Comparison Of Canada, The United States, And Mexico Court System

Specialty courts are formed in order to staff them with people who have a great deal of knowledge on whatever special type of cases that court handles. For instance: Juvenile courts handle only cases that involve the proper punishment and rehabilitation of youthful offenders. Probate courts handle disagreements among heirs concerning the dispersal of estates of deceased persons.

This method of legal governance was created based upon the common law system that is used in England and in some areas of Scotland. This organizational hierarchy is considered bi-jurisdictional, which is a result of the public and private laws being separated into the jurisdictions of the Parliament and the individual Provinces. Regardless of which unit is governing, each legal system is responsible for upholding the laws written in the Canadian Constitution. The Canadian Parliament has sole control over the transportation and energy infrastructures of the country, no matter which Province they reside

I have chosen to compare Michigan?s judicial system with ours for this assignment. Missouri?s judicial system consists of three levels, the Circuit Court (trial court) which is the lowest level of the system, then the intermediate appellate courts which is known as the Court of Appeals and then the highest level of our judicial system, the Missouri Supreme Court, or the ?court of last resort.? Missouri?s Circuit Court contains 45 circuits with courts in each county that includes 134 circuit judges, 175 Associate Circuit Judges and 336 Municipal judges. The Circuit Courts include divisions, such as probate, juvenile, municipal, associate, family and circuit divisions.

Massachusetts and Nevada are different in many ways when it comes to their government. From the number of terms one is able to serve in a certain position to the qualifications to become a voter both states have their own way of running themselves. It’s interesting to see how states governments can vary when it comes to local government and political parties and support programs for their residents. In Nevada, the Governor of the State of Nevada is the highest state office.

The cultural dimensions of Canada and the Republic of Belarus provide insight as to why the structure and nature of the judicial systems differ from one another. However, before interpreting these dimensions, it is important to note that although the Republic of Belarus was established in 1994, it resembles Russia almost entirely in terms of culture. Therefore Hofstede’s study of Russia’s Cultural Dimensions is applicable to the Republic of Belarus. The Canadian structure and nature of its judicial system can be explained due to its high level of individualism (80) and low power distance (39). The high level of individualism can explain the reason why alternative to courts are accepted in Canada.

In the intermediate court of appeals, cases heard can range from parking tickets to murder cases. Appeals cases come to this court from district courts or superior courts. There are no juries in these cases. Cases not resolved here may then submit an appeal to the state supreme court. In some cases an appeal may bypass the intermediate court of appeals and go directly to the Supreme Court.

The 2nd level is the County Level Courts. County Courts have jurisdiction over juvenile matters, misdemeanors with fines greater than 500$ or jail sentence, and probate matters. District Courts are the 3rd level. They have jurisdiction over felonious matters, divorce cases, land titles, and contested elections. The 4th level is the Courts of Appeals, which is the final step before the

Texas has two high-courts, the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals, each have 9 justices. Below the two high-courts is the Court of Appeals with 14 courts, 80 justices, followed by district Courts, which have 456 courts with 456 judges, and the County-Level Courts having 505 Courts and 505 judges. Below these are the municipal courts in 920 cities, 6 towns with 1559 judges and justice of the peace courts having 819 courts with 819 judges. Overlapping of jurisdictions causes great confusion add to the confusion is that “some courts have specialized jurisdiction, whereas others have broad authority to handle a variety of cases” (277) creating a “hodgepodge of courts” (277). Reforms within the Texas court system is clearly needed and many reforms have been recommended from merging the Texas Supreme Court with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, reducing the number of judges and justices, revamping jurisdictions for all courts and having no overlapping jurisdictions.

1. What does 'justice' mean in terms of the Australian Legal System? Justice is fairness, it's the process of protecting rights and to fairly judge and punish wrongs and giving every individual their due rights from the system. This includes all rights, natural right and legal rights.

The Aztecs had courts with rules similar to America’s. In the Aztec

The three levels within the federal courts are: the U.S. Magistrate Courts, the U.S. District Courts, the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. The magistrate courts are the lowest level and as such are limited to trying misdemeanors, setting bail amounts and assisting the district courts. The U.S. District Courts are the federal branch of original jurisdiction courts. These are responsible for criminal trials and giving guilty or not guilty verdicts. The U.S. Courts of Appeals are responsible for all the appeals from U.S. district courts.

Judicial selection is an intriguing topic as there are multiple ways that judges take their seat on the bench. The United States Constitution spells out how federal judges are selected and leaves it up to the individual states to establish their means for selecting judges. In federal courts, judges are appointed and it varies between appointment and election for state courts. The purpose of this paper is to examine the differences between appointments and elections (as well as the multiple types of elections) and to give an opinion as to which is the better alternative. Federal judges are appointed by the President of the United States and are confirmed on the advice and consent of the United States Senate.

Israeli Legal System vs. the U.S.'s Legal System The synthesis of the legal system permits the Israeli Supreme Court judges to pass judgment on a more extensive scale. The judges have the discretion to give rulings according to deductive thinking.1 A peculiar aspect in the Israeli legal structure is that case laws of a court guide the lower courts including the supreme court decisions which control the lower court, however the lower courts are not bound by the decisions. There are panels in the Supreme Court which hear cases, and none of the panels is obligated to adhere to the decisions of another panel.2 The different panels at the Israeli Court system hasten the hearing process unlike the US, where the panel of judges is fixed.3 In Israel,

Judges has various roles and2 duties in the constitutional democracy of Canada. They interpret the law, assess the evidence presented, and control how hearings and trials unfold in their courtrooms. Most important of all, judges are impartial decision-makers in the pursuit of justice. (Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association, n.d.). The Canadian Judiciary is an adversarial system of justice and the legal cases are challenged between opposing sides, which assures that evidences and legal disputes will be completely and forcefully presented.

The hierarchy of courts of Malaysia begins with the Magistrates’ Court, followed by the Sessions Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and finally is the Federal Court of Malaysia. There are generally two types of trials, criminal and civil. The jurisdiction of the courts in civil or criminal matters are contained in the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 and the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. Article 121 of the Constitution provides for two High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, the High Court in Malaya, and the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak. Thus this creates two separate local jurisdiction of the courts – for Peninsular Malaysia and for East Malaysia.