Meyer v The State (46/12)  ZASCA 208 (28 November 2013) Criminal law – application for special leave to appeal, for condonation of the late filing of the application and an application to lead new evidence – tests restated – evidence of independent witnesses overwhelming on convictions – requirements for the presenting of new evidence not met – sentence – material misdirection by the trial court in respect of applicability of the minimum sentence legislation – special leave to appeal granted against sentence on two murder counts – sentence set aside and, upon consideration de novo, life sentences substituted with sentence of 24 years’ imprisonment.Reward Ventures 01 CC v Walker (946/12)  ZASCA 207 (05 December 2013) Review application – s 33(1) of the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965 – whether arbitration award which did not expressly dismiss the opposing parties’ counter-claims final – whether the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity by making such an award.It must give a preliminary decision if a party challenges the admissibility of the recourse.(5) The court that rules on an appellate remedy against a decision by the court seized of the case shall not review whether the recourse taken was admissible.Section17b(2) If a dispute is referred to another court, the costs of the proceedings before the first court shall be treated as part of the costs incurred at the court to which the dispute was referred.Kruger v The State (612/13)  ZASCA 198 (2 December 2013) General Law ─ rape ─ statement of complainant implicating alleged offender made shortly after the incident ─ such statement and the emotional state of complainant at that time supporting conclusion that she had been raped.Media Summary Slinger v The State (233/13)  ZASCA 197 (2 December 2013) Criminal procedure – appeal against decision of high court refusing leave to appeal on petition to it following magistrate’s refusal of leave – merits of magistrate’s decision to convict and sentence applicant not an issue before SCA – appeal to SCA limited to whether high court had correctly refused applicant’s petition.
The Supreme Court held that the Ninth Circuit exceeded its authority under 28 U. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (28 U. Repeated, temporary flooding caused by the government is not automatically exempt from the Takings Clause, so the case was remanded for the lower court to decide if the government has to pay owners for using their land. § 7702(a)(1) should seek judicial review in district court, not the Federal Circuit, regardless whether the MSPB decided her case on procedural grounds or on the merits. § 3, and therefore federal maritime jurisdiction was not triggered, because -- except for the fact that it floats -- nothing about it suggested that it was intended to transport people or things over water.If you know about foreclosure fraud, the mass fabrication of mortgage documents in state courts by banks attempting to foreclose on homeowners, you may have one nagging question: Why did banks have to resort to this illegal scheme?Was it just cheaper to mock up the documents than to provide the real ones?Neither eligible to vote in electionsnor eligible to stand for electionare judges who have been seconded to another court for more than three months, who have been on leave for more than three months or who have been seconded to an administrative authority.(3) The electionshall be direct and secret.The persons receiving the most votes shall be deemed elected.And if Congress, supported by the Obama administration, goes back to the same housing finance system, with the same corrupt private entities who broke the nation’s private property system back in business packaging mortgages, then shame on all of us. Twenty-eight banks, mortgage servicers and document processing companies are named in the lawsuit, including mega-banks like JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi and Bank of America.