dygyee
Wise elder
Construction & Transport Department
Supporter
Aventura Resident
Legal Eagle
Popular in the Polls
Change Maker
1st Anniversary
dygyee
Building Inspector
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2021
- Messages
- 914
- Thread Author
- #1
- Client Name:
dygyee
- Counsel Name:
dygyee
- Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant:
I was originally the Plaintiff in the District court, and then became the Appellee in the Federal court.
- Reason for the Appeal:
According to the Judicial Standards Act, an appeal is supposed to determine if the original judge in a case made a mistake in the law. If the original judge did make a mistake in the law, then the new presiding judge will fix that issue. However if it is determined that the original presiding judge did not make a mistake in their ruling, then the court should not change the ruling from the original case. In the second filing of the case in the Federal court, the judge determined that the original presiding magistrate did not make a mistake in their initial ruling, however they still changed the amount awarded in the prayer for relief despite the fact that they found that the original magistrate did not make a mistake. Since the Federal court judge determined that the initial magistrate did not make a mistake in the law, they have no authority to change the awarded prayer for relief.
- Additional Information:
The very first case was [2022] DCR 43. The second case was [2022] FCR 78.
dygyee
- Counsel Name:
dygyee
- Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant:
I was originally the Plaintiff in the District court, and then became the Appellee in the Federal court.
- Reason for the Appeal:
According to the Judicial Standards Act, an appeal is supposed to determine if the original judge in a case made a mistake in the law. If the original judge did make a mistake in the law, then the new presiding judge will fix that issue. However if it is determined that the original presiding judge did not make a mistake in their ruling, then the court should not change the ruling from the original case. In the second filing of the case in the Federal court, the judge determined that the original presiding magistrate did not make a mistake in their initial ruling, however they still changed the amount awarded in the prayer for relief despite the fact that they found that the original magistrate did not make a mistake. Since the Federal court judge determined that the initial magistrate did not make a mistake in the law, they have no authority to change the awarded prayer for relief.
- Additional Information:
The very first case was [2022] DCR 43. The second case was [2022] FCR 78.
