Have you ever heard of a joint stipulation and consent judgment?
600077
If the only thing you have to say is that you changed your mind then there isn't anything to be done about it.
235420
Erm... it makes a legal rule.\n\nNot actually sure what you're asking - more info may help.
987161
This sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
593758
Judgment is a court order binding on both sides.  Fact dependent whether you can have set aside and a new trial.  The trial is usually final.  Maybe the facts weren't on your side?
588557
In Ontario, that is correct since a 1996 Court of Appeal decision (Regina v. Jacob).  I believe that there was a similar ruling in New York in the early 90s.
730920
I'm not sure about Canadian Laws, however here in the United States, it is called "Recusal".   A judge will recuse themselves from any case in which they feel they cannot give a fair and impartial decision.  This is all voluntary on the part of the judge unless a writ is filed with a Superior Court Judge to have them withdrawn from the trial.
997613
I'm afraid so. There've been cases where I-pass/ez-pass records (Electronic "tags"  used on Ecoast toll roads.) were subpoenaed in divorce cases.
966740
It's spitting, or as some less polite people call it, a pissing, contest between judges in different countries.\n\nThe classic cases are those of the late Freddie Laker, who was put out of business (Laker Airways) by the combined efforts (a conspiracy in restraint of trade) of all the main IATA translatlantic carriers.\n\nSir Lawrence Collins has written on this; and his Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws, 14th ed., just out, is probably the best source of information. That and some law review articles in the USA.\n\nBut I can refer you to some cases.\nhttp://www.uniset.ca/other/cs4/731F2d909.html\nhttp://tinyurl.com/v2whu\n\nThe point is that in anticipation of a RICO or an antitrust case, or even a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, a (typically) European firm might seek an injunction against a US firm from bringing an action in the US that would impair the European firm's interests.\n\nThe US firm -- and perhaps the US judge -- could freely ignore the injunction, and there could be an endless series of opposing orders. In the end, comity might, or might not, end the conflict. Collins wrote an article on comity that was published in a Festschrfit: Comity in "Modern Private International Law, in Reform and Development of Private International Law Essays in Honour of Sir Peter North".\n\nHow much do you really want to know? I could write lots more; but suffice to say an anti-suit injunction is an effort to prevent someone presumably subject to the laws of one country from frustrating that country's public policy by bringing suit elsewhere. Typically in the USA. And, if such suit is brought and judgment issued, the policy might be to block the enforcement of that judgment: U.K. Protection of Trading Interests Act, 1980, French law No. 80-538 of 6 July 1980, art. 273 of the Swiss Penal Code , the Mexican law “to protect trade and investment from foreign norms that contravene international law”, Canadian Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act.
971759
A stipulation agreement is a contract. And just as enforcible as any other contract.\n\nWaiving statutes of limitations may or may not be against public policy, but that doesn't render the rest of the agreement unenforceable.
1169301
I can find no law by that name, but the idea you are talking about seems to be enshrined in case law:\n\nThose beneficiaries represented by appellant whose interests or whereabouts could not with due diligence be ascertained come clearly within this category. As to them the statutory notice is sufficient. However great the odds that publication will never reach the eyes of such unknown parties, it is not in the typical case much more likely to fail than any of the choices open to legislators endeavoring to prescribe the best notice practicable. \n\nNor do we consider it unreasonable for the State to dispense with more certain notice to those beneficiaries whose interests are either conjectural or future or, although they could be discovered upon investigation, do not in due course of business come to knowledge of the common trustee. Whatever searches might be required in another situation under ordinary standards of diligence, in view of the character of the proceedings and the nature of the interests here involved we think them unnecessary. We recognize the practical difficulties and costs that would be attendant on frequent investigations into the status of great numbers of beneficiaries, many of whose interests in the common fund are so remote as to be ephemeral; and we have no doubt that such impracticable and extended searches are not required in the [339 U.S. 306, 318]   name of due process. The expense of keeping informed from day to day of substitutions among even current income beneficiaries and presumptive remaindermen, to say nothing of the far greater number of contingent beneficiaries, would impose a severe burden on the plan, and would likely dissipate its advantages. These are practical matters in which we should be reluctant to disturb the judgment of the state authorities. \n\nAccordingly we overrule appellant's constitutional objections to published notice insofar as they are urged on behalf of any beneficiaries whose interests or addresses are unknown to the trustee.
775498
Did something like this actually happen?
960005
what ever the judge said at the time of settlement
831177
I would agree somewhat with Aggie, but I think he's confusing a "stipulation" (where both sides agree to the same facts) with "admission."\nAn "admission" is any statement by a party, usually that is against the party's interest.  "Admissions" do not necessarily constitute an admission by a party (including the criminal defendant) that they are guilty or liable, but can constitute evidence of such.  Admissions are generally exceptions to the "hearsay" rule, which prevent testimony about out of court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted. \n\nA "stipulation" is a fact both sides in litigation have agreed is true (Aggie's explanation)\nA "confession" is a statement, usually in writing, and usually to a police officer, that the defendant committed a crime. For example:\n\nImagine a man charged with breaking into a home -- burglary.\n\nAn admission: Neighbor of the man asks the man the next day about his brand new Rolex.  The man says: "Oh, well, I just 'picked it up' last night!"\n\n\nA confession: The man is arrested, and signs a paper saying "On March 15, 2006 at 11:35, I broke the window in 742 Evergreen Terrace, entered the house without the owner's permission, and took property inside, including a new men's Rolex watch."\n\nA stipuation: Before going to trial, the parties stipulate that the man did not own a Rolex watch on February 1, 2006, but did own a Rolex watch on March 18, 2006. \n(The parties could also stipulate that the streetlight was out; that at the time of the crime, it was dark and there was no moon, that the defendant's fingerprints were or were not found at the scene, etc.)
1124959
Generally not.  A suit to confirm title is between the two parties of interest and shouldn't impact other innocent parties but that too depends upon state and jurisdiction.  It also depends upon whether the parties were aware or reasonably should have been aware that there was a cloud upon the title.
999674
Not without their permission  (that means permission of both (or all) parties in the call).\n\nThe exception could be granted by a court order.
12630
Lawful orders?\nAre you military?\n\nThe UCMJ is quite clear on this.  Lawful orders MUST be carried out.
169158
Sounds like you need a lawyer.