Special feature: “The requirement that arrest warrants must specifically describe the objects to be seized makes it impossible to search each other generally and prevents the seizure of property on the basis of an arrest warrant describing another. What can be inferred is not left to the discretion of the official executing the arrest warrant. 132 This requirement thus limits the scope of the search, since enforcement officers should limit themselves to seeking places where the object described could be expected.133 The purpose of the requirement of specificity goes beyond the prevention of general searches; It also insures the person whose property is being searched of the lawful authority of the law enforcement officer and the limits of his or her power to search. It follows that the arrest warrant itself must describe precisely the objects to be seized, or that such a breakdown must appear in documents incorporated by reference to the arrest warrant and actually shown to the person whose assets are to be searched134. 134 Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004) (a search on the basis of an arrest warrant, which did not describe the items to be seized, was “manifestly invalid”; the specificity of the supporting documents not mentioned in the arrest warrant and not attached to the arrest warrant is insufficient); United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 97, 99 (2006) (because the wording of the Fourth Amendment “specifies only two things that must be `specifically described` in the warrant: “the place to be searched” and “the persons or property to be seized.” The Fourth Amendment does not require that the condition for triggering an early arrest warrant be set out in the warrant itself. In re is a Latin expression meaning “in matters of”. The term “in re” is used in legal documents to refer to a case, especially a case without consideration. For example, “In re Estate of Ruth Bentley” could be used to refer to an estate case involving the estate of Ruth Bentley.
Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts respect precedents in their decisions. Stare decisis means “to stick to things decided” in Latin. (on Bonk) French for “sur le banc”, it is a decision of the entire court of all appeal judges in jurisdictions where there is more than one panel of three or four judges. The largest number sit in the judgment if the court considers that a particularly important issue is at stake, or if one or both parties request the case and the court has agreed. Nglish: Translation of especially for Spanish speakers Although courts rarely set precedents, the U.S. Supreme Court in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida said stare decisis is not a “relentless order.” If previous decisions are “impracticable or poorly reasoned,” then the Supreme Court cannot follow a precedent, and that applies “especially to constitutional cases.” For example, in Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court expressly waived Plessy v. Ferguson and therefore refused to apply the doctrine of stare decisis. These sample phrases are automatically selected from various online information sources to reflect the current use of the word “in particular”. The views expressed in the examples do not represent the views of Merriam-Webster or its editors.
Send us your feedback. If a court is faced with a legal dispute and a previous court has ruled on the same or closely related issue, the court will make its decision in accordance with the decision of the previous court. The court which ruled on the previous instance must be binding on the court; Otherwise, the previous decision is only convincing. In Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, the U.S. Supreme Court described the reasons for stare decisis as “promoting the balanced, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, promoting the use of judicial decisions, and contributing to the real and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” 132 Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196 (1927). See Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (1965).
Of course, police officers who are lawfully present at the scene on the basis of an arrest warrant can seize evidence of crimes for the sake of “foresight”, even if this evidence is not described in the arrest warrant. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 464–71 (1971). The doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court that adheres to its own precedent. For example, if the Seventh District Court of Appeals were to comply with the decision in an earlier case of the Seventh District Court of Appeals, this would be a horizontal stare decisis. A court engages in vertical stare decisis when applying the precedents of a higher court.
For example, if the Seventh District Court of Appeals were to comply with an earlier decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, it would be a vertical stare decisis decisis. Or, further, if the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York were to uphold an earlier Second Circuit decision, it would be a vertical stare decisis. The use of “in re” refers to the object or person who is the main subject of the case. The term “In re” is often used in probate proceedings as well as in juvenile courts.