1
Dispatch → Factbook → Legislation
Court Cases
Law Directory - Rulings of the High Court
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Name: Name of the Case
Status: Indicates the current applicability of the ruling
Description: Brief description of the case
Ruling: Short description of the ruling
Majority: Indicates which justices were on the majority side of the ruling
Minority: Indicates which justices were on the minority disagreeing side of the ruling
Date Filed and Date Delivered Indicates the days on which the case was filed and on which the case was delivered.
Status: Indicates the current applicability of the ruling
Description: Brief description of the case
Ruling: Short description of the ruling
Majority: Indicates which justices were on the majority side of the ruling
Minority: Indicates which justices were on the minority disagreeing side of the ruling
Date Filed and Date Delivered Indicates the days on which the case was filed and on which the case was delivered.
Text of the Ruling
Name: Indicates the name of the Court Case
Status: In Force
Description: The Judicial Detail Act's constitutionality was challenged.
Ruling: The Judicial Detail Act is unconstitutional
Majority: Tesyky and Attancia
Minority: None, third justice position vacant.
Date Filed and Date Delivered Case filed June 10th and decision delivered on June 11th.
Status: In Force
Description: The Judicial Detail Act's constitutionality was challenged.
Ruling: The Judicial Detail Act is unconstitutional
Majority: Tesyky and Attancia
Minority: None, third justice position vacant.
Date Filed and Date Delivered Case filed June 10th and decision delivered on June 11th.
We, Justices of the RCN, have found AB-01-12, or the Judicial Detail Act, in violation of the Constitution's Article V, Section 1 2 “All branches may affect their own internal debate and rules of procedure without interference from the other branches.” and will be using our power as the high court stated in Article IV Section 1 2, to "overturn executive or legislative action on the basis of constitutionality" Whilst the Constitution is vague (and I will push for a clarification in the Constitution or law ) I and my fellow justice believe the most reasonable interpretations of this would for it to act as a veto. The vote will continue but as a court we will move to block it from becoming law.
