The Custom as a source of law is very important in all legal systems because it is beyond doubt that they appeared before the law. They came with the society. They are regarded as the founding stone of the legal system and basis of law. ... Customs consists of rules of conduct which are generally observed
Three judges sit on appeals courts, which do not employ juries. Whether or not the law was correctly applied in the trial court is something that the appellate court must decide.
The power of a court to rehear or reconsider a case determined by a lower court is referred to as appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court and High Courts of India both have appellate authority. They have the power to either reverse or sustain lower court rulings. To ensure that the proceedings were fair and the appropriate law was applied correctly, appellate courts examine the processes and rulings made by the trial court. The U.S. Supreme Court, the highest appellate court in the country, only considers appeals with significant weight and significance. There must be fundamental distinctions between trial and appellate courts, general and limited jurisdiction courts, and criminal and civil courts.
Learn more about appellate court here
brainly.com/question/29615850
#SPJ4
Answer:
Loose constructionism is an ideological position of legal interpretation (especially of the Constitution) by means of which the judges have the power not only to judge compliance with the different laws, but also to interpret the text of the legal provisions of the Constitution, defining its scope and content.
Two arguments in favor of this position are, on the one hand, that the Constitution is not a rigid law but that it is constantly being modified through jurisprudential interpretations, with which it is necessary for judges to be able to interpret its clauses in a lax way; and on the other, that a rigid Constitution would be easily set aside by society, since it would not adapt to changes in circumstances on its part.
She is guilty of solicitation.
When scholars and justices interpret the Constitution with the view that the courts should reject any active lawmaking functions and follow precedent, refers to Judicial Restraint.
<u>Explanation:</u>
The judicial branch is conferred with the power of interpretation of the law. Many times while exercising the power of judicial activism there is always a chance that justices may exceed their power. Hence, the theory of judicial restraint was evolved.
By judicial restraint, judges are encouraged to exercise their power with certain limits and to respect and follow stare decisis. This ensures that judges are not intruding into the realm of the legislature by involving themselves in law making.
