Misplaced Pages

#981018

65-730: The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (in case citations , Fed. Cir. or C.A.F.C. ) is one of the 13 United States courts of appeals . It has appellate jurisdiction over certain categories of specialized cases in the U.S. federal court system . Specifically, it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal cases involving patents , trademark registrations, government contracts , veterans' benefits , public safety officers' benefits, federal employees' benefits , and various other types of cases. The Federal Circuit has no jurisdiction over criminal , bankruptcy , immigration , or U.S. state law cases. It

130-535: A serial number . Citations to these reporters use the serial number in place of a page number. If a decision has not been published in a reporter, more identifying information is needed. Generally, citations to unreported cases involve the name of the court , the date of the decision and the case number assigned by the court. For example: Sø- og Handelsrettens dom af 3. maj 2018 i sag nr. V-17-17 (The Maritime and Commercial Court 's judgment of May 3 in case no. V-17-17). Certain authors format these citations to mimic

195-629: A case, the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States specifically state that the existence of a circuit split is one of the factors the Court considers when deciding whether to grant review. Philip Allen Lacovara and H.W. Perry both claim that the existence of a circuit split is "the single most important generalizable factor" that determines whether the Supreme Court will grant review of

260-399: A case. Indeed, justices sometimes cite the lack of a circuit split as a reason to deny review in a case. Although federal judges are prohibited from commenting publicly "on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court", Judge Alfred T. Goodwin has stated that circuit court judges will occasionally create circuit splits to "hold the Supreme Court's toes to the fire" and force

325-524: A given position." Where cases are published on paper, the citation usually contains the following information: In some report series, for example in England, Australia and some in Canada, volumes are not numbered independently of the year: thus the year and volume number (usually no greater than 4) are required to identify which book of the series has the case reported within its covers. In such citations, it

390-603: A judicial " Tower of Babel ." Additionally, Wayne A. Logan has argued that if courts speak with a unified voice, this will "secure popular respect for judicial authority." Likewise, Matthew Lund cautions that circuit splits will lead to forum shopping , where litigants flock to jurisdictions with more favorable laws. Judge Kimberly A. Moore also suggests that circuit splits and forum shopping lead to economic inefficiency because outcomes are unpredictable and litigants are less likely to settle . Scholars have also argued that inconsistent application of laws in different circuits

455-446: A senior judge to continue to serve on the court while handling fewer cases than an active service judge. Each judge in active service employs a judicial assistant and up to four law clerks , while each judge in senior status employs a judicial assistant and one law clerk. As of March 16, 2022: Chief judges have administrative responsibilities with respect to their circuits, and preside over any panel on which they serve, unless

520-435: Is filled by the judge highest in seniority among the group of qualified judges, with seniority determined first by commission date, then by age. The chief judge serves for a term of seven years, or until age 70, whichever occurs first. If no judge qualifies to be chief, the youngest judge over the age of 65 who has served on the court for at least one year shall act as chief until another judge qualifies. If no judge has served on

585-747: Is headquartered at the Howard T. Markey National Courts Building in Washington, DC . The Federal Circuit was created in 1982 with passage of the Federal Courts Improvement Act , which merged the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the appellate division of the United States Court of Claims , making the judges of the former courts into circuit judges. In addition to the Markey Building,

650-614: Is inherently unfair. Trevor W. Morrison , for example, claims that circuit splits create potential due process conflicts if criminal defendants are unaware that their behavior constitutes criminal activity in that circuit. An article in the New England Journal on Criminal & Civil Confinement also suggested that there is the potential for the unconstitutional ex post facto application of law after circuit splits are resolved. Additionally, Jesse M. Boodoo argues that federal agencies tasked with enforcing laws throughout

715-588: Is italicized as in all other countries and the party names are separated by v (English) or c (French). Prior to 1984 the appellant party would always be named first. However, since then case names do not switch order when the case is appealed. Undisclosed parties to a case are represented by initials (e.g., R v RDS ). Criminal cases are prosecuted by the Crown, which is always represented by R for Regina (queen) or Rex (king). Reference questions (advisory opinions) are always entitled Reference re followed by

SECTION 10

#1732765276982

780-479: Is now [2005] 1 SCR 791. Most full stops are also removed from styles of cause. The seventh edition also further highlights the significance of neutral citations (i.e., tribunal-assigned citations that are publisher-independent). In 1999 the Canadian Judicial Council adopted a neutral citation standard for case law. The format provides a naming system that does not depend on the publication of

845-493: Is preferable". Amanda Frost has argued that negative attitudes toward circuit splits may hinder progress and creative problem solving because "[c]ourts of appeals are generally hesitant to depart from precedent set in other jurisdictions, despite being under no obligation to adhere to decisions by sister circuits." Consequently, Frost suggests that uniformity among circuits may be "overvalued." Likewise, Wayne A. Logan suggests that circuit splits may also be beneficial by virtue of

910-687: Is the citation by using the European Case Law Identifier , a ″neutral″ citation system introduced by the Council of the European Union in 2011, which Germany is participating in. The most important cases of the Federal Constitutional Court are published by the court in its official collection. This collection is abbreviated BVerfGE , whereas BVerfG is short for Bundesverfassungsgericht ,

975-536: Is to ensure that laws are interpreted uniformly among intermediate courts of appeal. Unless the legislature takes action, the United States Supreme Court is the only source of resolution for conflicts among intermediate courts of appeal. Consequently, the existence of a circuit split may be a key factor when the Supreme Court decides whether to accept a case . Although the Court always maintains discretion over whether it should grant review of

1040-572: Is usual in these jurisdictions to apply square brackets "[year]" to the publication year (which may not be the year that the case was decided: for example, a case decided in December 2001 may have been reported in 2002). The Internet brought with it the opportunity for courts to publish their decisions on websites and most published court decisions now appear in that way. They can be found through many national and other websites, such as WorldLII and AfricanLII , that are operated by members of

1105-599: The Federal Social Court ( Bundessozialgericht , BSG) is abbreviated BSGE  [ de ] . The official collection of the Federal Fiscal Court ( Bundesfinanzhof , BFH) is BFHE  [ de ] . Circuit split In United States federal courts , a circuit split , also known as a split of authority or split in authority , occurs when two or more different circuit courts of appeals provide conflicting rulings on

1170-521: The Free Access to Law Movement . The resulting flood of non-paginated information has led to numbering of paragraphs and the adoption of a medium-neutral citation system. This usually contains the following information: Rather than utilizing page numbers for pinpoint references, which would depend upon particular printers and browsers , pinpoint quotations refer to paragraph numbers. In common law countries with an adversarial system of justice,

1235-550: The United States , there is no consensus on the pronunciation of the abbreviation v. This has led to much confusion about the pronunciation and spelling of court cases: During oral arguments in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the participants demonstrated the lack of consensus on the pronunciation of " v. ", using different pronunciations. Solicitor General Ken Starr even managed to use all three of

1300-543: The United States Court of Claims . Because the Court is one of national jurisdiction, panels from the court may sit anywhere in the country. Typically, once or twice a year, the court will hold oral arguments in a city outside of its native Washington D.C. The panels may sit in Federal courthouses, state courthouses, or even at law schools. The Federal Circuit may have a total of 12 active circuit judges sitting at any given time, who are required to reside within 50 miles of

1365-593: The continuity of operations site for the court. The Federal Circuit is unique among the courts of appeals in that its jurisdiction is based wholly upon subject matter , not geographic location . The Federal Circuit is an appellate court with jurisdiction generally given in 28 U.S.C.   § 1295 . The court hears certain appeals from all of the United States District Courts , appeals from certain administrative agencies, and appeals arising under certain statutes. Among other things,

SECTION 20

#1732765276982

1430-503: The "short citation" of published cases. The Danish Court Administration is currently working on a public database which will make all judgments available to the public (currently only the Supreme Court as well as the Maritime and Commercial Court do this). The database is expected to implement the European Case Law Identifier , which will make uniform, neutral citations of decisions possible. In Germany there are two types of citation:

1495-403: The "world will not end because a few circuit splits are left unresolved." Legal analysts have identified problems associated with circuit splits. Jesse M. Boodoo, for example, suggests that circuit splits create a state of confusion and uncertainty for citizens. Because different laws are applied and enforced in different jurisdictions, Daniel J. Meador has argued that Circuit splits may create

1560-535: The Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." In 1789, Congress created the first system of intermediate appellate courts , known as federal circuit courts , which had appellate jurisdiction over certain matters decided by district courts . These federal circuit courts consisted of two justices from the Supreme Court of the United States and one district court judge. In 1891, Congress created

1625-574: The District of Columbia, as set by 28 U.S.C.   § 44 . Judges on senior status are not subject to this restriction. As with other federal judges , they are nominated by the President and must be confirmed by the Senate. Their terms last during the "good behavior" of the judges, which typically results in life tenure. When eligible, judges may elect to take senior status . This allows

1690-508: The Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from: Although the Federal Circuit typically hears all appeals from any United States District Court where the original action included a complaint arising under the patent laws, the Supreme Court decided in Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. (2002) that the Federal Circuit did not have jurisdiction if the patent claims arose solely as counterclaims by

1755-527: The Fifth Circuit, which covers more than half of the Mexico–United States border , hears approximately half of all federal immigration appeals. Eric Hansford argues that this has led to "specialized" courts with particular expertise with the subjects that appear before the court more frequently. Studies also suggest that the Supreme Court is more likely to affirm decisions of circuit courts when

1820-513: The German article . If decisions are not yet published by the court, or will not be published at all, law journals can be cited, e.g., Where NJW stands for the law journal Neue Juristische Wochenschrift , 2009 is the year, 1234 the page of the beginning and 1235 the cited page(s) – "f." stands for "seq.". In general, citations of the official collections are preferred. The Federal Court of Justice ( Bundesgerichtshof , short BGH) publishes

1885-509: The German court name, and E stands for Entscheidung (decision). Starting in 2004, the court also publishes the BVerfGK collection, containing decisions made only by a Kammer , a specific panel of the court. The so-called Volkszählungsurteil  [ de ] for example could be cited in full and in short. For the meaning of the different case numbers of the BVerfG see

1950-454: The Ninth and Seventh circuits (39.2 percent). Additionally, a study analyzing cases from the 2010 term found that nearly two thirds of Supreme Court decisions resolving circuit splits were decided unanimously or by an 8-1 vote. The eleven numbered circuit courts of appeals and the District of Columbia Circuit have appellate jurisdiction over cases in almost every area of the law arising within

2015-408: The Supreme Court is discretionary, so Federal Circuit decisions are often the final word, especially since there are no circuit splits given the Federal Circuit's exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction. In its first decision, the Federal Circuit incorporated as binding precedent the decisions of its predecessor courts, the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the appellate division of

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - Misplaced Pages Continue

2080-409: The Supreme Court to overrule precedent in other circuits. Goodwin also wrote that "some of our number actually found it intellectually stimulating to challenge the Supreme Court from time to time" but that those judges "usually were rewarded by a Nine Zip reversal". Likewise, Judge Charles R. Wilson noted that when he drafted dissenting opinions, he would consider whether the parties planned to appeal

2145-529: The Supreme Court upheld the view held by the majority of circuits in 51.5 percent of all cases. This same study found the greatest agreement when deciding legal issues between the Fifth and Tenth circuits (80.6 percent), the First and Second circuits (73.5 percent), and the Fifth and Fourth circuits (73.0 percent). The circuit courts that agreed the least frequently were the Ninth and Fourth circuits (39.0 percent) and

2210-617: The Supreme Court, so that there may be uniformity of decision in the several circuits courts of appeal, and also uniformity of decision in the State Courts insofar as federal matters are concerned." —Associate Supreme Court Justice Willis Van Devanter testifying before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary in 1924 One of the primary functions of the Supreme Court of the United States

2275-402: The U.S. within the bounds of the court's subject-matter jurisdiction. This is unlike the other courts of appeals as the authority of their decisions is restricted by geographic location and thus there may be differing judicial standards depending on location . Decisions of the Federal Circuit are only superseded by decisions of the Supreme Court or by applicable changes in the law. Also, review by

2340-662: The United States may face challenges implementing regulatory measures when federal legislation is interpreted differently in separate circuits. Legal scholars have also identified benefits associated with circuit splits. For example, Justice Louis Brandeis praised the fact that splits of opinion among courts allow jurisdictions to experiment with new developments in law without risking harm to other jurisdictions. Judge Diane P. Wood has suggested that circuit splits and "disagreements with colleagues force judges to sharpen their writing, push them to defend their positions, and from time to time persuade them that someone else's perspective

2405-474: The United States patent system in such a way as to foster technological growth and industrial innovation." Because of its role as a specialist court, circuit splits rarely exist between the Federal Circuit and other circuit courts of appeal. In his opinion in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. , Justice David Souter observed that avoiding conflicting rulings among circuit courts in patent law cases benefits

2470-520: The boundaries of that circuit. However, the subjects that appear more frequently in each circuit vary according to the kinds of cases that arise more often within the circuit's boundaries. For example, the District of Columbia Circuit, which contains the federal capital , hears a large number of administrative law cases. Likewise, the Second Circuit, which contains New York , hears nearly one third of all federal securities law appeals, while

2535-415: The case in a law report. The standard format looks like this: There is a unique court identifier code for most courts. Denmark has no official standard or style guide governing case citation. However, most case citations include the same elements. Citations of decisions published in a reporter usually consist of the name or abbreviation of the reporter , the year or volume , the page number where

2600-514: The case to the Supreme Court of the United States, and "[i]f I believe that the parties will [file an appeal], I write the dissent with the Supreme Court in mind". C. Steven Bradford has also argued that circuit courts will "disregard a Supreme Court precedent if convinced that the Supreme Court would not follow it". A study of Supreme Court cases during the first six terms of the Roberts Court (2005–2010) resolving circuit splits found that

2665-489: The circuit court has ruled on a case for which they possess special expertise. In some specialized areas of the law, cases are assigned to a court of appeals that possesses expertise in that area of the law. For example, Congress created the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as an exclusive federal court of appeals for patent cases. Congress noted that consolidating cases in a single court of appeals would "strengthen

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - Misplaced Pages Continue

2730-416: The circuit justice (the Supreme Court justice responsible for the circuit) is also on the panel. Unlike the Supreme Court, where one justice is specifically nominated to be chief, the office of chief judge rotates among the circuit judges. To be chief, a judge must have been in active service on the court for at least one year, be under the age of 65, and have not previously served as chief judge. A vacancy

2795-661: The court also occupies the adjacent Benjamin Ogle Tayloe House , former Cosmos Club building, and the Cutts-Madison House in Washington, D.C., on Lafayette Square . The court sits from time to time in locations other than Washington, and its judges can and do sit by designation on the benches of other courts of appeals and federal district courts. As of 2016, Washington and Lee University School of Law's Millhiser Moot Courtroom had been designated as

2860-586: The court for more than a year, the most senior judge shall act as chief. Judges can forfeit or resign their chief judgeship or acting chief judgeship while retaining their active status as a circuit judge. When the office was created in 1948, the chief judge was the longest-serving judge who had not elected to retire, on what has since 1958 been known as senior status , or declined to serve as chief judge. After August 6, 1959, judges could not become or remain chief after turning 70 years old. The current rules have been in operation since October 1, 1982. Notwithstanding

2925-483: The decision begin (sometimes followed by an identifying number if more than one judgment is on a page), as well as the name or abbreviation of the court which decided the case . As an example, the "Aalborg Kloster-judgment", a precedent-setting Supreme Court judgment regarding strict liability , is published in Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen volume 1968 as the second judgment on page 84. A citation of this case could take

2990-485: The defendant. However, the force of law of Holmes ended following passage of the America Invents Act of 2011 , which requires the Federal Circuit to hear all appeals where the original action included a complaint or compulsory counterclaim arising under the patent laws. The decisions of the Federal Circuit, particularly in regard to patent cases , are unique in that they are binding precedent throughout

3055-615: The dispute should be resolved. In fact, one study found that courts of appeals split evenly in less than one third of all circuit splits. Occasionally, separate courts of appeals will reach three or more different conclusions with regard to the same legal issue. Some scholars criticize the existence of circuit splits, while other scholars suggest that circuit splits may, in fact, be beneficial. Others simply argue that circuit splits may not be ideal, but problems associated with inter-circuit conflicts are overstated. For example, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Harvie Wilkinson once stated

3120-724: The existing system of United States courts of appeals , which hear appeals from United States district courts within limited geographic areas. For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit hears appeals originating from United States district courts in Louisiana , Mississippi , and Texas . Decisions in circuit courts are usually made by rotating three-judge panels chosen from judges sitting within that circuit, and circuit courts also occasionally decide cases en banc . Circuit courts do not collaborate or work with other circuits to resolve legal issues, and different circuit courts may reach conflicting conclusions about

3185-504: The fact that citizens in different parts of the country have different preferences for how to structure their laws. Additionally, Judge J. Clifford Wallace has argued that there is nothing inherently wrong with different laws existing in different circuits, and "if conflicts were by their very nature unacceptable, the traditional rule denying precedential status to out-of-circuit decisions probably would not have enjoyed its long history." "[T]he ultimate guiding rule, should be announced by

3250-505: The foregoing, when the court was initially created, Congress had to resolve which chief judge of the predecessor courts would become the first chief judge. It was decided that the chief judge of the predecessor court who had the most seniority, as chief judge, would be the new chief judge. This made Howard T. Markey, former chief judge of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, the first chief judge. The court has twelve seats for active judges, numbered in alphabetical order by their occupant at

3315-509: The form U.1968.84/2H , UfR 1968 84/2 H , Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen 1968, p. 84/2 , or something similar. In this case U , UfR and Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen identify the reporter, 1968 identifies the year or volume, 84 identifies the starting page, /2 indicates that the judgment is the second one on that particular page, and H identifies the court which decided the case. Certain reporters, such as Tidsskrift for Skatter og Afgifter, do not identify published decisions by page number, but by

SECTION 50

#1732765276982

3380-419: The full citation of a case and its shortened form. In e.g. scientific articles, the full citation of a particular case is only used at its first occurrence; after that, its shortened form is used. In most law journals, the articles themselves only use the shortened form; the full citations for all articles sometimes are summarized at the beginning of that journals edition. A third type (yet not too widely spread)

3445-546: The late 1990s, however, much of the legal community has converged to a single standard—formulated in The Canadian Guide to Uniform Legal Citation / Manuel canadien de la référence juridique , commonly known as the " McGill Guide " after the McGill Law Journal , which first published it. The following format reflects this standard: Broken into its component parts, the format is: The Style of Cause

3510-1020: The methods of citation used in England . A widely used guide to Australian legal citation is the Australian Guide to Legal Citation , commonly known as AGLC, published jointly by the Melbourne University Law Review and the Melbourne Journal of International Law . The standard case citation format in Australia is: As in Canada , there has been divergence among citation styles. There exist commercial citation guides published by Butterworths and other legal publishing companies, academic citation styles and court citation styles. Each court in Australia may cite

3575-518: The most common American pronunciations interchangeably: This is the process of analysis that is quite familiar to the Court, very lengthily laid out by Justice Harlan in his dissent in Poe versus Ullman, and then adumbrated in his concurring opinion in Griswold against Connecticut. ... Well, I think that that is the necessary consequence of Roe vee Wade. Legal citation in Australia generally mirrors

3640-531: The names of the opposing parties are separated in the case title by the abbreviation v (usually written as v in Commonwealth countries and usually as v. in the U.S. ) of the Latin word versus , which means against . When case titles are read out loud, the v can be pronounced, depending on the context, as and , against , versus , or vee . Most Commonwealth countries follow English legal style: In

3705-406: The official collections BGHSt  [ de ] for its criminal law decisions and BGHZ  [ de ] for those in private law . The Katzenkönigfall  [ de ] e.g. would be cited in full and in short (in this example, the page cited is not specifically page 347 but that and those which follow, as indicated by the abbreviation "ff."). The official collection of

3770-562: The print citation. For example, This format was adopted as the standard in 2006, in the sixth edition of the McGill Guide. Prior to this format, the opposite order of parallel citation was used. The seventh edition of the McGill Guide, published 2010-08-20, removes most full stop/period (".") characters from the citations, e.g., a citation to the Supreme Court Reports that previously would have been [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791,

3835-504: The publication of the case in a law report. Most cases are now published on AustLII using neutral citations. The standard format looks like this: So the above-mentioned Mabo case would then be cited like this: Mabo v Queensland (No 2) [1992] HCA 23. There is a unique court identifier code for most courts. The court and tribunal identifiers include: There are a number of citation standards in Canada. Many legal publishing companies and schools have their own standard for citation. Since

3900-501: The same case slightly differently. There is presently a movement in convergence to the comprehensive academic citation style of the Australian Guide to Legal Citation published jointly by the Melbourne University Law Review and the Melbourne Journal of International Law . Australian courts and tribunals have now adopted a neutral citation standard for case law. The format provides a naming system that does not depend on

3965-420: The same legal issue. Furthermore, cases decided in one circuit are not binding authority on other circuits. If the Supreme Court of the United States has not ruled on a legal issue, federal courts of appeals resolve these issues "as they see fit, subject only to a norm of intracircuit stare decisis ." When a circuit split occurs, there is rarely an even numeric division among courts of appeals with regard to how

SECTION 60

#1732765276982

4030-729: The same legal issue. The existence of a circuit split is one of the factors that the Supreme Court of the United States considers when deciding whether to grant review of a case. Some scholars suggest that the Supreme Court is more likely to grant review of a case to resolve a circuit split than for any other reason. Despite the desire of the Supreme Court to resolve conflicts between circuit courts, legal scholars disagree about whether circuit splits are ultimately detrimental or beneficial. Some argue that circuit splits are harmful because they create confusion and encourage forum shopping , while other scholars argue that variation among circuits allows local courts to experiment with new laws that reflect

4095-413: The subject title. If the year of decision is the same as the year of the report and the date is a part of the reporter's citation, then the date need not be listed after the style of cause . If the date of the decision is different from the year of the report, then both should be shown. Where available, cases should be cited with their neutral citation immediately after the style of cause and preceding

4160-504: The time the court was formed, with the sole vacant seat being numbered last. Judges who retire into senior status remain on the bench but leave their seat vacant. That seat is filled by the next circuit judge appointed by the President . Case citation A legal citation is a "reference to a legal precedent or authority, such as a case, statute, or treatise, that either substantiates or contradicts

4225-489: The values of the local residents. Scholars have also observed that regional variations in different areas of the United States have provided certain circuits with a particular specialization or expertise in some subjects of law. Article III of the United States Constitution specifies that "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as

#981018