Why do attorney's &  judges generalize cases?
958041
Generalization is a human trait, not one specifically reserved for lawyers and judges.  When you are in a profession dealing with a mass of humanity, one of the things you discover is that there are far more similarities than differences.  It is personal and individual to you because you are only one individual and are concerned with only one individual- naturally.  But consider that the lawyers and judges see many people, not just one, and are in a situation to see more of the similarities than differences on the whole.  Regular people do this all the time, which is one way we are able to predict behavior in others, and even express empathy.  We know how another person  feels, and can reasonably expect to predict what is being thought, base on experience we have had ourselves or observed in others.  Talk to a teenager, and see what I mean.  The teenager often feels rather unique in their situation, and the way they feel/think.  If you are of any age, you will understand they are pretty normal and pretty much like most other teenagers.  They don't see it that way, but that doesn't change the fact that they are- and you are in a better position to see it than they are.  By virtue of your age and experience, you are better able to judge their "uniqueness" than they are.  The judges and lawyers do it much the same way.  While your case may have some unique points, I would imagine there are plenty of cases which have proceeded yours that were remarkably similar.  They may not be able to name names- privacy being a major issue there- but the numbers are there just the same.
938884
it does not make sense to spend $50000 of taypayer money to decide a $5000 contest. so courts are divided into certain levels with less formality ( expense) in  small claims.\n\nalso courts are not infallible so we preserve the right to appeal to a higher court with more judges who look closer  at the law, but accept the facts as decided by the lower court. (One judge alone can make a mistake in law. a jury is good at facts but not law.)\n\nwe also specialize in diffferent types of case because civil rules and common law of civil matters differ from crime matters and so do tht righst of the parteis and the stake of the public. civil law has a lower burden of proof because it does not affect a persons freedom ( no jail)\n\ncriminal matters are more serious and require the utmost respect for the  individual defendant's  rights against a big government. different types of courts require different rules of law and procedure.\n\nfamily law is civil and requires more sensitivity and flexibilty and has different judges and different rules too.\n so if it is a crime that is at issue, you go to crimoinal court. if civil, you go to small or main courst, depending on amount in contention or you go to family court if it is a family matter.\n\noh yeah. we also have probate court for disputes over dead peoples estates. it is really different and relies a lot on the judge and procedure
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
1149901
Not as crazy as it may seem.  If a person murders another person they have, as seen time and time again in every cop and lawyer show on Network TV, "the right to an attorney; if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you."   "Mirandizing" - the recitation of these rights - is required.  So let's say you hire an attorney to handle your divorce (always happy people involved in THOSE situations) and you are really dissatisfied with the result (s/he "got everything") and you think your shark attorney was worse than incompetent....all the rage boils up and you kill him/her.  You've committed murder and will "have the right to an attorney" in the criminal justice system.  Same scenario would work if you were on trial for murder already and decided to off your attorney because they were doing a lousy job (or whatever....) - you'd not only get an attorney for the murder of your attorney but you'd get a new attorney for your current trial.   All at taxpayer expense.
1033194
Lawyers also know the rules of court (when, how, and  what oral and written motions to file: e.g. when to ask for a summary judgment, or a motion for judgment as a matter of law, etc.) that the lay person does not know and does not have time and/or knowledge to find out. \n\nJust like you would not give yourself an operation, you would use the services of a doctor. If you have a legal issue you use the services of someone who handles legal conflicts for a living.\n\nThe media gives plaintiffs' lawyers and criminal lawyers a bad image, when there are so many other areas of law which lawyers specialize (estates & trusts, taxation, real estate, corporate law, ect.) \n\nThe some people hate lawyers is because they do not understand the technical aspects of the legal process in any given case. Further, they do not understand the Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules of Evidence, or caselaw in the jurisdiction.
959681
It is part of the job for which you hired the attorney who got you the judgment in the first place.\nHis job is not over until he collects the money for you. If he had a contingent fee, he doesn't even get paid until he collects the money.
203112
That last answer was highly cynical. They have exclusive jurisdiction in cases where federal statutes or the constitution say they have exclusive jurisdiction. For example, Congress has given federal courts the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide bankruptcy cases. \n\nIn many types of cases which federal courts may hear, there is concurrent jurisdiction with state courts.\n\nThe site mentioned above is very helpful.
163631
Attorney are only answerable to other attorneys...if you bring a complaint against an attorney it has to be through the bar association which yuppp you guessed it is made up of attorneys...the Judges in this country were once all....yuppp yet again attorneys.... we need for these people to be accountable to us not to themselves.....it is the ultimate example of injustice and the fox guarding the hen house ....wake up America there is no real justice anymore...only back room deals and what time are we playing golf tomorrow....Its an affront to all Americans...
41619
During the proceedings themselves? That is not possible.  Only a higher court can over rule a court, and that's only if they agree to hear the case in the first place.  Many superior courts will turn cases back claiming juristiction issues, and the Supreme Court rejects cases almost routinely, as few cases rise to the level of a true challenge to current interpretations of the Constitution.
160671
Law is a General Written Rule that promotes Justice.\n\nThe first problem we encounter with law is that it is written.  The problem with writing is that words can only approximate concepts.  And if you don't believe this, try writing in 250 words how you feel about, say, your mother.  Individuals may denote or connote words differently.  That means that you're necessarily using an imprecise instrument to capture a precise thing.\n\nLaw is General.  It is written broadly to be adaptable to many situations.  But each situation is unique.  Many cannot even be imagined at the time law is written.  So it's generality makes it an imprecise vehicle for justice.\n\nAnd what is Justice?  It's whatever the lawmakers think is fair.  And that may have nothing to do with what actually is.
146691
Are you talking about NY, CA or some other state? Superior Courts are different in the various states.
256431
One of the major benefits of them is that they serve for life. In a way this can also be something bad. But because they serve for life, they are experienced, you can truse their udgement, and no matter what kind of case is presented, the judge doesn't change. (democratic or republican)...
168813
Broad term, be more specific to the case
27887
They don't, unless you believe what you see on T.V.  I have been an attorney for 12 years and was a paralegal for 3 years before that.  In my entire career, I have NEVER seen a real judge bang a gavel.
1117744
they do that because they want to show the judge that there good lawyers. and can point out the person who is lieing and they can win cases.also so they can make you crack and find if you are lieing. also that's their job they base their findings on their cleints memories of incident that took place and that is based on their memories and findings or research.  that's a lawyers job. plus their paid to do that. they also must have good memories cause if they win a case they get more money then they would if they didn't win a lawsuit.PLEASE CHOOSE ME FOR BEST ANWSER!
317412
If a judge decides a case for which there is no applicable law, their decision becomes law.  Another person with a similar case will cite the prior case, and this will influence the judge in his case.  These case decisions have the same force as law, since they are enforcable in court.  Thus, they are law.
692052
The above regarding the Supreme Court is excellent.  But I think that the term refers more specifically to habeas corpus and/or declaratory judgments.  Hope this helps.  The guy above that disrespects lawyers and the military in one fell scoop seems to have the type of attitude I see in criminals.  When they end up in jail and need a lawyer they come crying for help! But I do have a sense of humor and got a small chuckle out of it.