- ^ Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 30 (1968) (defining standards for investigatory stops); see also United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989).
- ^ Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 229-30 (1983).
- ^ Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964)
- ^ Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969)
- ^ a b c Gates, 462 U.S. at 229 n.4.
- ^ a b Gates, 462 U.S. at 230.
- ^ Gates, 462 U.S. at 235-36.
External links
[edit]
DYK QPQ storage
[edit]- EMPTY