1395:
noted (e.g., no writ, writ refused, writ denied, etc.) in order for the reader to determine at a glance whether the cited opinion is binding precedent only in the district of the Court of
Appeals in which it was decided, or binding precedent for the entire state. In contrast, California, Florida, and New York solved the problem of creating uniform precedent by simply holding that the first intermediate appellate court to reach a novel question of law always sets binding precedent for the entire state, unless and until another intermediate appellate court expressly disagrees with the first one. Meanwhile, some states, such as
1363:(informally) and "allowance of appeal" (formally) for the same process. A handful of states lack intermediate appellate courts; in most of these, their supreme courts operate under a mandatory review regime, in which the supreme court must take all appeals in order to preserve the loser's traditional right to one appeal (except in criminal cases where the defendant was acquitted). Virginia has an intermediate appeals court, but operates under discretionary review except in family law and administrative cases. Mandatory review remains in place in all states where the
1202:, the cases that could reach the Supreme Court were heard as a matter of right, meaning that the Court was required to issue a decision in each of those cases. That is, the Court had to review all properly presented appeals on the merits, hear oral argument, and issue decisions. As the United States expanded in the nineteenth century, the federal judicial system became increasingly strained, and the Supreme Court had a backlog of cases several years long. The Act solved these problems by transferring most of the court's direct appeals to the newly created
886:
1488:
753:
1234:". The court denies the vast majority of petitions and thus leaves the decision of the lower court to stand without review; it takes roughly 80 to 150 cases each term. In the term that concluded in June 2009, for example, 8,241 petitions were filed, with a grant rate of approximately 1.1 percent. Cases on the paid certiorari docket are substantially more likely to be granted than those on the
1394:
While Texas' unique practice saved the state supreme court from having to hear relatively minor cases just to create uniform statewide precedents on those issues, it also makes for lengthy citations to the opinions of the Courts of
Appeals, since the subsequent writ history of the case must always be
871:
Certiorari is used to bring up into the High Court the decision of some inferior tribunal or authority in order that it may be investigated. If the decision does not pass the test, it is quashed – that is to say, it is declared completely invalid, so that no one need respect it. The underlying policy
1370:
In two states without an intermediate appeals court (New
Hampshire and West Virginia), the Supreme Court used to operate under discretionary review in all cases, whether civil or criminal. This meant that there was no right of appeal in either state, with the only exception being death penalty cases
1221:
of 1988, most cases cannot be appealed to the
Supreme Court of the United States as a matter of right. A party who wants the Supreme Court to review a decision of a federal or state court files a "petition for writ of certiorari" in the Supreme Court. A "petition" is printed in booklet format and 40
1169:
If no superintending tribunal of this nature were established, different courts might adopt different and even contradictory rules of decision; and the distractions, springing from these different and contradictory rules, would be without remedy and without end. Opposite determinations of the same
959:
can only be used to correct jurisdictional errors, i.e. when a court makes a decision that is out of its power to make; it cannot be used to correct legal errors, i.e. where a court makes a decision it is allowed to make, but decides incorrectly. The latter type of error can only be challenged
872:
is that all inferior courts and authorities have only limited jurisdiction or powers and must be kept within their legal bounds. This is the concern of the Crown, for the sake of orderly administration of justice, but it is a private complaint which sets the Crown in motion.
851:
was tasked with the duty of supervising all lower courts, and had power to issue all writs necessary for the discharge of that duty; the justices of that Court appeared to have no discretion as to whether it was heard, as long as an application for a bill of
1371:
in New
Hampshire; West Virginia abolished its death penalty in 1965. New Hampshire transitioned to mandatory review for the vast majority of cases beginning in 2004, while West Virginia transitioned to mandatory review for all cases beginning in 2010.
1310:
is created by the denial itself, and the lower court's decision is treated as mandatory authority only within the geographical (or in the case of the
Federal Circuit, subject-specific) jurisdiction of that court. The reasons for why a denial of
813:
was suggested in terms of reviewing a case—much as the term is applied today—although the term was also used in writing to indicate the need or duty to inform other parties of a court's ruling. It was a highly technical term appearing only in
1206:, whose decisions in those cases would normally be final. The Supreme Court did not completely give up its judiciary authority because it gained the ability to review the decisions of the courts of appeals at its discretion through writ of
1390:
have become valid binding precedent of the Texas
Supreme Court itself because the high court refused applications for writ of error rather than denying them and thereby signaled that it approved of their holdings as the law of the state.
464:
to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made more certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words
829:
is often found in Roman literature on law, but applied in a philosophical rather than tangible manner when concerning the action of review of a case or aspects of a case. Essentially, it states that the case will be heard.
846:
was a supervisory writ, serving to keep "all inferior jurisdictions within the bounds of their authority ... the liberty of the subject, by speedy and summary interposition". In
England and Wales, the Court of
1403:, avoid the issue entirely by eschewing regionalized appellate courts; the intermediate appellate courts in these states may hear cases from all parts of the state within their subject-matter jurisdiction.
1248:. While both appeals of right and cert petitions often present several alleged errors of the lower courts for appellate review, the court normally grants review of only one or two questions presented in a
1154:
In every judicial department, well arranged and well organized, there should be a regular, progressive, gradation of jurisdiction; and one supreme tribunal should superintend and govern all the others.
1378:
by the state supreme court normally does not imply approval or disapproval of the merits of the lower court's decision. In March 1927, the Texas
Legislature enacted a law directing the
1244:
and which the Court considers sufficiently important, such as cases involving deep constitutional questions, to merit the use of its limited resources, utilizing tools such as the
988:, to bring decisions of an inferior court, tribunal, or public authority before the superior court for review so that the court can determine whether to quash such decisions.
1223:
731:
1132:
940:
is a rarely-used power, part of the inherent jurisdiction of the superior courts. It is usually used to cancel a lower court's decision because of an obvious mistake.
968:
is also available if a decision affects the rights of a third party who would not have standing to appeal the decision. The
Supreme Court declined to decide whether
1386:
to hear applications for writs of error when it believed the Court of Appeals opinion correctly stated the law. Thus, since June 1927, over 4,100 decisions of the
1289:
means merely that at least four of the justices have determined that the circumstances described in the petition are sufficient to warrant review by the Court.
241:
1098:
and the other writs, but it was expected that as the legal profession adapted to the use of the new application for review, the writs would cease to be used.
1226:
the petition, the case is scheduled for the filing of briefs and for oral argument. A minimum of four of the nine justices is required to grant a writ of
1321:(1950), in which the Court explained the many rationales which could underlie the denial of a writ which have nothing to do with the merits of the case.
1886:
Law Commission/Te Aka Matua O Te Tura, "Study Paper 10: Mandatory Orders against the Crown and Tidying Judicial Review" (March 2001), paras. 49-50.
1285:
worthy". The granting of a writ does not necessarily mean that the Supreme Court disagrees with the decision of the lower court. Granting a writ of
1139:
1582:
1444:
417:
2339:
1611:
115:
510:
2029:
972:
would be available to address a legal error that threatens irreparable harm to a party's rights that could not be cured on appeal.
1296:
is sometimes misunderstood as implying that the Supreme Court approves the decision of the lower court. As the Court explained in
1629:
1364:
1147:
1821:
1797:
1317:
1268:
1143:
1000:
1028:
2086:
Thompson, David C.; Wachtell, Melanie F. (2009). "An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Certiorari Petition Procedures".
1885:
2188:
489:
It has evolved in the legal system of each nation, as court decisions and statutory amendments are made. In modern law,
2066:
1977:
Russel R. Wheeler & Cynthia Harrison, Fed. Judicial Ctr., Creating the Federal Judicial System 17–18 (3d ed. 2005).
1183:
848:
17:
1086:. This Act created a new procedural mechanism, known as an "application for review", which could be used in place of
1302:, such a denial "imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case". In particular, a denial of a writ of
1218:
792:
335:
529:
has gained broader use in many countries, to review the decisions of administrative bodies as well as lower courts.
2369:
2046:
1115:
410:
347:
330:
2274:
2275:"Judicially Created Uncertainty: The Past, Present, and Future of the California Writ of Administrative Mandamus"
1203:
325:
108:
1264:
1135:
960:
through an appeal, once the court makes a final decision in the case. This is part of a general prohibition on
774:
483:
370:
1435:
in state courts, while others have replaced it with statutory procedures. In the federal courts, this use of
1354:
315:
1834:
2163:
1467:
1448:
1067:
375:
1774:
1455:
770:
403:
365:
320:
289:
66:
2218:
Steiner, Mark E. (February 1999). "Not Fade Away: The Continuing Relevance of 'Writ Refused' Opinions".
2364:
1508:
1463:
1162:
The supreme tribunal produces and preserves a uniformity of decision through the whole judicial system.
101:
2374:
1586:
1527:
1367:
exists; in those states, a sentence of death is automatically appealed to the state's highest court.
2073:
2379:
518:
340:
1615:
1599:
1387:
948:
897:
763:
1003:" by the Civil Procedure (Modification of Supreme Court Act 1981) Order 2004, which amended the
1079:
1024:
1004:
514:
251:
246:
155:
2099:
1897:
1428:
1240:
docket. The Supreme Court is generally careful to choose only cases over which the Court has
1214:
1199:
1016:
921:
698:) comes from the words used at the beginning of these writs when they were written in Latin:
295:
278:
150:
1773:(Court may correct any lower court decision "depart from the rules of natural justice," per
1696:
2069:
2026:
1787:
1534:
1350:
1271:
have ruled differently in similar situations. These are often called "percolating issues".
1051:
961:
145:
2124:
1682:
8:
2055:
1921:
1565:
1521:
1379:
1298:
1165:
It confines and supports every inferior court within the limits of its just jurisdiction.
1032:
271:
201:
79:
1738:
1553:
2327:
1816:
1811:
1792:
1412:
522:
475:
391:
256:
131:
2095:
1307:
1236:
449:
1872:
1788:"Civil Procedure (Modification of Supreme Court Act 1981) Order 2004: Section 3"
1451:
or in some circumstances a petition for review in a United States court of appeals.
2319:
1191:
675:
634:
611:
585:
544:
457:
283:
175:
35:
1767:
2051:
2033:
1424:
995:
nullifying a decision of a public body, in England and Wales, orders or writs of
992:
445:
261:
232:
165:
1431:
after an adversarial hearing. Some states have retained this use of the writ of
1070:
was established a superior court in 1841, it had inherent jurisdiction to issue
2359:
1516:
1111:
1074:
to control inferior courts and tribunals. The common law jurisdiction to issue
1039:
power to any other court to enforce the fundamental rights, in addition to the
925:
461:
160:
2353:
1642:
1260:
710:
707:
502:
441:
188:
170:
53:
1863:, Part VI (The States), Chapter V (The High Courts in the States), art. 226.
1440:
1396:
1241:
1231:
506:
494:
207:
88:
2137:
1187:
985:
864:
498:
266:
221:
2058:(10,000 cases in the mid-2000s); Melanie Wachtell & David Thompson,
1943:
885:
2331:
2017:
Supreme Court Case Selections Act, Pub.L. 100-352, 102 Stat. 662 (1988)
1493:
1416:
1400:
1330:
1170:
question, in different courts, would be equally final and irreversible.
839:
777: in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
713:
215:
73:
2340:"It's Cert., to Be Sure. But How Do They Say It? Let's Count the Ways"
856:
met established criteria, as it arose from their duty of supervision.
2060:
An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Certiorari Petition Procedures
1502:
1359:
1245:
815:
806:
2323:
1487:
1027:, for the purpose of enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed by
752:
2062:
1472:
1292:
Conversely, the Supreme Court's denial of a petition for a writ of
195:
59:
1138:(1742–1798), the person primarily responsible for the drafting of
1851:, Part V (The Union), Chapter IV (The Union Judiciary), art. 139.
1643:
Legal Information Institute, Wex Legal Dictionary: "Certiorari".
1186:
issues to a lower court to review the lower court's judgment for
1874:
Encyclopedia of New Zealand 1966: Legal System: Supreme Court.
1423:
was historically used by lower courts in the United States for
1195:
819:
661:
620:
571:
717:
684:
594:
1709:
643:
553:
2310:
Linzer, Peter (1979). "The Meaning of Certiorari Denials".
1179:
664:
652:
649:
623:
574:
562:
559:
556:
1374:
Texas is an unusual exception to the rule that denial of
1315:
cannot be treated as implicit approval were set forth in
1281:, and cases warranting the Supreme Court's attention as "
1158:
An arrangement in this manner is proper for two reasons:
1050:
to protect fundamental rights, the Supreme Court and the
690:
600:
431:
2318:(7). Columbia Law Review Association, Inc.: 1227–1305.
1707:
1333:
court systems use the same terminology, but in others,
2239:, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1187, 85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 506 (2008).
2056:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/justicecaseload.pdf
1106:
The Philippines has adapted the extraordinary writ of
732:
applications to the Supreme Court of the United States
724:("to inform, apprise, show"). It is often abbreviated
991:
Reflecting this evolution in usage as a remedy after
640:
637:
550:
547:
1483:
1114:, as the procedure to seek judicial review from the
984:
evolved into a general remedy for the correction of
687:
681:
658:
646:
617:
597:
591:
568:
2263:, 102 A.D.2d 663, 476 N.Y.S.2d 918 (2d Dept. 1984).
678:
655:
614:
588:
565:
980:In the courts of England and Wales, the remedy of
730:in the United States, particularly in relation to
1999:Judiciary Act of 1891 § 6., 26 Stat. at 828.
484:countries using, or influenced by, the common law
2351:
2085:
1630:"Lewis and Short Latin Dictionary, "certiorari""
1466:, then in 1939 approved of its replacement with
2054:, C.J., dissenting) (slip op. at 11). See also
1769:Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission
1140:Article Three of the United States Constitution
1612:"Oxford Dictionary (UK English), "certiorari""
1600:"certiorari" in the Collins English Dictionary
1583:"Oxford Dictionary (US English), "certiorari""
1554:"certiorari" in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary
1222:copies are filed with the Court. If the Court
1198:is available as a matter of right. Before the
1255:The Supreme Court sometimes grants a writ of
471:..." ("We wish to be made more certain...").
411:
109:
1838:, Part III (Fundamental Rights), article 32.
525:in the 19th and 20th centuries, the writ of
2168:West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Blog
1708:Supreme Court of Canada (26 October 2018).
833:
466:
2213:
2211:
2209:
1078:was modified by statute in 1972, when the
1058:for the protection of other legal rights.
418:
404:
116:
102:
2261:Mountain View Coach Lines, Inc. v. Storms
2189:"Rules of Appellate Procedure - Part III"
2161:
793:Learn how and when to remove this message
1812:"Senior Courts Act 1981: Section 29"
2217:
2206:
1566:"Define "certiorari" at Dictionary.com"
1277:is sometimes informally referred to as
14:
2352:
2309:
2272:
2266:
1680:Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission
1318:Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc.
1090:and the other prerogative writs. The
734:for review of a lower court decision.
1577:
1575:
1439:has been abolished and replaced by a
1406:
27:Court process to seek judicial review
2164:"State of West Virginia v. McKinley"
2113:Tipton v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., Inc.
2065:, 241 (2009) (7500 cases per term);
1922:"Philippine Supreme Court Circulars"
1604:
1035:has the authority to give a similar
975:
880:
775:adding citations to reliable sources
746:
2074:Remarks at University of Guanajuato
1655:Commentaries on the Laws of England
955:in criminal matters. It ruled that
24:
2303:
2251:, 596 So. 2d 665, 666 (Fla. 1992).
2088:George Mason University Law Review
1572:
1184:Supreme Court of the United States
1046:In addition to the power to issue
818:, most frequently in the works of
456:comes from the name of an English
448:of a decision of a lower court or
25:
2391:
2162:Stoneking, Jay (1 October 2014).
2138:"Supreme Court - Judicial Duties"
1959:149–50 (J. D. Andrews ed., 1896).
1924:. Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
1353:of a lower court's judgment. The
1219:Supreme Court Case Selections Act
1126:
916:In Australia, the power to issue
501:(now called a "quashing order"),
2047:Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.
2027:United States Supreme Court Rule
1771:, UKHL 6, 2 AC 147; 2 WLR 163
1666:H.W.R. Wade & C.F. Forsyth,
1486:
1121:
1116:Supreme Court of the Philippines
884:
751:
674:
633:
610:
584:
543:
2254:
2242:
2230:
2181:
2155:
2130:
2118:
2106:
2079:
2039:
2020:
2011:
2002:
1993:
1980:
1971:
1962:
1949:
1936:
1914:
1890:
1879:
1866:
1854:
1842:
1828:
1804:
1780:
1761:
1731:
1701:
1687:
1673:
1462:was unconstitutional under the
1324:
1054:all have jurisdiction to issue
805:Historical usage dates back to
762:needs additional citations for
742:
2346:, December 3, 2001 (archived).
1660:
1647:
1636:
1622:
1593:
1558:
1547:
1101:
1061:
13:
1:
2142:New Hampshire Judicial Branch
1968:Ch. 517, 26 Stat. 826 (1891).
1946:(last visited April 4, 2011).
1541:
1355:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
2063:16 Geo. Mason U. L. Rev. 237
1449:United States district court
1445:Administrative Procedure Act
1068:Supreme Court of New Zealand
1043:power of the Supreme Court.
1029:Part III of the Constitution
876:
702:" to be made more certain".
532:
7:
2273:Walker, Sam (Spring 1990).
2050:, 556 U.S. 868, __ (2009) (
1479:
1456:Supreme Court of California
1110:in civil actions under its
10:
2396:
2008:§ 6, 26 Stat. at 828.
1800:, SI 2004/1033 (s. 3)
1464:Constitution of California
1178:is most often seen as the
863:evolved into an important
737:
2076:, Mexico, 9/27/01 (same).
1957:The Works of James Wilson
1824:, 1981 c. 54 (s. 29)
1670:, Eighth Edition, p. 591.
1528:Subpoena ad testificandum
1470:(California's version of
1269:federal judicial circuits
1204:circuit courts of appeals
1019:vests the power to issue
931:
2237:Sarti v. Salt Creek Ltd.
1986:Wheeler & Harrison,
1427:of decisions made by an
1357:uniquely uses the terms
1343:certification for appeal
1092:Judicature Amendment Act
1084:Judicature Amendment Act
1010:
834:English prerogative writ
521:. With the expansion of
308:common law jurisdictions
2370:Latin legal terminology
2193:West Virginia Judiciary
1747:Supreme Court of Canada
1388:Texas Courts of Appeals
949:Supreme Court of Canada
358:civil law jurisdictions
296:Patent unreasonableness
242:Fettering of discretion
2220:The Appellate Advocate
1697:[2000] FCA 509
1618:on September 30, 2012.
1458:held that this use of
1265:federal appeals courts
1230:, referred to as the "
1194:) and review where no
1174:In the United States,
1172:
1142:, which describes the
1080:New Zealand Parliament
1025:Supreme Court of India
1005:Senior Courts Act 1981
951:restricted the use of
874:
493:is recognized in many
467:
252:Nondelegation doctrine
247:Legitimate expectation
156:Exhaustion of remedies
2115:, 375 U. S. 34 (1963)
1861:Constitution of India
1849:Constitution of India
1836:Constitution of India
1822:The National Archives
1798:The National Archives
1429:administrative agency
1215:Judiciary Act of 1925
1200:Judiciary Act of 1891
1152:
1148:US federal government
1017:Constitution of India
964:in criminal matters.
962:interlocutory appeals
922:inherent jurisdiction
869:
816:jurisprudential Latin
356:Administrative law in
306:Administrative law in
151:Delegated legislation
2070:William H. Rehnquist
1944:Justice James Wilson
1683:[2010] HCA 1
1589:on February 4, 2014.
1535:Subpoena duces tecum
1351:discretionary review
1345:is used in place of
771:improve this article
722:certioro, certiorare
146:Administrative court
2344:The Washington Post
2312:Columbia Law Review
2282:UC Davis Law Review
1522:Petition for review
1380:Texas Supreme Court
1331:United States state
1299:Missouri v. Jenkins
1033:Parliament of India
272:Fundamental justice
2032:2017-07-06 at the
1942:The Oyez Project,
1817:legislation.gov.uk
1793:legislation.gov.uk
1668:Administrative Law
1653:3 Wm. Blackstone,
1413:administrative law
1407:Administrative law
1347:writ of certiorari
896:. You can help by
523:administrative law
476:English common law
468:Certiorari volumus
392:Constitutional law
257:Procedural justice
138:General principles
132:Administrative law
18:Writ of Certiorari
2365:Prerogative writs
1749:. 26 October 2018
1308:binding precedent
1267:in two (or more)
1237:in forma pauperis
1133:Associate Justice
976:England and Wales
947:2018 SCC 45, the
914:
913:
859:As time went on,
803:
802:
795:
499:England and Wales
474:Derived from the
450:government agency
428:
427:
126:
125:
36:Prerogative writs
16:(Redirected from
2387:
2375:Appellate review
2335:
2298:
2297:
2295:
2293:
2279:
2270:
2264:
2258:
2252:
2246:
2240:
2234:
2228:
2227:
2215:
2204:
2203:
2201:
2199:
2185:
2179:
2178:
2176:
2174:
2159:
2153:
2152:
2150:
2148:
2134:
2128:
2122:
2116:
2110:
2104:
2103:
2083:
2077:
2043:
2037:
2024:
2018:
2015:
2009:
2006:
2000:
1997:
1991:
1984:
1978:
1975:
1969:
1966:
1960:
1953:
1947:
1940:
1934:
1933:
1931:
1929:
1918:
1912:
1911:
1909:
1908:
1898:"Rules of Court"
1894:
1888:
1883:
1877:
1870:
1864:
1858:
1852:
1846:
1840:
1832:
1826:
1825:
1808:
1802:
1801:
1784:
1778:
1765:
1759:
1758:
1756:
1754:
1739:"Case in Brief:
1735:
1729:
1728:
1726:
1724:
1705:
1699:
1691:
1685:
1677:
1671:
1664:
1658:
1651:
1645:
1640:
1634:
1633:
1626:
1620:
1619:
1614:. Archived from
1608:
1602:
1597:
1591:
1590:
1585:. Archived from
1579:
1570:
1569:
1562:
1556:
1551:
1496:
1491:
1490:
1349:as the name for
1192:reversible error
1094:did not abolish
909:
906:
888:
881:
809:. In Roman law,
798:
791:
787:
784:
778:
755:
747:
697:
696:
693:
692:
689:
686:
683:
680:
671:
670:
667:
666:
663:
660:
657:
654:
651:
648:
645:
642:
639:
630:
629:
626:
625:
622:
619:
616:
607:
606:
603:
602:
599:
596:
593:
590:
581:
580:
577:
576:
573:
570:
567:
564:
561:
558:
555:
552:
549:
482:is prevalent in
470:
458:prerogative writ
420:
413:
406:
284:Unreasonableness
176:Prerogative writ
128:
127:
118:
111:
104:
32:
31:
21:
2395:
2394:
2390:
2389:
2388:
2386:
2385:
2384:
2380:Judicial review
2350:
2349:
2338:Lane, Charles.
2324:10.2307/1121841
2306:
2304:Further reading
2301:
2291:
2289:
2277:
2271:
2267:
2259:
2255:
2247:
2243:
2235:
2231:
2216:
2207:
2197:
2195:
2187:
2186:
2182:
2172:
2170:
2160:
2156:
2146:
2144:
2136:
2135:
2131:
2123:
2119:
2111:
2107:
2094:(2): 237, 249.
2084:
2080:
2044:
2040:
2034:Wayback Machine
2025:
2021:
2016:
2012:
2007:
2003:
1998:
1994:
1985:
1981:
1976:
1972:
1967:
1963:
1954:
1950:
1941:
1937:
1927:
1925:
1920:
1919:
1915:
1906:
1904:
1896:
1895:
1891:
1884:
1880:
1871:
1867:
1859:
1855:
1847:
1843:
1833:
1829:
1810:
1809:
1805:
1786:
1785:
1781:
1766:
1762:
1752:
1750:
1737:
1736:
1732:
1722:
1720:
1706:
1702:
1692:
1688:
1678:
1674:
1665:
1661:
1652:
1648:
1641:
1637:
1628:
1627:
1623:
1610:
1609:
1605:
1598:
1594:
1581:
1580:
1573:
1564:
1563:
1559:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1512:before judgment
1492:
1485:
1482:
1425:judicial review
1409:
1339:leave to appeal
1327:
1144:judicial branch
1129:
1124:
1104:
1064:
1013:
1001:quashing orders
993:judicial review
978:
945:R. v. Awashish,
934:
926:superior courts
920:is part of the
910:
904:
901:
894:needs expansion
879:
836:
799:
788:
782:
779:
768:
756:
745:
740:
677:
673:
636:
632:
613:
609:
587:
583:
546:
542:
535:
515:the Philippines
446:judicial review
424:
357:
307:
279:Proportionality
262:Natural justice
233:judicial review
166:Ministerial act
122:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2393:
2383:
2382:
2377:
2372:
2367:
2362:
2348:
2347:
2336:
2305:
2302:
2300:
2299:
2265:
2253:
2249:Pardo v. State
2241:
2229:
2205:
2180:
2154:
2129:
2117:
2105:
2078:
2038:
2019:
2010:
2001:
1992:
1979:
1970:
1961:
1948:
1935:
1913:
1889:
1878:
1865:
1853:
1841:
1827:
1803:
1779:
1760:
1741:R. v. Awashish
1730:
1714:, 2018 SCC 45"
1712:R. v. Awashish
1700:
1694:Klewer v Dutch
1686:
1672:
1659:
1646:
1635:
1621:
1603:
1592:
1571:
1557:
1545:
1543:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1531:
1524:
1519:
1517:Joint appendix
1514:
1506:
1498:
1497:
1481:
1478:
1408:
1405:
1335:writ of review
1326:
1323:
1306:means that no
1259:to resolve a "
1167:
1166:
1163:
1128:
1127:Federal courts
1125:
1123:
1120:
1112:Rules of Court
1103:
1100:
1063:
1060:
1012:
1009:
999:were renamed "
977:
974:
933:
930:
912:
911:
891:
889:
878:
875:
835:
832:
801:
800:
759:
757:
750:
744:
741:
739:
736:
631:; UK English:
534:
531:
462:superior court
460:, issued by a
426:
425:
423:
422:
415:
408:
400:
397:
396:
395:
394:
386:
385:
384:Related topics
381:
380:
379:
378:
373:
368:
360:
359:
353:
352:
351:
350:
345:
344:
343:
336:United Kingdom
333:
328:
323:
318:
310:
309:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
293:
281:
276:
275:
274:
269:
264:
254:
249:
244:
236:
235:
228:
227:
226:
225:
218:
213:
212:
211:
204:
199:
192:
185:
173:
168:
163:
161:Justiciability
158:
153:
148:
140:
139:
135:
134:
124:
123:
121:
120:
113:
106:
98:
95:
94:
93:
92:
85:
77:
70:
57:
50:
39:
38:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2392:
2381:
2378:
2376:
2373:
2371:
2368:
2366:
2363:
2361:
2358:
2357:
2355:
2345:
2341:
2337:
2333:
2329:
2325:
2321:
2317:
2313:
2308:
2307:
2287:
2283:
2276:
2269:
2262:
2257:
2250:
2245:
2238:
2233:
2225:
2221:
2214:
2212:
2210:
2194:
2190:
2184:
2169:
2165:
2158:
2143:
2139:
2133:
2126:
2121:
2114:
2109:
2101:
2097:
2093:
2089:
2082:
2075:
2071:
2068:
2067:Chief Justice
2064:
2061:
2057:
2053:
2049:
2048:
2042:
2035:
2031:
2028:
2023:
2014:
2005:
1996:
1989:
1983:
1974:
1965:
1958:
1952:
1945:
1939:
1923:
1917:
1903:
1899:
1893:
1887:
1882:
1876:
1875:
1869:
1862:
1857:
1850:
1845:
1839:
1837:
1831:
1823:
1819:
1818:
1813:
1807:
1799:
1795:
1794:
1789:
1783:
1776:
1772:
1770:
1764:
1748:
1744:
1742:
1734:
1719:
1715:
1713:
1704:
1698:
1695:
1690:
1684:
1681:
1676:
1669:
1663:
1656:
1650:
1644:
1639:
1631:
1625:
1617:
1613:
1607:
1601:
1596:
1588:
1584:
1578:
1576:
1567:
1561:
1555:
1550:
1546:
1537:
1536:
1532:
1530:
1529:
1525:
1523:
1520:
1518:
1515:
1513:
1511:
1507:
1505:
1504:
1500:
1499:
1495:
1489:
1484:
1477:
1475:
1474:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1454:In 1936, the
1452:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1415:context, the
1414:
1404:
1402:
1398:
1392:
1389:
1385:
1382:to summarily
1381:
1377:
1372:
1368:
1366:
1365:death penalty
1362:
1361:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1322:
1320:
1319:
1314:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1300:
1295:
1290:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1261:circuit split
1258:
1253:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1238:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1220:
1216:
1211:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1171:
1164:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1156:
1151:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1134:
1122:United States
1119:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1099:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1059:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1044:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1008:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
989:
987:
983:
973:
971:
967:
963:
958:
954:
950:
946:
941:
939:
929:
927:
923:
919:
908:
899:
895:
892:This section
890:
887:
883:
882:
873:
868:
866:
862:
857:
855:
850:
845:
841:
831:
828:
823:
821:
817:
812:
808:
797:
794:
786:
783:December 2013
776:
772:
766:
765:
760:This section
758:
754:
749:
748:
735:
733:
729:
728:
723:
719:
715:
712:
709:
705:
701:
695:
669:
628:
605:
579:
541:(US English:
540:
530:
528:
524:
520:
519:United States
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
495:jurisdictions
492:
488:
485:
481:
477:
472:
469:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
442:court process
439:
438:
433:
421:
416:
414:
409:
407:
402:
401:
399:
398:
393:
390:
389:
388:
387:
383:
382:
377:
374:
372:
369:
367:
364:
363:
362:
361:
355:
354:
349:
348:United States
346:
342:
339:
338:
337:
334:
332:
329:
327:
324:
322:
319:
317:
314:
313:
312:
311:
305:
304:
297:
294:
292:
291:
287:
286:
285:
282:
280:
277:
273:
270:
268:
265:
263:
260:
259:
258:
255:
253:
250:
248:
245:
243:
240:
239:
238:
237:
234:
230:
229:
224:
223:
219:
217:
214:
210:
209:
205:
203:
200:
198:
197:
193:
191:
190:
189:Habeas corpus
186:
184:
183:
179:
178:
177:
174:
172:
171:Ouster clause
169:
167:
164:
162:
159:
157:
154:
152:
149:
147:
144:
143:
142:
141:
137:
136:
133:
130:
129:
119:
114:
112:
107:
105:
100:
99:
97:
96:
91:
90:
86:
84:
83:/ Prohibition
82:
78:
76:
75:
71:
68:
64:
62:
58:
56:
55:
54:Habeas corpus
51:
49:
47:
43:
42:
41:
40:
37:
34:
33:
30:
19:
2343:
2315:
2311:
2290:. Retrieved
2288:(3): 783–839
2285:
2281:
2268:
2260:
2256:
2248:
2244:
2236:
2232:
2223:
2219:
2196:. Retrieved
2192:
2183:
2171:. Retrieved
2167:
2157:
2145:. Retrieved
2141:
2132:
2120:
2112:
2108:
2091:
2087:
2081:
2059:
2045:
2041:
2022:
2013:
2004:
1995:
1990:, at 12, 16.
1987:
1982:
1973:
1964:
1956:
1951:
1938:
1926:. Retrieved
1916:
1905:. Retrieved
1901:
1892:
1881:
1873:
1868:
1860:
1856:
1848:
1844:
1835:
1830:
1815:
1806:
1791:
1782:
1768:
1763:
1751:. Retrieved
1746:
1740:
1733:
1721:. Retrieved
1717:
1711:
1703:
1693:
1689:
1679:
1675:
1667:
1662:
1654:
1649:
1638:
1624:
1616:the original
1606:
1595:
1587:the original
1560:
1549:
1533:
1526:
1509:
1501:
1471:
1459:
1453:
1441:civil action
1436:
1432:
1420:
1410:
1397:Pennsylvania
1393:
1383:
1375:
1373:
1369:
1358:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1328:
1325:State courts
1316:
1312:
1303:
1297:
1293:
1291:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1273:
1263:", when the
1256:
1254:
1249:
1242:jurisdiction
1235:
1232:rule of four
1227:
1212:
1207:
1175:
1173:
1168:
1157:
1153:
1136:James Wilson
1130:
1107:
1105:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1075:
1071:
1065:
1055:
1047:
1045:
1040:
1036:
1020:
1014:
996:
990:
981:
979:
969:
965:
956:
952:
944:
942:
937:
935:
917:
915:
905:October 2021
902:
898:adding to it
893:
870:
860:
858:
853:
849:King's Bench
843:
837:
826:
824:
810:
804:
789:
780:
769:Please help
764:verification
761:
743:Ancient Rome
726:
725:
721:
703:
699:
538:
536:
526:
497:, including
490:
486:
479:
473:
453:
436:
435:
429:
331:South Africa
288:
231:Grounds for
220:
208:Quo warranto
206:
194:
187:
181:
180:
89:Quo warranto
87:
80:
72:
60:
52:
45:
44:
29:
2198:16 November
2173:16 November
2147:16 November
2125:515 U.S. 70
1902:lawphil.net
1775:Lord Pearce
1188:legal error
1102:Philippines
1082:passed the
1062:New Zealand
1052:High Courts
986:plain error
936:In Canada,
865:rule of law
838:In English
700:certiorari
267:Due process
222:Ultra vires
202:Prohibition
2354:Categories
1907:2016-06-29
1657:42 (1765).
1542:References
1510:Certiorari
1494:Law portal
1460:certiorari
1443:under the
1437:certiorari
1433:certiorari
1421:certiorari
1417:common-law
1401:New Jersey
1376:certiorari
1313:certiorari
1304:certiorari
1294:certiorari
1287:certiorari
1275:Certiorari
1257:certiorari
1252:petition.
1250:certiorari
1228:certiorari
1213:Since the
1208:certiorari
1176:certiorari
1108:certiorari
1096:certiorari
1088:certiorari
1076:certiorari
1072:certiorari
1056:certiorari
1048:certiorari
1041:certiorari
1037:certiorari
1021:certiorari
997:certiorari
982:certiorari
970:certiorari
966:Certiorari
957:certiorari
953:certiorari
938:certiorari
918:certiorari
861:certiorari
854:certiorari
844:certiorari
840:common law
827:certiorari
811:certiorari
714:infinitive
704:Certiorari
539:certiorari
527:certiorari
491:certiorari
480:certiorari
454:Certiorari
437:certiorari
290:Wednesbury
216:Rulemaking
182:Certiorari
74:Procedendo
67:peremptory
46:Certiorari
1503:Allocatur
1360:allocatur
1246:cert pool
1182:that the
1150:, wrote:
1066:When the
877:Australia
825:The term
807:Roman Law
537:The term
533:Etymology
326:Singapore
316:Australia
81:Prohibito
63:/ Mandate
2030:Archived
1928:July 17,
1480:See also
1473:mandamus
1419:writ of
1217:and the
867:remedy:
517:and the
444:to seek
371:Mongolia
341:Scotland
196:Mandamus
61:Mandamus
48:/ Review
2332:1121841
2292:3 April
2100:1377522
2052:Roberts
1468:mandate
1411:In the
1146:of the
1031:. The
1023:in the
924:of the
738:Origins
716:of the
711:passive
708:present
706:is the
511:Ireland
376:Ukraine
2330:
2226:: 3–6.
2127:(1995)
2098:
1718:CanLII
1384:refuse
1224:grants
1196:appeal
932:Canada
820:Ulpian
503:Canada
321:Canada
2360:Writs
2328:JSTOR
2278:(PDF)
1988:supra
1753:5 May
1723:5 May
1447:in a
1341:, or
1329:Some
1283:cert.
1279:cert.
1011:India
727:cert.
720:verb
718:Latin
608:, or
507:India
440:is a
366:China
2294:2022
2200:2014
2175:2014
2149:2014
2096:SSRN
1930:2012
1755:2022
1725:2022
1399:and
1180:writ
1015:The
2320:doi
1476:).
1131:As
943:In
900:.
773:by
672:or
662:ɛər
644:ɜːr
621:ɛər
572:ɛər
554:ɜːr
432:law
430:In
2356::
2342:,
2326:.
2316:79
2314:.
2286:24
2284:.
2280:.
2224:12
2222:.
2208:^
2191:.
2166:.
2140:.
2092:16
2090:.
2072:,
2036:33
1955:2
1900:.
1820:,
1814:,
1796:,
1790:,
1777:).
1745:.
1716:.
1574:^
1337:,
1210:.
1118:.
1007:.
928:.
842:,
822:.
685:ɑː
676:/-
665:aɪ
653:oʊ
624:aɪ
612:/-
595:ɑː
586:/-
582:,
513:,
509:,
505:,
478:,
452:.
434:,
2334:.
2322::
2296:.
2202:.
2177:.
2151:.
2102:.
1932:.
1910:.
1757:.
1743:"
1727:.
1710:"
1632:.
1568:.
1190:(
907:)
903:(
796:)
790:(
785:)
781:(
767:.
694:/
691:ɪ
688:r
682:r
679:ˈ
668:/
659:r
656:ˈ
650:i
647:t
641:s
638:ˌ
635:/
627:/
618:r
615:ˈ
604:/
601:ɪ
598:r
592:r
589:ˈ
578:/
575:i
569:r
566:ˈ
563:ə
560:i
557:ʃ
551:s
548:ˌ
545:/
487:.
465:"
419:e
412:t
405:v
117:e
110:t
103:v
69:)
65:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.