Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP’s Post

A Due Process Clause is found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which prohibit the deprivation of "life, liberty, or property" by the federal and state governments, respectively, without due process of law.[1][2][3] The U.S. Supreme Court interprets these clauses to guarantee a variety of protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings); substantive due process (a guarantee of some fundamental rights); a prohibition against vague laws; incorporation of the Bill of Rights to state governments; and equal protection under the laws of the federal government.

Bourgon Reynolds's recent commentary in Talk Business & Politics digs into the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals' recent revision to the applicable analysis regarding when a party waives its right to arbitration. Read on to learn more about the steps you can take to preserve the right to arbitration. https://lnkd.in/d24GPVcC

In case you missed it, proposed changes to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 and Federal Rule of Evidence 801 have been posted. The comment period runs through February 17, 2025. The proposed amendment to Rule 29 would eliminate consent of all parties as a basis for filing an amicus brief. Amicus could only appear with leave of court. The amendments would also change the requires of a motion for leave to file to include required disclosures of any relationship between amicus and a party. The proposed amendment to Rule 801(d)(1)(A) would remove the requirement that a prior inconsistent statement be made under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, other proceeding, or deposition. The amendment would make all prior inconsistent statements of a testifying witness admissible as a non-hearsay exclusion. #jeffisappealing #jeffsappealing #appellatelinkedin https://lnkd.in/e3t9v4Mr

THE ROLE OF THE COURT There is a long line of cases both in this jurisdiction and beyond, deprecating the practice by courts in determining disputes on matters or issues not raised by the parties and where the court has not first given the parties an opportunity to address it on those points. It is no part the duty or function of the Court to enter upon any enquiry into the case before it other than to adjudicate upon the specific matters in dispute which the parties themselves have raised by their pleadings. Indeed, the Court would be acting contrary to its own character and nature if it were to pronounce upon any claim or defence not made by the parties. To do so would be to enter the realms of speculation.

How it's a relief when the blockage in both clauses of section 17(5) is upheld by the court? This write up will help you to understand what exactly is pronounced by the Apex court. Since morning we are hearing that there is a big relief for real estate as the court has allowed the ITC for construction of immovable property. No doubt the court has provided some relief but the constitutional validity of blockage under both clauses of section 17(5) is upheld by the court. I believe that it will spark a new era of litigation. Some will get the benefit but not all. Pls read disclaimer also and act accordingly.

This judgement by Supreme court, written by honorable justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, discusses the concept of substantial compliance/ disposing of contempt applications on the ratio or percentage of substantial compliance. It sets compliance in its entirety as a standard for deciding contempt matter and discourages parameters of substantial compliance. It holds that the High court cannot dispose of contempt application against non-compliance with its orders on the ground of 'Substantial compliance'. The High court has to evaluate whether the judgement has been complied with in its entirety; there is no concept of substantial compliance and the court cannot relieve a contemnor on such parameter. Disposing of contempt matter on the said ratio or percentage of substantial compliance renders the main judgement worthless and ineffective. Canons of jurisdiction warrant that neither should the court embark on the jurisdiction not vested in it by law, nor should abdicate or renounce the jurisdiction so vested in it by law.

Integrity is key

Article 165 [3] [c] provides that the High Court has NO jurisdiction to hear or determine a dispute relating to the removal of the President or the Deputy President from office on grounds of incapacity. There are constitutional policy reasons why the Constitution expressly limits the powers of the High Court in manner. Therefore, by implication and reason of parity, one can make a cogent argument that the High Court similarly has no jurisdiction to determine the removal from the office of President and Deputy President by way of impeachment.

SC judgment dated 17/02/2024 reiterated its stand held by constitution bench on governing principles to excercise power under section 319 of CrPC - “7. The principles of law governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 of the CrPC are well established. Notably, a constitution bench of this Court in Hardeep Singh (Supra) observed as under: “105. Power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the magistrate or the sessions judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence laid before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. 106. Thus we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence laid before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much strong evidence that near probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure.”