1.How do the courts determine whether a particular prerogative exists?
918122
By examining the law, both in the form of statutory and case law.
464314
It decides whether or not pre-trial identification of the defendant violated their constitutional rights and, if it did, what should be done about it.
806626
There are three situations.\n\nFirst, there are some cases where the Supreme Court has original (not appellate) jurisdiction, as defined in Article III of the Constitution. In such cases, the Supreme Court must take the case.\n\nThere are also some situations where there is a mandatory appeal from either a state Supreme Court or a federal Appellate court. These are defined by statute, and again, the Supreme Court must take the case.\n\nHowever, most cases heard by the Supreme Court are discretionary appeals, either from a state Supreme Court or a federal Appellate court. In such situations, the party filing the appeal asks the Supreme Court to hear the case. This is called a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (meaning "to make certain"). If the Court agrees to hear the case, it "grants cert". Else it "denies cert". So, in this third category, it's up to the Supreme Court itself whether they hear the case or not.
246488
It depends. In order to determine whether something is libelous, a decision has to be made if the statement is (1) factually true; (2) an opinion protected under free speech, whether true or not; (3) factually untrue, but not malicious; or (4) factually untrue and intended to harm someone's reputation. The first three instances are not libelous, but the fourth example is. Judges have an obligation to obey the law, and if they sign orders recklessly with an intent to cause harm, some action may be taken against them under limited conditions. Judges lose their immunity from being sued under two conditions: (1) when they knowingly act without jurisdiction and (2) when they assume the role of a prosecutor. As it appears from the question that no hearing was held here, but the person was prosecuted without cause, I think that judicial immunity might fail here--if not for libel, but for an action based on a breach of Civil Rights. Filing an appeal doesn't resolve the underlying libel in the order, which was the point of the question; all an appeal does is force the victim to waste money having the libelous statements removed, while not curing the defamation.
701403
What is the jurisdiction for this scenario?
326106
it's each justice's individual decision on a case.  actually, they're not required to write one, but they often do for legal clarification purposes
220116
Although rare, the jury can pose questions. However, the questions have to be addressed to the judge. The judge will ask the appropriate person.
436965
The "doctrine of manifest necessity" isn't a document. It's a judicial doctrine that's employed, as you note, for when a second trial is warranted. \n\nIn general, the Fifth Amendment prohibits someone who's been charged and tried from being charged and tried again for the same offense. That's known as "double jeopardy." An exception to this are cases where the reason the first trial did not sucessfully conclude, and the prosecutor can show that there's reason (manifest necessity) for the defendant to be retried. The prosecutor, in this case, has a high burden of proof to show that that trial is necessary. \n\nfrom the Annotated Constitution (footnote number removed):\nA mistrial may be the result of ``manifest necessity,'' such  as where, for example, the jury cannot reach a verdict or circumstances plainly prevent the continuation of the trial. Difficult has been the answer, however, when the doctrine of ``manifest necessity'' has been called upon to justify a second trial following a mistrial granted by the trial judge because of some event within the prosecutor's control or because of prosecutorial misconduct or because of error or abuse of discretion by the judge himself. There must ordinarily be a balancing of the defendant's right in having the trial completed against the public interest in fair trials designed to end in just judgments. Thus, when, after jeopardy attached, a mistrial was granted because of a defective indictment, the Court held that retrial was not barred; a trial judge ``properly exercises his discretion'' in cases in which an impartial verdict cannot be reached or in which a verdict on conviction would have to be reversed on appeal because of an obvious error. ``If an error could make reversal on appeal a certainty, it would not serve `the ends of public justice' to require that the Government proceed with its proof when, if it succeeded before the jury, it would automatically be stripped of that success by an appellate court.'' On the other hand, when, after jeopardy attached, a prosecutor successfully moved for a mistrial because a key witness had inadvertently not been served and could not be found, the Court held a retrial barred, because the prosecutor knew prior to the selection and swearing of the jury that the witness was unavailable. Although this case appeared to establish the principle that an error of the prosecutor or of the judge leading to a mistrial could not constitute a ``manifest necessity'' for terminating the trial, Somerville distinguished and limited Downum to situations in which the error lends itself to prosecutorial manipulation, in being the sort of instance which the prosecutor could use to abort a trial that was not proceeding successfully and to obtain a new trial in which his advantage would be increased."\n\n(source: http://www.eco.freedom.org/ac92/ac92pg1285.shtml and subsequent pages)
738570
How can you hold the state responsible?  Are you talking lawsuit?  You need to clarify your answer more.......\n\nUsually if a law is ambiguous, basically what happens is that no one inforces it to begin with.    If it was inforced, and you were the recipient of the inforcement, you would have to fight your judgement in court.  If the court upheld it (not in favor of you) then you could appeal and take it to a higher court, and continue this process until you got to your state's supreme court.    \n\nAlot of time and money involved in this process if you decide to go this path.......
1063692
assume suppose to be the case, without proof.\npresume suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability; take for granted that something exists or is the case.
1101183
that's the defendant's choice.\n\nThe defendant is the ONLY person who can make that determination (this rule applies ONLY for felonies).
49761
Hard to say without knowing what context you've heard/seen it in.\n\nIn California, defendants who are charged with felonies are given a preliminary hearing before a judge to determine if there's sufficient information to indicate the defendant did what the government is alleging.  If there is, the defendant is "bound over" for trial in superior court.  Maybe this is a similar thing, but you really need to provide some additional details to get a solid answer.
824213
Prerogatives can only be validly exercised if it is within the powers of the official or entity as provided for in the Constitution.
964667
I am sure that the Court will at least consider the children's wishes. But...there are many things that will determine the Court's decision. Parent's history and current ability to provide for the children etc.....
318446
Ask the Clerk of the Court.
166620
You will have to look it up. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/obtainopinions.pdf
648693
It depends on which court handled the case. If it is the U.S. Supreme Court, go to the website; http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ and click on the the docket link and enterin your search criteria. Good luck.