supreme court

Australia's #1 for Law
Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
FREE - Join Now
The supreme court is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts in many legal jurisdictions. Other descriptions for such courts include court of last resort, apex court, and high (or final) court of appeal. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts.However, not all highest courts are named as such. Civil law states tend not to have a single highest court. Additionally, the highest court in some jurisdictions is not named the "Supreme Court", for example, the High Court of Australia. On the other hand, in some places the court named the "Supreme Court" is not in fact the highest court; examples include the New York Supreme Court, the supreme courts of several Canadian provinces/territories, and the former Supreme Court of Judicature of England and Wales and Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland, which are all subordinate to higher courts of appeal.
The idea of a supreme court owes much to the framers of the Constitution of the United States. It was while debating the division of powers between the legislative and executive departments that delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention established the parameters for the national judiciary. Creating a "third branch" of government was a novel idea; in the English tradition, judicial matters had been treated as an aspect of royal (executive) authority. It was also proposed that the judiciary should have a role in checking the executive power to exercise a veto or to revise laws. In the end, the Framers of the Constitution compromised by sketching only a general outline of the judiciary, vesting of federal judicial power in "one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." They delineated neither the exact powers and prerogatives of the Supreme Court nor the organization of the Judicial Branch as a whole.
Some countries have multiple "supreme courts" whose respective jurisdictions have different geographical extents, or which are restricted to particular areas of law. Some countries with a federal system of government may have both a federal supreme court (such as the Supreme Court of the United States), and supreme courts for each member state (such as the Supreme Court of Nevada), with the former having jurisdiction over the latter only to the extent that the federal constitution extends federal law over state law. However, other federations, such as Canada, may have a supreme court of general jurisdiction, able to decide any question of law. Jurisdictions with a civil law system often have a hierarchy of administrative courts separate from the ordinary courts, headed by a supreme administrative court (such as the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland, for example). A number of jurisdictions also maintain a separate constitutional court (first developed in the Czechoslovak Constitution of 1920), such as Austria, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal, Russia, Spain and South Africa. Within the former British Empire, the highest court within a colony was often called the "Supreme Court", even though appeals could be made from that court to the United Kingdom's Privy Council (based in London). A number of Commonwealth jurisdictions retain this system, but many others have reconstituted their own highest court as a court of last resort, with the right of appeal to the Privy Council being abolished.
In jurisdictions using a common law system, the doctrine of stare decisis applies, whereby the principles applied by the supreme court in its decisions are binding upon all lower courts; this is intended to apply a uniform interpretation and implementation of the law. In civil law jurisdictions the doctrine of stare decisis is not generally considered to apply, so the decisions of the supreme court are not necessarily binding beyond the immediate case before it; however, in practice the decisions of the supreme court usually provide a very strong precedent, or jurisprudence constante, for both itself and all lower courts.

View More On Wikipedia.org
  1. H

    NSW Supreme court representation

    Hello, I have had a family member recently tried in the NSW supreme court. He was under the impression that his legal representation was qualified to do so. The lawyer, from every bit of information I can gather, is not any form of barrister (although he was deffinately paid as one) He is a...
  2. D

    VIC What's stopping me from repossessing my property in the Supreme Court?

    Form 5E Originating motion for Recovery of Land under order 53 I'm the sole owner of my property and I initiated this motion in the Supreme Court as my personally unrecognised mother decided to file for an Intervention Order against me, claim to police that they owned my home and excluded me...
  3. A

    Researching Supreme Court Case

    I'm currently researching a criminal murder case that was heard and sentenced in the Supreme Court of Qld. What is the best way to find out what court information is publicly available? Specifically previous charges, convictions and police history of the defendant? Thanks.
  4. Nicholas N Chin

    WA Questions on an Easement Dispute - Help?

    I have questions about an Easement Dispute which I brought before SAT, DC, SCWA, COA and finally the HCA. The issue is: There is no exclusivity principle as decided by the judges because the lawyer preparing the conveyance should have documented it in the title deeds or by a separate covenant...
  5. Ian Curtis

    NSW Does Financial Abuse Get Factored into Execution of Will?

    If my sibling sabotaged our inheritance, does that get taken into account when executing a will, which was made to be 50% each? I say "sabotaged" because the sibling is complicit with the public trustee's financial abuse. The background... Government Trustee took over financial management for...
  6. F

    NSW Faulty Pool Manufactured 2014-2015 - Australian Consumer Law Solicitor?

    Faulty manufactured pools, pools with a faulty gel coat. Pools cracking and turning white. Manufacturer blames supplier of gel coat blah blah blah... Manufacturer most likely (as evidence suggests) had/has no insurance for affected pools(150+) The manufacturer claims to have had a supplier of...
  7. C

    TAS Supreme Court Sentencing - Retrial Expiry

    Was found guilty and sentenced to 2 years wholly suspended (1st offence). This time as been served. Legal aid said not guilty due to reasons of insanity was pretty much a slam dunk. Wording by a forensic psychiatrist was heavily scrutinised by the jury and found that it was not enough to count...
  8. J

    NSW Family Trust - How to Appeal to Supreme Court?

    Hi all, I have a family trust, with governing law of ACT, where it has two vehicles which are in NSW. The assignment of transfer was contested in NSW magistrates court. The court found it was not a legal document, as it did not have stamp duty on the document. as the magistrate stated: section...
  9. 7

    QLD Statement of Claim - Executors Suing for Property Not in Will?

    Hi, My mum was put into a will a couple of years ago to receive a property as a gift plus she was the executor of the will. However, the writer of the will back then decided to gift the property to my mum whilst alive and able to do so as they were aware that their estranged family may contest...
  10. 7

    QLD Supreme Court Procedures - Responding to Other Party's Response?

    Hi, My mum is now self-representing and has been served a claim and statement of claim and she has filed her defence. The other side has replied to her defence and the question is, can we now respond to the other side's reply? What is the next step for this prior to requesting a showing of...