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. M

    VIC Removing Property Caveats - Go Through Supreme Court?

    Good evening all... I have a question regarding caveats that have been place upon two properties during my recent divorce. My ex-wife is based in the UK and the caveats were placed on my main home and an property investment in Victoria whilst we worked through our financial and property...
  2. Edgeman

    NSW Self-representation in NSW Supreme Court

    Hi Everyone, I'm after some guidance, and apologise in advance if this is not the correct forum to do that. In a nutshell my company used to contract to another company, we terminated the agreement after they failed to pay invoices on time repeatedly over a long period (months), and then put in...
  3. F

    NSW Would Supreme Court Injunction Prevent Misuse of Hospital Records?

    Last November, I notified the NSW Ministry of Health of my express refusal to consent to the use of my health records for secondary purposes such as training. Although I am under no obligation to have a reason, or even a good reason, I can assure you that if you understood my concerns in their...
  4. Sandra Broom

    QLD DNA Testing for Removal of Name from Birth Certificate?

    My son agreed to put his name on the birth certificate of a child that he believed was his, now we have reason to believe this child is not his. He has been paying child support since day one and has had very little to do with the child who is now 3 years of age. The mother of the child is not...
  5. S

    Procedural Help, WASC, Case Management

    Hi, I am a self-represented (no other choice $) defendant in a case to be heard under Section 129C of the Transfer of Land Act 1893, I am defending an easement that the servient owner wants extinguished. My question is procedural, we are still at the case management conference stage, the...
  6. A

    ACT Photography in the Supreme Court - Legal?

    I went to the Supreme Court less than 5 hours ago and while I was there I took a photo of the accused. Can I be arrested or prosecuted if no one saw me take the photo?
  7. C

    SA Supreme Court form question

    Form 69 - Notice of intention of executor or administrator to act in person What does "act in person" mean? How was he/she acting before?
  8. I

    VIC How to access historical writs in Supreme Court (Vic)?

    I'm looking for a copy of a writ lodged in 2011 that was referenced in a news article. I cannot find any information on how to do this on the Supreme Court of Victoria site nor can I find how journalists manage to do this. How can a member of the public have access to a writ that was lodged...
  9. N

    VIC Terms of an Old Covenant - Can Anything be Done?

    In the 1920s, the subdivision in which I live had a covenant placed over a few hundred lots to the effect that: "...for the time being of the said land (hereby transferred except as aforesaid) [the transferees] will not at any time erect or build or cause or suffer to be erected or built on any...
  10. Skateboard

    VIC False Affidavit Filed to Commercial Supreme Court?

    My partner's brother claimed in a sworn affidavit in the supreme court that he gave her nearly one million dollars because she kept asking him for money and to stop using his private documents - actually their family businesses records. The money was paid from a solicitor's trust fund to her...