|
UncleNasty -> RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina's 'Christian' license plate (11/17/2009 10:20:09 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucienne
quote:
ORIGINAL: UncleNasty
A well written decision on Summary Judgment. Because it is a summary decision (at the federal level) it will be hard to overcome the decision on appeal. In short it must be demonstrated that the court erred as a matter of law in granting summary. This is unlikely as the 57 page Order and Opinion of Judge Currie is well researched, well supported and well written. Federal courts are typically more interested in adjudicating based on facts and law and will expend the time and energy to do exactly that.
State level judges at district and circuit levels are more inclined to do whatever is necessary to merely "clear" their dockets, often times rushing to judgment and denying due process. State Courts of Appeals and State Supreme Court judges are more closely aligned to Federal courts in their practices and applications of the law than they are to lower State courts.
If the decision is appealed it will first go to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit before going to the US Supreme Court. The first appeal could take a couple of years to work its way through the Fourth Circuit Appellate Court. An appeal to the US Supreme Court could take another couple of years so Scalia won't be ruling on this one anytime soon.
Uncle Nasty
A few notes... An appeals court doesn't have to give any deference to a trial court's conclusions of law. The 4th Cir. is stocked full of conservative nuts. And please point me to the jurisdiction where trial court judges aren't afraid to grant summary judgment.
A few notes back (playful, not argumentative)...
There aren't many issues that appeals courts look at with a de novo perspective or approach. Summary judgment is one of those, as are standing and jurisdiction.
Deference to the lower court is, IMO, always an element of an appeal, but not to the point of being binding on the appellate court. "The trial court erred as a matter of law in granting..." requires review of the lower courts processes and decisions, and while definition 1 (submission to...) of "deference" may not be the most accurate term to describe an appellate review of the trial courts processes and decisions I do think that definition 2 (courteous regard) fits appropriately enough.
I don't believe I made any comments regarding a courts fear, or lack thereof, in granting summary judgment.
Uncle Nasty
|
|
|
|
