Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Chat with our AI personalities
who decides whether or not the supreme court will review a case
To decide whether the preceding court correctly decided the case in accordance with law. The appellate court decides whether the preceding court's decisions correctly decided the law in accordance with the facts, whether there were serious errors, or whether the court did something wrong. If there are no errors the appellate court upholds or confirms the prior decision. Otherwise it sends it back to the trial court with instructions and potential retrial. Sometimes it finds the decision totally wrong and discards it altogether, potentially because the case should not have been tried or because there was no case.
Once a case of serious murder is done the jury decide on the verdict and the judge passes the capital punishment.
Whether Dred Scott, as a slave, could sue in federal court. Whether residence in free territory made Scott free. Whether Congress had the power to prohibit slavery in certain territories.
Typically, a majority of at least five out of the nine Supreme Court justices is needed to decide a case.
The court must refuse to decide the particular case.
Judge and mocercy
who decides whether or not the supreme court will review a case
To request a case review in court, you typically need to file a motion with the court outlining the reasons for the review and providing any supporting evidence. The motion will then be reviewed by the judge, who will decide whether to grant the request for a case review. It is important to follow the specific procedures and deadlines set by the court for filing motions and requesting reviews.
The judicial power to decide whether a law is constitutional.
First, you have to figure out which court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint. If both state and federal courts have jurisdiction (as they often do) then you would consider which court system you prefer based on the court fees, procedural rules, propensities of the judges, etc.
Actually a court of appeals cannot decide that. A court of appeals can only decide whether or not the trial court correctly followed procedures and existing legal precedence. It is entirely possible for procedures and legal precedence to be completely unfair (they have been many times) but if the trial court properly followed them, the court of appeals must support the trial court's decision. If the court of appeals decides that the trial court failed to follow procedures and/or existing legal precedent, then the case must be retried in a trial court.