What is the difference between a judge and a magistrate?
404242
What is the difference between a judge and a magistrate judge? \nA district court judge is nominated by the President and confirmed by the US Senate. These judicial officers are appointed for a life term. District court judges hear criminal and civil cases. A U.S. magistrate judge is a judicial officer of the district court and is appointed by majority vote of the active district judges of the court to exercise jurisdiction over matters assigned by statute as well as those delegated by the district judges. A full-time magistrate judge serves a term of eight years. Duties assigned to magistrate judges by district court judges may vary considerably from court to court, however, magistrate judges usually hear civil cases and criminal misdemeanor cases.
1180404
You could try calling the clerk of the court.  A magistrate should be professional enough to do her job without personal issues.  You could mention that you feel her looking into your case would be a conflict of interest because you have had personal dealings with her.
467665
Visitation is usually worked out in a courtroom and the judge will dictate the final terms.  An older child would have a say in the decision-making process.  A younger child probably would not.
202853
The Federal Judiciary is broken dowm into 13 Circuits of Appeal. Within each Circuit, there are District Courts. See the map at http://www.uscourts.gov/courtlinks/ to get an idea of the breakdown. District Courts are the trial level courts in the federal system. District Court Judges oversee matters in District Courts.\n\nMany states also have District Courts. For example, there are nine Judicial DISTRICT COURTS in the State of Nevada. These are also trial level courts.\n\nSome states call their trial level courts by different names, like Superior Court. It just depends on the state.
816435
I guess that would be the Judge since he is the only government official who can impose a sentence for a crime. If your area has some type of diversion or community service program, perhaps the person sentenced is referred to some type of director who ensures that the Judge's order is carried out.
643761
District courts are federal trial courts (may include juries, etc.)  Federal appeals courts are the Circuit courts (there are 13).  They review decisions made by District courts, but they cannot re-try facts (only review the application of the law).  The number of judges varies depending on Circuit, but normally only 3 will decide a case (for very important cases, there may be more, or all of them).  The U.S. Supreme Court (9 justices) reviews decisions of the Circuit courts.  Normally they will review rulings that are inconsistent among circuit courts of appeals.
358285
Get your law degree, then pass the bar exam. Then get some experience in practice.\n\nAfter that, it depends on which type of judge you're talking about.\n\nFederal judges are appointed by the President (see US Constitution, Article 2 Section 2 and Article 3 Section 1).\n\nState judges may be appointed by the governor, or by the legislature, or may be voted in by the public. It varies by state. Also, temporary judges (like for small claims or municipal courts) may sometimes be appointed.\n\nCheck your local listings.
862348
A county court judgment is a decision given by a judge in a local court in favour of one party and against the other, in this case, presumably, you.  If you have anything at all to say in your defence, then it is a good idea to turn up to court.  I see that someone advised you to have a word with your creditor and I would urge you to do that if you have run up a debt, as otherwise you'll find yourself paying not only the debt, but the costs of bringing you to court and -- if the worst comes to the worst -- the costs of bailiffs turning up at your home and seizing goods to pay off the debt together with costs.  In a magistrates' court they can allow you to pay off your debt in stages: in a county court they'll want the money there and then.  See if you can do a deal with the creditor who is taking you to court.  It's the best way!
105843
depends on your judge
514558
Dear Friend,\n\nI THINK you mean judicial precedents.  Judges apply laws to facts.  Ideally, one set of facts should get you the same result no matter which judge you go before.  Also, ideally, you should be able to tell before you go to court what the outcome should be.  If law is reliable and uniformly applied by different judges, all of us can plan our lives accordingly.\n\nSo, judges basically copy each other.  If one judge said that a certain law dictates a certain result under certain circumstances, the next judge to face the same circumstances will try to do the same.  The decision of the prior judge is cited as "precedent," or authority.\n\nIf a really important court, like the United States Supreme Court, makes a precedent, everyone HAS to follow it.  If a lower court judge makes a precedent, other judges may consider it but don't have to.\n\nHope that helps!\n\nYour Friend,\nFrancesois
810719
Executive and judiciary should honestly work independently.\nAny interference in one's working should be booked under criminal offence.
810998
NO! Are you kidding? A judge cannot be running around in fear that his decisions might be the basis for a criminal charge.  Who would ever be a judge then?\nJudges are required to make decisions based upon the evidence that comes before them, the law, and their wisdom and common sense.  That's why they're judges.   There are times when judges can be prosecuted -- if they take bribes or commit other criminal acts, for example.  But what you're asking is, essentially, to charge judges with crimes if they make rulings that are (eventually) determined to be incorrect that would have let in exculpatory evidence.  Then, in fear of their own lives or freedom, every judge would let in every piece of evidence proffered by a defense attorney, and capital cases would become absolute circuses.\n\nThe reason we have judicial gatekeepers to determine relevance and other rules of evidence is to ensure that the jurors hear only proper evidence--that their minds aren't tainted by prejudicial evidence, unreliable evidence, or red herring evidence introduced solely to confuse or inflame the jurors.  If you're so concerned about that, then you should allow BOTH sides to introduce whatever evidence they want.  That could include information about the defendant's predilections, his character, some other acts, unreliable hearsay evidence, junk science, and gruesome details about the death that would just enrage the jurors to convict.
838942
The judge will decide.\n\nCoach
1030893
Hight courts have jurisdiction over a State in India. The Judges of the High Courts in India are appointed by the President of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and Governor of the State.
112903
A civil case is heard in civil court and is the result of an individual or group asking the court or jury to award monatary compensation or restitution.\n\nA criminal case is heard in criminal court and is presented by an attorney for the state or government office and asks the court or jury to punish a wrongdoing by jail or prison sentence and/or fines payable to the office that filed the complaint.\n\nThe major difference is that criminal court is for when a crime has been commited, while civil court is for law suits and litigation for money.\n\nI hope this helps....take care
1032724
Practically speaking, both are same, only the term used are different.\n\nThe term referee originated in association football (soccer)
499109
You cannot sue a judge just because you disagree with his rulings.  IF a judge truly is biased, then attorneys have avenues of getting that judge removed from the case, but not by sueing them.  You sue someone for money you have lost (or things along those lines).\n\nChances are, the judge is NOT biased, just that you see the situation differently than him.