Stages to Trial

Stages leading to trial or main hearing
Anglo-American procedure traditionally divides lawsuits into two stages: the pretrial stage and the trial stage. At the pretrial stage, the parties notify each other of their claims and defenses and probe their factual foundations; at the trial stage, they or their counsel attempt to prove their factual contentions before a judge or jury, primarily through the oral examination of witnesses. The verdict and the judgment based on it follow immediately thereafter. In practice, the pretrial phase usually ends the lawsuit, either

in reference to: preliminary hearing (law) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia (view on Google Sidewiki)

Right to sue

All legal systems impose a requirement that a plaintiff have an interest for which he seeks protection in the lawsuit. Generally, only persons who have suffered an injury that can be remedied by the outcome of the lawsuit may sue—a doctrine sometimes called “standing” to sue. Furthermore, only a person who owns (or claims to own) the right or obligation under suit can be a party to a suit involving that right. In the United States this rule is frequently called the real party in interest rule, and similar rules exist in other countries (e.g., Italy and France). The real party in interest ordinarily will be the person who will ultimately benefit from any recovery obtained. In matters of public law, the ability to sue is sometimes restricted less narrowly than in pure private-law actions. For example, in France and in some U.S. states, citizens can bring actions in court to attack certain governmental expenditures

in reference to: procedural law :: The framework for litigation -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia (view on Google Sidewiki)

Constitutional Courts

constitutional courts—constitutional rules granting a right to be heard and access to justice (often including access to legal aid) were created. These developments were reinforced by certain international agreements, in particular Article 6 of the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

in reference to: procedural law :: The framework for litigation -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia (view on Google Sidewiki)

Procedures US Constitution

The U.S. Supreme Court holds that all procedural rules, whether found in statutes, rules of court, or case law, must be consistent with the mandates of the U.S. Constitution

in reference to:

"The U.S. Supreme Court holds that all procedural rules, whether found in statutes, rules of court, or case law, must be consistent with the mandates of the U.S. Constitution"
- procedural law :: The framework for litigation -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia (view on Google Sidewiki)

Due Process

state not to offend “traditional notions of fairness and substantial justice.” “Due process” also implies that a party may not be deprived of substantial rights without having had an opportunity to present his side of the case. Analogous provisions in the European Union guarantee individuals access to court and to judicial review of certain governmental actions.

in reference to:

"state not to offend “traditional notions of fairness and substantial justice.” “Due process” also implies that a party may not be deprived of substantial rights without having had an opportunity to present his side of the case. Analogous provisions in the European Union guarantee individuals access to court and to judicial review of certain governmental actions."
- procedural law :: The framework for litigation -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia (view on Google Sidewiki)

Federal Courts

http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/UnderstandingtheFederalCourts/FederalCourtsInAmericanGovernment.aspx

in reference to: http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/UnderstandingtheFederalCourts/FederalCourtsInAmericanGovernment.aspx (view on Google Sidewiki)

economic, water, Colorado River

One such occurrence briefly discussed at the conference is if the United States suffered an economic setback due to a prolonged period of inflation, recession or even a depression. A reordering of river management priorities might then occur. For example, support for recreational and environmental efforts might be questioned. The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 requires that river managers consider recreational and fish and wildlife concerns. The act moderated somewhat the strategy of regulating river flow to maximize power generation. In the event of financial hardship would such a commitment be maintained? More broadly, what changes would a financial crisis impose on Colorado River management?

in reference to:

"Meeting "present perfected rights" pre-dating the compact including tribal reserved water rights also might be a priority. The compact designated that its provisions would not affect such rights. At the time, this mainly referred to irrigators using Colorado River water. The 1964 Supreme Court decision California v. Arizona recognized tribal reserved water rights under the Winters Doctrine to be present perfected rights."
- Sharing Colorado River Water: History, Public Policy and the Colorado River Compact (view on Google Sidewiki)