why is nys highest court not called the supreme court?
90379
Because the writers of the state constitution decided to call it the Court of Appeals instead. There's not really much of a difference. The Federal Supreme Court is a court of appeals.
898496
I agree with anne_s.  The federal court system - which is what applies in this case since it is a constitutional issue - is a hierachy with the US Supreme Court at the top.  Then the country is divided into smaller Circuits.  There are 11 circuits.  Within those circuits there are Districts.  The only binding cases are those issued from a higher court.  However, a case decided in one circuit would not be binding on a district court in a different circuit.  Otherwise, the ruling is just persuasive.  Since NY is in the 2nd Circuit and PA is in the 3rd, the NY ruling wouldn't be binding on the 2nd Circuit. BUT, sometimes the US Supreme Court will agree with a circuit court's ruling but not hear the case.  In that situation you might have a circuit court decision that would be binding on other courts because the Supreme Court has approved of their ruling.  It is all very confusing.  Even worse for state courts!!
220079
Do you understand what you are asking?  There are thousands of such cases.  Are you interested in certain eras.  Maybe cases under the various Chief Justices.  How about certain types of cases?  Would like to compare similar case subjects prior to 1868 as opposed to post 1868?  However, you can start by going to the source link:
758166
Well, it is C. the supreme court.
192614
He ruled in favor of Marbury.  This is a landmark case because it was the beginning of the practice known as judicial review-  \nthe supreme court takes on the responsibility of determining the constitutionality of goverment actions.
647592
I worked at a place in Rochester, NY known as Judicial Process Commission, and they specialize in cases such as yours.  Also, they have wonderful contacts if they aren't able to help u that they can refer u to.  Please cl (585) 325-7727 and tell them what it is u have listed here.  I am almost 100% certain they will be able to steer u in the right direction.......Best Wishes to u...
588653
NY the state realizes that NY the city is full of nuts.\nHeck- even parts of NYC want to break away and reform into their own cities, just like they used to be. (Staten Island, Brooklyn, etc all used to be individual cities.)
146691
Are you talking about NY, CA or some other state? Superior Courts are different in the various states.
910026
Because liberals never want the people to have their way, that is why we have roe vs. wade and other bad cases.  They want judges to decide for us.  Good luck with that in Taxachusetts.
1020778
highest - supreme court justice\nlowest - drawbridge oiler
467471
South African courts\n\nTry this first\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_South_Africa\n\nFound two descriptions of the court system:\n\nJudicial--Constitutional Court interprets and decides constitutional issues; Supreme Court of Appeal is the highest court for interpreting and deciding nonconstitutional matters.\n\nAdministrative subdivisions: Nine provinces: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga, North-West, Northern Cape, Limpopo, Western Cape. \n \nhttp://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2898.htm \n\nThe Cape Supreme Court was established in Cape Town in 1828. When circuits round the Cape Colony became too arduous, divisions of the Court were established in the Eastern Cape and in the Northern Cape (then known as Griqualand West). The Natal Supreme Court was established in 1857. The first High Court of Justice was set up in the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek in 1877, while the Orange Free State instituted a High Court in 1854. \n\nFollowing the Union of South Africa in 1910, a new Supreme Court of South Africa was formed, with provincial and local divisions in all four provinces. A new Appellate Division in Bloemfontein heard appeals from the other divisions of the Supreme Court and set precedent which was binding country-wide. The 'independent states' created during the apartheid era established superior courts in their territories. In terms of the new Constitution, the existing provincial and local divisions of the erstwhile 'Supreme Court' (including the courts in the TBVC states) were renamed High Courts, and the Appellate Division was re-established as the Supreme Court of Appeal. \n\nA new superior court, the Constitutional Court, was established to decide matters based on Constitutional provisions. The website of the Court consists of a full text database of all Constitutional Court cases handed down since the first hearing in 1995. Documents available for viewing, printing or downloading include full judgments, summaries of judgments highlighting the main questions of law decided in each case as well as heads of argument, pleadings and documents.\n\nOther superior courts, created in terms of separate legislation, include the Land Claims Court and the Labour Appeal Court.  In addition to these superior courts, district and regional magistrate courts hear minor civil and criminal matters. Decisions of lower courts are not reported. The Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration tribunals attempt to settle employment disputes. Until 1950, the English Privy Council was the highest court of appeal in the South African judicial system. South Africa no longer has a jury system. Juries were finally abolished for all courts in 1969.\n\nhttp://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/South_Africa.htm#_JUDICIARY
541653
There is only one Supreme Court of the United States.  Each State may also have its own Supreme Court to be the final authority on State Law, but the Federal Court system has only one Supreme Court.\n\nThe Supreme Court issues the highest ruling which cannot be appealed.  You can't present a case directly to the Supreme Court.  You have to present a case that says a lower court incorrectly ruled on a case.  Then the Supreme Court has to agree to hear the case.  If they do hear it, they'll issue a ruling that either lets the lower court's ruling stand, sends it back to the lower court for reconsideration (sometimes with additional instruction), or they may overturn the lower court's decision.
1043808
This problem started back during the first term of the F.D.R. Administration. F.D.R. was attempting to push through his "New Deal" legislation and the Supreme Court was striking down pieces of legislation left and right because they were not within the enumerated powers of the federal goverment.\n\nF.D.R.'s solution to this little problem was to threaten to pack the court with justices who would vote the way he wanted. Back then there was no constitutionally stipulated maximum to the number of justices that could be put on the court so long as the president nominated them and the Senate gave their consent.\n\nWith this very real threat in place, the High Court backed down, and ever since we have essentially had no limit on the powers of the federal government.\n\nThis is the single greatest threat to our country. If we don't get a handle on it soon, the great experiment in self government started by our founding fathers is going to be a distant memory.
774314
Looking at the makeup of the Supreme Court, I think it was to ensure that the Chief Justice would be a Republican appointee for a long time.  All of the other are either Democratic appointees (Breyer, Ginsburg), rather liberal (Souter, Kennedy, Stevens) or would have difficulty getting approved by the Senate as Chief (Thomas).  That leaves Scalia, but he was almost 70 at the time, and likely could not be counted on to stay on the court for more than 5-10 years.  Roberts, on the other hand, was a spry 50 years old and thus will likely lead the court for at least 20 years.
57701
It is called the Empire State because of one of the world's tallest buildings the Empire State Building is there and people that live in New York are called New Yorkers.
1006665
The Supreme Court is not there to support political leaders and their agendas...that's why it is a separate branch of the government.   The court is there to support the LAW of the land, including the US Constitution...sorry that there are those that seem to think that the incursions against our civil liberties and constitutional rights are justified by the current political climate...guess what...virtually none of those unconstitutional invasions of privacy have yielded anything that could not have been obtained through the already sufficient legal investigative techniques that already yield information leading to persons of interest in anti-terrorist investigations...\n\nPeople, come on...are "terrorists" going to become the new "communists" that were lurking under all of our beds in the 50's and 60's????  Did we not learn the negative lessons about denying civil liberties that the McCarthy era taught us?\n\nOr are so many of us modern Americans so lacking in education about our government and its history that you don't know or remember how important the constitution is, and how dangerous a threat the erosion of its structure and protections really can become?
684647
what state?\ngoogle divorce law ( your state )\nand you'll pretty much get the run down for your state\nkeep in mind NY is one of the few states that is NOT no fault. So divorce can be a bit tougher there.