翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ District of Brussels
・ District of burghs
・ District of California
・ District of Canterbury Credit Union
・ District of Cardiff
・ District of Carmarthen
・ District of Columbia Air National Guard
・ District of Columbia and United States Territories Quarters
・ District of Columbia Army National Guard
・ District of Columbia Baptist Convention
・ District of Columbia Bar
・ District of Columbia Board of Elections
・ District of Columbia City Hall
・ District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act
・ District of Columbia Court of Appeals
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
・ District of Columbia Courts, Public Defender Service, and Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency Act of 2014
・ District of Columbia Delegate Act
・ District of Columbia Democratic primary, 2004
・ District of Columbia Democratic primary, 2008
・ District of Columbia Democratic State Committee
・ District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
・ District of Columbia Department of Corrections
・ District of Columbia Department of Parks and Recreation
・ District of Columbia Department of Public Works
・ District of Columbia Department of Transportation
・ District of Columbia Financial Control Board
・ District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department
・ District of Columbia General Hospital
・ District of Columbia home rule


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman : ウィキペディア英語版
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman

''District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman'', 460 U.S. 462 (1983), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court enunciated a rule of civil procedure known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (also named for the earlier case of ''Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.'', 263 U.S. 413 (1923). The doctrine holds that lower United States federal courts may not sit in direct review of state court decisions.
==Facts==
The U.S. Congress enacted several pieces of legislation with respect to Washington, D.C.'s local judicial system. One required final judgments from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to be treated like final judgments from the high court of any state; another permitted that Court of Appeals to create rules governing the qualifications and admissions of attorneys to practice in the D.C. courts. The Court of Appeals then passed rules requiring applicants to the D.C. bar to have graduated from an ABA-accredited law school.
The plaintiffs - Feldman and Hickey - were practicing attorneys from other states, but neither had graduated from ABA-accredited law schools. Feldman had been admitted to the Virginia bar through an apprenticeship, and had been admitted to the Maryland bar through a waiver of their requirements, based on his personal experience. Feldman was denied admission by the Committee on Admissions of the District of Columbia Bar, so he sought a similar waiver of the D.C. rule, sending a letter to the D.C. Court of Appeals that suggested that their absolute prohibition of lawyers who had not attended certain schools was a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nevertheless, the D.C. Courts issued an opinion confirming that they would not waive their requirement. Hickey had a similar background, but did not suggest that the D.C. Court of Appeals was in violation of any laws.
The plaintiff then filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which denied jurisdiction based on ''Rookers prohibition against federal courts hearing appeals of state court judgments. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed, saying that this was not the kind of judicial determination that a federal court would be barred from hearing on appeal from a decision of a state court.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.