Talk:United States court of appeals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Move

Per the discussion at Talk:United States district court, this article should be renamed "United States court of appeals" since it deals with the class of courts of appeals rather than a unique Court of Appeals.

— DLJessup (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm reading a case right now where the U.S. Supreme Court does exactly that - uses caps when identifying specific courts "The District Court denied the petitioner's motion to dismiss"; "We granted certiorari to resolve a disagreement among the Courts of Appeals" - but later in the same opinion, notes that the statute "provides for appeal to the courts of appeals" and that "we have declined to hold the collateral order doctrine applicable where a district court has denied a claim, not that the defendant has a right not to be sued at all, but that the suit against the defendant is not properly before the particular court because it lacks jurisdiction." -- BD2412 talk 04:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I will accept the consensus view on this. (Who the heck moved this article away from United States court of appeals in the first place?  :-) ) DLJessup, you may have to post your request on WP:RM; I think this move can only be accomplished by an admin, because the target title has some past edit history. --Russ Blau (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I've posted the request on WP:RM. — DLJessup (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

If the article is meant to deal with all of the U.S. federal appeals courts, shouldn't it be at United States courts of appeals? --Quintusdecimus 21:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

No. In general, encyclopedia titles should be in the singular. For example, even though continent deals with all of the continents or ocean deals with all of the oceans, the article titles are in the singular, because they deal with the class of continents or the class of oceans. U.S. state deals with all fifty states. Et cetera, ad infinitum.

— DLJessup (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discision

Moved as requested. "United states courts of appeal".... LOL! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Appointments

Hi, I was wondering whether someone knows how appointments work. The president nominates a judge and then the judge is confirmed (or not) in the Senate, in the normal case. In the unusual case of course, the judge receives a recess appointment and is later nominated and possibly confirmed. My question is - when are judges allowed to then sit on panels and decide cases? If you look at bios on www.fjc.gov (go to biographies of judges since 1789) and then enter in a judge's last name. My example judges are Godbold and Gewin for the two kinds of appointments. Here are the relevant excerpts from their bios:

Godbold: Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Nominated by Lyndon B. Johnson on June 28, 1966, to a seat vacated by Richard Taylor Rives; Confirmed by the Senate on July 22, 1966, and received commission on July 22, 1966. Served as chief judge, 1981-1981. Service terminated on October 1, 1981, due to assignment to another court. Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Reassigned October 1, 1981; Served as chief judge, 1981-1986. Assumed senior status on October 23, 1987.

Gewin: Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Received a recess appointment from John F. Kennedy on October 5, 1961, to a new seat created by 75 Stat. 80; nominated on January 15, 1962; Confirmed by the Senate on February 5, 1962, and received commission on February 9, 1962. Assumed senior status on November 1, 1976. Service terminated on May 15, 1981, due to death.

My feeling is that for Godbold who went through the process normally, he gets to sit on panels after he receives "commission," which I'm assuming just means he's now given the power to decide cases. For Gewin, I believe he gets to decide cases after he receives the recess appointment. I know this is true because I looked on Lexis-Nexis's legal research section and found cases on whose panels Gewin was sitting after October 5, 1961 and before January 15, 1962. Obviously it wouldn't make any sense for Gewin not to be able to decide cases before he gets confirmed (otherwise, what is the point of recess appointments!). So I guess the remaining question is: For the normal appointment process, is the relevant "start date" the date of receiving commission?

Thanks for any help.

Borntostorm 19:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the article Court of Appeals

Please see my move proposal at Talk:Court of Appeals#Rename this article?. --Mathew5000 19:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)