ARTICLE II. JUDICIAL NOTICE

---

Table of Contents

---

Article I. General Provisions

Article II. Judicial Notice

Rule 201

Rule 202

Rule 203

Rule 204

Article III. Presumptions

Article IV. Relevancy and Its Limits

Article V. Privileges

Article VI. Witnesses

Article VII. Opinions and Expert Testimony

Article VIII. Hearsay

Article X. Contents of Writings, Recordings, and Photographs

Revised Rule 202. Judicial Notice of Legislative Facts [changes highlighted]
(a) Scope of rule. This rule governs only judicial notice of legislative facts. Legislative facts are those facts that are necessary to interpret the scope and meaning of the law. Legislative facts do not directly relate to the matters in dispute between the parties before the court.

• Click here to see commentary on Revised Article 202(a). 

(b) Kinds of facts. A judicially noticed fact under this rule must be one that is of reasonable reliability.

• Click here to see commentary on Revised Article 202(b). 

(c) When discretionary. Judicial notice under this rule is always discretionary.

• Click here to see commentary on Revised Article 202(c). 

(d) Time of taking judicial notice. Judicial notice under this rule may be taken at any stage of the proceeding.

• Click here to see commentary on Revised Article 202(d). 

(e) Opportunity to be heard. The court may afford the parties the opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice under this rule if the interests of justice so require, or if the court deems assistance of the parties helpful.

• Click here to see commentary on Revised Article 202(e). 

Revised Rule 202. Judicial Notice of Legislative Facts [clean copy]
(a) Scope of rule. This rule governs only judicial notice of legislative facts. Legislative facts are those facts that are necessary to interpret the scope and meaning of the law. Legislative facts do not directly relate to the matters in dispute between the parties before the court.
(b) Kinds of facts. A judicially noticed fact under this rule must be one that is of reasonable reliability.
(c) When discretionary. Judicial notice under this rule is always discretionary.
(d) Time of taking judicial notice. Judicial notice under this rule may be taken at any stage of the proceeding.
(e) Opportunity to be heard. The court may afford the parties the opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice under this rule if the interests of justice so require, or if the court deems assistance of the parties helpful.
E-MAIL YOUR COMMENTS

What Is a Prove-Up Hearing in the Divorce Process?

By John Comerford, eHow Contributor

 
 
• Share
 
 
• Print this article

A prove-up hearing is simply an attempt by a court to establish certain facts of a case. However, in cases of a general lack of opposition between the two sides of a case, it can be a means for recording the declaration of one side of the case or an agreement by both as the resolution for the cause of their conflict. In a divorce trial, a prove-up hearing may be a means to implement a final plan on parenting or the division of marital property. Have a question? Get an answer from a Lawyer now!

Other People Are Reading

• Checklist for a Default Prove Up
• Party-Ready Halloween Costume Pairs

1. Definition and Nature of a Prove-up Hearing

   • A prove-up hearing is a court meeting for a judge to approve or disallow a final agreement on a case, such as an agreement on the distribution of property or the custody of children in a divorce case. Any hearing made in the absence of the defendant is also at least technically a prove-up hearing.

   Lawyer's Actions During a Prove-up Hearing

   • A lawyer presenting his case during a prove-up hearing in the absence of the defendant may simply ask his client to identify herself; state the number, name and ages of any children from the marriage; and then recall the story of her discovery of any offense serving as grounds for divorce from her spouse. During a prove-up divorce hearing with the spouse present, however, the lawyer may also ask his client to identify an agreement on parenting or the distribution of property and the signatures on it. In the absence of any actual complaint from another party, the lawyer has to do no more.
   • Sponsored Links

     • Free Resume Templates
       America's #1 Resume Templates. Build A Perfect Resume. Free!
       Resume-Now.com/Resume+Templates

   Arranging a Prove-up Hearing

   • Having a divorce case heard in a prove-up hearing can permit someone seeking divorce to have that divorce more quickly and easily, and so many people petitioning for divorce may prefer to request a prove-up hearing. To get a prove-up hearing, however, the person requesting it would first have to file a request for divorce and at least attempt to serve the spouse with a notice of that plea for divorce. By that point, the court will have given the case an identification number and assigned it a judge, a court, and a date and time, and the person requesting a prove-up hearing will need that information in the request. In the absence of any reason against granting the hearing, the judge may grant it, but any defendant willing to oppose the motion may stop the hearing simply by opposing it.

   Premarital agreements in Prove-Up Hearings

   • During a prove-up hearing, a judge can accept a premarital agreement as the plan for the dissolution of a marriage even in the absence of the husband or wife, other than one contested by one of the parties to the marriage. A defendant can, however, appeal any decision to uphold a premarital agreement, though he must do so on the grounds of the agreement's unconscionable unfairness or his having been forced to sign it.

Sponsored Links

• Date Sexy Korean Women
  Korean Dating and Singles Site.

  Find the Perfect Korean Woman Now!

  www.KoreanCupid.com
• OffShore Asset Protection
  Private Safe Deposit Boxes

  Panama Safety Boxes/ Legal Services

  panamasafetyboxes.com
• Web Forms by Smartsheet
  Smart Forms Tool By Smartsheet.

  Try Templates or Build Your Own

  Smartsheet.com/Smart_Forms

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/info_8736023_proveup-hearing-divorce-process.html#ixzz2Z7LzPFPh

A prove-up hearing is a short hearing before a judge when the case is uncontested, such as when it has been settled by agreement or default. In a default case, the other party doesn't appear to contest the matter. In a divorce, the petitioning spouse may be unable to locate the other spouse and get the court's permission to serve them by publication in a newspaper. If after the required period of publication, the other party doesn't appear to contest the divorce, a default may be filed. A prove-up hearing is typically used in divorce cases to request approval of the property settlement agreement and custodial arrangements. Prove-up hearings vary by state and county, so local law in your area should be consulted for specific requirements.

Category:United States Supreme Court per curiam opinions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pages in category "United States Supreme Court per curiam opinions"

The following 23 pages are in this category, out of 23 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).

2 2000 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States 2001 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States 2002 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States 2003 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States 2004 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States 2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States 2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States 2007 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

2 cont. 2008 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States 2009 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States 2010 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States 2011 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States 2012 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States A Adams v. Robertson Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education Arizona v. New Mexico

C Califano v. Webster Cooper v. Pate L Lee v. Washington O One, Inc. v. Olesen R Rose v. Locke T Toolson v. New York Yankees W Wilson v. Girard

Categories: 

• United States Supreme Court cases

2008 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2008 term, which began on October 6, 2008 and concluded October 4, 2009.^[1]

Because per curiam decisions are issued from the Court as an institution, these opinions all lack the attribution of authorship or joining votes to specific justices. All justices on the Court at the time the decision was handed down are assumed to have participated and concurred unless otherwise noted.

Contents   [hide]  1 Court membership 2 Moore v. United States 3 Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party 4 Hedgpeth v. Pulido 5 Spears v. United States 6 Nelson v. United States 7 CSX Transp., Inc. v. Hensley 8 Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC 9 Notes 10 References

Court membership[edit]

Chief Justice: John Roberts

Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito

Moore v. United States[edit]

Full case name:	James Eric Moore v. United States
Citations:	555 U.S. ___;
Prior history:	Defendant convicted, sentenced, N.D. Ia.; aff'd, 470 F. 3d 767 (8th Cir. 2006); vacated and remanded, 552 U. S. ___ (2008); aff'd, 518 F. 3d 577 (2008)
Laws applied:
Full text of the opinion:	official slip opinion

555 U.S. ___
Decided Decided October 14, 2008.
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded

Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party[edit]

Full case name:	Jennifer Brunner, Ohio Secretary of State v. Ohio Republican Party et al.
Citations:	555 U.S. ___;
Prior history:	TRO granted, S.D. Oh., Oct. 9, 2008; motion to vacate denied, (6th Cir.
Laws applied:
Full text of the opinion:	official slip opinion

555 U.S. ___
Decided October 14, 2008.
The Court granted the application for a stay, and vacated the temporary restraining order entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Hedgpeth v. Pulido[edit]

555 U.S. ___ Decided December 2, 2008 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded. Justice Stevens filed a dissent, joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg.

Full case name: Anthony Hedgpeth, Warden, v. Michael Robert Pulido Citations: 555 U.S. ___ Prior history: Defendant's conviction upheld, sub. nom., People v. Pulido, 936 P.2d 1235 (Cal. 1997); Petiton granted, sub nom., Pulido v. Lamarque, No. 99–4933, (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2005); aff'd, sub nom.,Pulido v. Chrones, 487 F.3d 669 (9th Cir. 2007),cert. granted, 552 U.S. ___ (2008) Full text of the Court's decision (.pdf)

Spears v. United States[edit]

555 U.S. ___ Decided January 21, 2009 Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. Kennedy would have submitted the case for oral argument. Thomas dissented without opinion. Roberts filed a dissent, joined by Alito.

Full case name: Steven Spears v. United States Citations: 555 U.S. ___ Prior history: Defendant convicted, sentenced; sentencing reversed, remanded, 469 F.3d 1166 (8th Circuit2006); vacated, remanded, 552 U. S. ___ (2008); reversed, remanded, 533 F. 3d 715 (8th Cir. 2008) Full text of the Court's decision (.pdf)

Nelson v. United States[edit]

555 U.S. ___ Decided January 26, 2009 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. Breyer filed a concurrence, which Alito joined.

Full case name: Lawrence W. Nelson, aka Zikee v. United States Citations: 555 U.S. ___ Prior history: Conviction and sentencing affirmed, 237 Fed. Appx. 819 (4th Cir. 2007); vacated, remanded, 552 U.S. ___ (2008); sentence affirmed, 276 Fed. Appx. 331 (4th Cir. 2008) Full text of the Court's decision (.pdf)

CSX Transp., Inc. v. Hensley[edit]

556 U.S. ___ Decided June 1, 2009 Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. Stevens and Ginsburg filed dissents.

Full case name: CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Thurston Hensley Citations: 556 U.S. ___ Prior history: Judgment for plaintiff; aff'd, 278 S.W. 3d 282 (Tenn. 2008) Full text of the Court's decision (.pdf)

Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC[edit]

Main article: Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC

556 U.S. ___ Decided June 9, 2009 Application for stay denied.

Full case name: Indiana State Police Pension Trust, et al. v. Chrysler LLC, et al. Citations: 556 U.S. ___ Prior history: Restructuring plan approved, Bankr. S.D.N.Y., May 31, 2009; aff'd, 2d Cir., June 5, 2009; temporary stay granted, 556 U.S. ___ (2009) (Ginsburg, J.) Full text of the Court's decision (.pdf)

Notes[edit]

1. ^ The description of two decisions have been omitted. In Bell v. Kelly, 555 U.S. ___ (2008), and Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Williams, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), the Court dismissed certiorari as improvidently granted.

References