Res Judicata
While res judicata is a judicial doctrine, it also applied to determinations made in administrative settings. (See Pacific Lumber Co. v. State Resources Control Board (2006) 37 Cal.4th 921, 944, citing People v. Sims (1982) 32 Cal.3d 468, 479; Hollywood Circle, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (1961) 55 Cal.2d 728, 732.) The United States Supreme Court has held in U.S. v. Utah Construction and Mining Co. that “When an administrative agency is acting in a judicial capacity and resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate, the courts have not hesitated to apply res judicata to enforce repose.”
Under Texas law three elements must be met for a
claim to be barred by res judicata (1) a prior final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) identity of parties or those in privity with them in both proceedings; and (3) a second action based on the same claims as were raised or transactionally related claims that could have been raised in the first action . The State of Texas has equally applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s position as it pertains to res judicata . The Texas Supreme Court has defined a final agency order as 1) definitive, 2) promulgated in a formal manner, 3) with which the agency expects compliance, and 4) that imposes an obligation, denies a right, or fixes some legal relationship as a consummation of the administrative process . A. Definitive Hearing Officer Kilgore’s Order 7 Denying Motion for Do-Over Observation at District Expense (TEA Docket No.: 245-SE-0415) constitutes a final judgment rejecting Petitioner’s request to conduct a subsequent observation by Dr. Simione and the parent. Order 7 is definitive in that it clearly establishes that the Hearing Officer has ruled on the issue of allowing additional observations. i. Promulgated in a Formal Manner Order 7 is promulgated in a formal manner and is identified by the Hearing Officer as an Order and Ruling in TEA Docket No.: 245-SE-0415; Triniti T. b/n/f Courtney T. v. Beaumont Independent School District. ii. Agency Expects Compliance In accordance with Special Education Dispute Resolution Handbook a school district must implement a hearing officer’s decision within the timeframe specified by the hearing officer. TEA is charged with monitoring the school district’s implementation and as such, TEA expects compliance with a Hearing Officer for the State Office of Administrative Hearings order. iii. Imposes an Obligation, Denies a Right, or Fixes Some Legal Relationship Order 7 establishes the legal relationship between the Parties as it pertains to Petitioner’s right to impose an obligation on the District to allow Dr. Simione and Triniti’s mother to conduct a second observation. Accordingly, a final judgment has been rendered, and this element of res judicata is satisfied. B. Identical Parties or Those in Privity Triniti T. b/n/f Courtney T. and Beaumont Independent School District were adversaries in all relevant matters. Accordingly, the parties are identical and this element of res judicata is satisfied. C. Second Action based on the same claims raised or Transitionally Related Claims It is undisputed that the issue of whether Petitioner is entitled to second observation by the Petitioner’s expert and parent arose out of the same alleged facts. Both involve the same student, same ARD committee meetings, and seeks the same remedy. The only difference is that the previously litigated under a different TEA docket number. Accordingly, the transactional test is satisfied as to the two cases and this element of res judicata is satisfied. As all elements of res judicata are met, res judicata is proper and Petitioner’s motion should be dismissed on the basis of res judicata.
The roman republic constitution was a set of guidelines and principles passed down through precedent, the roman republic instead of creating a democracy such as that the Athenians created, a monarchy which was previously being used by previous roman rulers and an aristocracy which Sparta used, the Constitution combined elements of all three of these governments to create a combined government known as “Senatus populusque que romanus” (S.P.Q.R) this meant “the senate and the roman people”. The Roman magistrates were elected officials during the period of the Roman kingdom, the ‘king’ (although the Romans preferred not to be called a king and instead a rex) of Rome was the principal executive magistrate, his power was absolute similar to that of a tsar
After the Revolution, the country was left in an economic crisis and struggling for a cohesive path moving forward. The remaining financial obligations left some Founding Fathers searching for ways to create a stronger more centralized government to address concerns on a national level. The thought was that with a more centralized, concentrated governing body, the more efficient tensions and fiscal responsibilities could be addressed. With a central government manning these responsibilities, instead of the individual colonies, they would obtain consistent governing policies. However, as with many things in life, it was a difficult path with a lot of conflicting ideas and opponents. Much of the population was divided choosing either the
federal courts: A content analysis based on agency theory. PhD diss., The George Washington University.
Judicial Restraint- judges should decide cases on the basis of the original intent of those who wrote the Constitution
as it does supporters. But, if we do not allow the Supreme Court to translate
Supreme Court Justices demonstrate judicial restraint when they refrain from acting as policymakers, deferring to the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, as long as the policymakers stay within the boundaries as established by the United States Constitution. Stare decisis, a legal principle where precedent decisions are followed, plays a major role in judicial restraint. The current Chief Justice, John Roberts Jr., showed judicial restraint in his majority opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) (Root, 2012). In this opinion, Chief Justice Roberts clearly explains judicial restraint: “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices” (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius,
During one of our class sessions we discussed the different areas within the criminal justice system. The topic of courts and sentencing specifically of juveniles was mentioned. As we get to know the inside students we learn some of their backstory of how they ended up at Joseph Harp Correctional Facility, many of them had their first contact with the criminal justice system as a juvenile. Several of the inside students expressed animosity toward the courts when it came to sentencing of juveniles. They thought that some of the ways juveniles are sentenced is too harsh.
Roberson, C., Wallace, H., & Stuckey, G. B. (2013). Procedures in the justice system (1st ed.). [Vitalsource or Kaplan University]. Retrieved from https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781269223119/pages/76743177
An important point to keep in mind is that all binding decisions are initiated at the highest court at either the federal or state level. These decisions are precedent only in the jurisdiction where the court presides. Stare decisis refers to the practice of the courts adhering to previously rendered decisions. This is especially true involving United States Supreme Court decisions that have binding authority on both the federal and the state courts. Remember that court decisions in the same jurisdiction only have persuasive authority which is not binding.
changed in terms of its power of deciding cases. It has on the other hand
The Criminal Justice System can be very rewarding because it deters crime, protects and minimize recidivism all while treating all Americans equally under the law (Department of Justice, 2013). The Criminal Justice System’s Administration is composed of three system components which collectively functions the Criminal Justice System if effectively enforced and monitored (The Criminal Justice System, 2008). The Criminal Justice Administration is composed of Police Officers, Public Defenders and other Legal occupant whose main job is to protect, serve and rehabilitate (The Criminal Justice System, 2008). When the Administration’s occupants become involved in corruption they become a conflict of interest. Conflicting Rewards can negatively impact the Criminal Justice Administration and the people it was created to serve when the primary goal becomes undesirable (Kirby, 2016).
Arguments For and Against Juries The right to a trial by jury is a tradition that goes right to the the heart of the British legal system. It is a right fiercely fought for. and fiercely defended at those times when its powers have been seen to be under threat as those backing reforms are finding. The tradition of being "tried by a jury of one's peers" probably has its origins in Anglo Saxon custom, which dictated that an accused man could be acquitted if enough people came forward to swear his innocence.
While the jury remains a vital cog in the machine that is the English legal system, the debate over its validity has attracted many academic and legal opinions. The jury has been an integral part of criminal proceedings in Britain for over 800 years. Though the concept of the jury has remained a constant, the role of the juries in criminal proceedings has altered greatly. When juries were first introduced, they were used as witnesses as opposed to the modern role of returning a verdict. The concept of using a jury is to allow ‘ordinary citizens to participate in the administration of justice’ . This is designed to promote public confidence.
Whether a judge should be elected or appointed has been a topic for discussion since the creation of a judicial system. Depending on what side of the decision one may be on, there are some challenges that arise from each side. If a judge is elected, will he be judicious in his decision based on the law or based on his constituents? If the judge is appointed, will he be subject to the authority that appointed him, thereby slanting his decision to keep favor of the executive or legislator that appointed him? Mandatory retirement is also a question that brings about challenges. How old is too old? When does a judge become ineffective based on their age?
In particular, Gallas-himself a former court administrator-thinks that what judges and administrators do within courts is insufficient to explain case processing differences; as he states it, the "local legal culture pervades the practice of law and the processing of c...