Explain what do you understand by the term 'CASE'. Are 'CASE' still as widely used as they are before?
925983
Community Agency for Social Enquiry\n\nCouncil for Advancement and Support of Education
1108927
It means that you may file a new suit on the same cause of action.\n\nYou may file a motion to reconsider the ruling.  This usually requires that you have new information that you did not at the time of your last hearing.\n\nYou may appeal the ruling to a higher court.  In an appeal you need to show that the judge had faulty legal reasoning.   They do not re-evaluate findings of facts on appeal.  You will need an attorney to do an appeal properly.
710090
Why do people fail to understand the difference of the layman's term "theory" and the scientific term "theory"?\n\nThere is indeed a difference.
1068400
I would go with uppercase and lowercase just because they are both compound words.  Caps is an abbreviation for capitals and if you use "small letters" you might as well use "big letters".  \n\nI totally agree that regardless of the way you call it, as long as you get your point across.  If the students understand you, they know where and when to use uppercase/lower case is what really matters.
939013
Wow. Everybody is wrong.\nYou have to choose which "case" of pronoun to use... the "nominative case" or the "objective case" of the pronoun.\nThe "nominative case" is used when the pronoun is\nused whent he prounoun is the SUBJECT of the sentence, or when the pronoun is used as a PREDICATE NOMINATIVE (with a reflexive verb, or a verb of being).\n"I am king of grammar"\n"The king of grammar is I."\n"Woe is I" (NOT "Woe is me.")\n\nYou use the OBJECTIVE CASE pronoun when the pronoun is being used as (a) a direct object or (b) the object of a preposition.\n\n"John handed me the grammar book" (I.O.)\n"Take me to your leader" (D.O.)\n"The award for king of grammer was given to me." (O.P.)\n\nAs others have (correctly) mentioned, multiple nouns or pronouns don't change the case of the pronoun, and a good test is to "scratch out" the other noun to see if it "sounds right."\n\n"John gave the ball to (Jim and I; Jim and me)" Scratch out the "Jim and" and it becomes easy: John gave the ball to me; therefore, the right answer is "John gave the ball to Jim and me."\n\nYour specific question is VERY VERY difficult because (a) the sentence structure is awkward (it's something you'd usually say rather than write) and you've got implied subjects and nouns here.\n\nLet's take the sentence fully:\nIf you were actually at the prom, you might say\nJohn and I are here, at the prom, (easy)\nor \nHere I am at the prom (easy)\n\nBut in this case you're not really at the prom; you're showing someone a picture.  So there are implied words  that are missing\nHere [is A PICTURE OF] John and (I, me) at the prom.\nNow, here's the rub!  The verb is a passive verb; normally, you'd use the predicate nominative case.  But, the implied words are missing "a picture OF" -- thus, John and you become the objects of the preposition "of" -- \nYou'd say "Here's a picture of US [objective case] at the prom."\nThus, you'd say "Here's a picture of John and me [objective case] at the prom."\n\nSo my vote would be that because there are the implied words of "a picture of" you'd use the objective case.\nOtherwise, you'd have to say that because the verb is a linking verb, a verb of being ("is") than you'd have to use the nominative case.\nHere [are] John and I at the prom.\n\nWhew!
85571
Court proceedings differ in each case that is brought before a judge...\nIt is basically the paperwork and story of each case to be presented and any evidence to use...
938675
Generally understanding of transactional law is a very broad area, just as broad as the intricacies of litigation, trial procedure and evidence. \n\nIn integrated systems, lawyers usually end up specializing in one area or the other anyway. The difference is that they can try any of them, without needing separate licenses or degrees. This allow for more options with legal representation, especially in civil matters.\n\nThe split system means more specialized training, but could make it more difficult for the transactional solicitor to handle a specific court case, or for the barrister to handle simple legal paperwork.
373837
Complaint, Answer, Discovery, Motions, Trial, Judgment, Appeal
1097400
a).\n\nBut it's "case AND controversy."
1051473
Criminal cases are those in which the State (be it in the form of national, state, or local government) prosecutes a citizen for the violation of the social order. The defining point of criminal law is punishment -- if the citizen loses the State can throw him in jail, or fine him (or even take his life). Most criminal law (but not all, there are important exceptions) is statutory -- meaning it has been written down by a legislative body.\n\nCivil cases are those in which an individual (for the purposes of the law, partnerships and corporations are individuals too) asserts that one of their rights have (or is about to be) violated. (the government can be an individual in many cases also). These cases include suing someone for hitting you (asserting your right not to be hit), or suing a corporation for violating an anti-trust statute (asserting a right to fair competition).\n\nIt is inaccurate to say that equity is another or specific kind of civil case. In truth, cases aren't either "equitable" or "legal" anymore; many cases have bits of both involved. The distinction comes from the origin of the American legal system. Back in the 1600's and 1700's in England, there are different courts for different things. There were "courts legal" which doled out remedies (money) for certain specific "writs" (one such writ was for trespass to chattels -- basically theft or larceny today). The Chancellery courts were empowered, on the other hand, to determine cases according to "justice" -- basically however the chancellor saw fit.\n\nEven today there are distinctions between actions in equity and those "at law" although we no longer have different court systems (although that's not true in every state, Delaware has a court of the chancellery still). But all courts are today governed by the rules of "res judicata" and "stare decisis," (basically those mean that whatever the court has decided in the past should be applied to new cases instead of being changed much) although a court "sitting in equity" has more freedom to come to judgments based on what it thinks is "fair" and "equitable."\n\nHowever, for the most part the distinction is purely academic today, and interests only people who do this sort of thing for a living and like to keep using 200 year-old terms to confuse people.
210218
docket=\n-A calendar of the cases awaiting action in a court. \n-A brief entry of the court proceedings in a legal case. \n-The book containing such entries.\n\nStet=\nTo direct that a letter, word, or other matter marked for omission or correction is to be retained. Used in the imperative.
703737
Similar systems are used on other countries as well.\n\nWhere there a multiple possible interpretations, the court should choose the one that makes sense given other laws. This could be to avoid absurdity, or to avoid conflict with other higher laws.
691042
first off retard, it's spelled precedent(s)\n\nand jurisprudence, is not the way courts are run, jurisprudence is the study of law in a particular jurisdiction\n\nlaws are written in very precise language, you have the ability to understand this terminology, their are libraries everywhere, you also have the ability to read and understand case law\n\nfinally, laws are written in precise language because their meanings have to be exact, otherwise we end up with a whole bunch of vaguery in the law all of which gets decided by the judicial branch instead of being legislated from the legislative branch\n\nim assuming your "does not fit the specifics" means you have failed to comply with a procedural or local rule, both of which can be provided to you free of charge\n\nnow, bubba, if you'd put the budweiser down, take your mind off football or NASCAR for a few minutes, you could learn how to file court pleadings yourself and you could learn how to argue you own case\n\nbut you are too wrapped up in your simpleton way of life to care\n\nso your stupidity is paying you back
257489
I think you got jinxed up with this. \nYou see, In ancient times, before Laws were enacted and legislated, all disputes were solved by the King and his Ministers who were addressed as Lords. The disputes were solved as per "JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONCIENCE". Hence the Court was called "COURT OF JUSTICE"\n\nNow it is entirely different. Laws are enacted and legislated and are put down on papers. Even the Judges cannot go outside the scope of these laws, even if it fundamentally or morally goes against "JUSTICE AND EQUITY". \nHence, now the Court is called "COURT OF LAW" and NOT Court of Justice.
695249
Correct! Although the case you mention is a simile, metaphors can be more elaborate and include 'like', such as -- comparing life to something else.
375699
As a law student I have had to find cases and so forth.\nThe best thing to do is use your search engine and try different keywords and see what you come up with, you will probably come up with acutal cases........read the first couple of paragraphs of the case you pull and see if its what you're looking for...............\n"Ohio, obsenity prosecution, or prosecution Ohio case, obsenity..........move the words around...........
206312
In the Middle Ages, the two terms were often used interchangeably.  I've linked to a glossary of medieval terms for clothing - it may prove helpful throughout your book.