What Is Holding In Law?

What Is Holding In Law
Holding Law and Legal Definition. A holding is a court ruling, especially a ruling on a point of law raised in an official proceeding. The holding is a court’s determination of a matter of law based on the issue presented in the particular case.

What does holding mean legally?

1. In civil procedure, a court’s determination of some matter of law. Often, holding refers to a determination of such a central issue that it decides the entire case.

Is holding the same as ruling?

Ruling is more specific; it is tied to the facts and parties of a case. Holding is more abstract, because it can be applied to cases with different details, but a similar ‘fact profile.

What is the holding of the case?

Holding: The holding is the final decision the court reached. The holding is the result of applying pre-existing rules, policy, and reasoning to the case facts. It is the new ‘rule of the case.’

What does holding Judgement mean?

Look up holding in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. The holding is a court ‘s determination of a matter of law based on the issue presented in the particular case, In other words: under this law, with these facts, this result. It is the same as a ‘decision’ made by the judge; however “decision” can also refer to the judge’s entire opinion, containing, for example, a discussion of facts, issues, and law as well as the holding.

Is a holding legally binding?

Binding precedent is a legal rule or principle, articulated by an appellate court, that must be followed by lower courts within its jurisdiction, Essentially, once an appellate court reviews a case, it will deliver a written opinion, This written opinion will include, among other things, the court’s determination on some legal matter.

  • This determination, known as a holding, is binding on all lower courts within the jurisdiction, meaning that lower courts must apply this decision when presented with similar facts.
  • The Supreme Court, for example, is the highest court in the U.S.
  • And so, its decisions are binding on all other courts in the U.S.

Alternatively, the decisions of the highest court in New York are only binding on other New York courts, but not courts in other states.

What is holding charge in law?

What Is Holding In Law ~ Femisi Agboola, Esq, and Ujong Okpa, Esq Introduction “The concept of a person’s rights, for example, is basic to legalism. It’s one of the most powerful formulators in gaining and sustaining popular support for the operation of the legal system. The common understanding of this concept is that law takes the side of the people against the government or other systematic injustice.

This uncritical view is elaborated upon in law school and throughout the legal system. Actually, however, once one understands that the central concern of legalism is with the maintenance of its own power system, one sees that law only appears to take the side of the people. In fact, the real concern of legalism in its recognition of popular claims of right (civil rights, etc.) is to preserve the basic governmental framework in which the claims arise” The above quote will only appear conclusive when one is besieged by the nature of law in our society and the corresponding reality.

It will also be conclusive when one considers the question, ‘is law and justice not just a pair of shoes?’ It is presupposed that law primarily exists to stand as an obstacle to injustice and the stunning reality is that law permits injustice. Law permits injustice when such law is stagnant, illusive to change, unbending to the changing reality and is used as a tool for the execution and perpetuation of unlawful acts.

One of such injustices as it exists in our legal system is the concept which has become known as holding charge. Holding charge as defined by the tenth edition of the Black Law’s Dictionary is a criminal charge of some minor offences filed to keep the accused in custody while prosecutor takes time to build a bigger case and prepare more serious charge.

In Nigeria’s legal parlance, however, holding charge has been shown to be a charge brought by the police or other law enforcement officers against an accused person before an inferior court that lacks jurisdiction to try the offence charged pending the receipt of legal advice from the Attorney General’s Office to recommend the accused person’s trial in a court of competent jurisdiction or tribunal set up to try that particular offence.

Through judicial pronouncements and legislative creations, the concept of holding charge will be exposed for the purpose of declaring it antisocial and amoral in the face of a growing human rights conscious society. ‘Holding Charge’ Explained A holding charge is the practice of filing a charge and arraigning a criminal suspect before a Magistrate which lacks the jurisdiction to try a case.

Holding charge, as is peculiar to Nigeria, generally occurs in cases where the commission of a crime has not just been alleged but is also the direct cause of action. The crime alleged in holding charge practices is more often a felony or a capital offence.

This way, only the High Court or Federal High Court is abreast with the jurisdiction to properly hear the substantive suit. Consequently, ‘Lower Courts’ such as the Magistrates Court, the Area Court and the Upper Area Court would lack the requisite jurisdiction over such offences and entertaining them by arraignment or unreasonably long detentions makes such a practice or proceeding unlawful and illegal.

In a holding charge, lower courts, knowing they lack the jurisdiction to hear such matters, often resort to the option of taking cognizance of the offence and remanding the alleged suspect or accused in custodial centers on the First Information Report (“FIR”) filed by the Police or Complaint made by a Complainant.

  • Holding charge, therefore, involves not only the Judge as an embodiment of the Court, but also Police Prosecutors who know or are presumed to know that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the matter and therefore ought not to be the ground for its initiation or institution.
  • Holding charge is often brought under the guise of “remand proceedings” but may be distinguished from the later.

Although used interchangeably as their elements could look similar, both concepts differ in facts. A remand, also known as pre-trial or pre-charge detention, is the consequential order of the court which sends a suspect to prison until further enquiries are made for the trial.

  1. In remand proceedings, the suspect does not take his plea and is often detained for a short period of time, subject to the court’s discretion to extend such detention time, upon a reasonable suspicion that he committed a crime.
  2. Unlike holding charge, remand is constitutionally supported under section 35(1) of the Constitution, and in Lufadeju v.

Johnson, the Supreme Court declared the pre-trial detention constitutionally valid and laid to rest the controversy between the two concepts. However, where the period of detention is unreasonable, such will tantamount to holding charge. Although defined earlier, real time facts will prove imperative in expounding the concept.

  • Here are practical scenarios: Skiru Alade was born in Nigeria in 1975.
  • He was self-employed as a panel beater in Lagos before his arrest.
  • On or about March the 9 th 2003, Alade was arrested near the old Lagos toll gate area by a police officer in ordinary clothes, who neither disclosed his identity nor gave any reason for the arrest.

The policeman then forcefully dragged Alade to the Ketu police station in Lagos State, where he was detained. Pursuant to the Holding Charge, on May 15 th 2003, a Magistrate ordered Alade to be remanded in custody pending investigation and arraignment.

  1. He was then held at the Kirikiri Maximum Security Prison Apapa, Lagos, for nine years and six months without arraignment or trial.
  2. Encouragingly, on September 18, 2012, following the judgment of the ECOWAS court and a review by the Chief Judge of Lagos, he was released.
  3. Hyginus Ajibo was accused of murder.

He was arrested and remanded in custody in 1997 where he spent the first three years. In the year 2000, he was charged to Enugu High Court where commencement of his trial got stuck. He spent approximately 16 yearsfrom the day of his remand in prison custody without trial.

On 17th February, 2014, the High Court granted him bail pending the determination of his trial The Ordeal In a report by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), covering data from 2011 to 2015, it was reported that up to 72.5% of Nigeria’s total prison population are inmates serving term while awaiting trials.

The National Human Rights Commission also reported earlier in a 2014 report that 70% of the inmates in prison across the country are awaiting trial. The same report confirmed that the “total prison population in Nigeria is 56,718, comprising— 17,686 convicts (4,000 lifers; 1,612 condemned convicts) and 39,032 Awaiting Trial Persons.

In addition, the Vanguard Newspaper of 14th January, 2017 reported that no fewer than 47,817 inmates are currently awaiting trial in Nigerian prisons out of a total number of 69,200 detainees. With this data, the truth remains that holding charge infringes and has infringed directly on the fundamental right of the suspect who is entitled to his liberty and be brought before a competent court within a reasonable time, and transcends to other areas.

These implications of ‘holding charge’ on the victim is best termed an ‘ordeal’. The ordeals of Skiru Alade and Hyginus Ajibo may be imagined, for example. On the least, the ordeal of the victim of holding charge (the suspect or accused) includes presumption of guilt without fair hearing, restriction of movement, physical brutality, mental deterioration, health hazards exposure and financial downgrade.

  1. The Reaction The incessant practice of holding charge in our legal system, in the wake of the ordeal, seems to have been receiving some attention from the judiciary world, an attention which is geared on the legality of the procedure which begets the practice of holding charge itself.
  2. This attention takes root from the fundamental rights tenets of the Constitution, right one of which is the right to be at liberty without unlawful restrictions.

The idea of right to liberty, itself, is a core democratic principle that negates every form of illegal detention. It’s the very spirit upon which the English common law prides itself which have birthed various rights such as Habeas Corpus and Bail. Section 35(1) of the Constitution guarantees both the right to liberty of an individual and the exceptions to this right.

Of all the exceptions, none suggests the fact that an arrested person, charged without due investigation should be denied his/her fundamental right to liberty. In fact, it is a gross misnomer for the police to detain and prosecute without a probable evidence as it negates the very duty of the Criminal Investigation Department, a critical organ of the police force.

In furtherance of the right to liberty, section 35(4)(a)(b) of the Constitution instructs: ” Any person who is arrested or detained in accordance with subsection 1(c) of this section shall be brought before a competent court of law within a reasonable time, and if he’s not tried within a period- two months from the date of his arrest or detention in the case of a person who is in custody or is not entitled to bail or three months from the date of his arrest or detention in the case of a person who has been released on bail, he shall (without prejudice to any further proceeding that may be brought against him) be released either unconditionally, or upon such conditions that are reasonably necessary to ensure that he appears for trial at a later date.” ‘Reasonable time’ has been written to be one day or two days or on the period permitted by the court all depending on the peculiarity of the case.

  1. This partly concludes the notion of unconstitutionality of the outright detention of an individual.
  2. The illegality of ‘holding charge’ is also unlawful with sights on our regional international laws.
  3. The African Charter for Humans and Peoples Right in Articles 6 and 7, for instance, ensures the right to liberty and freedom from arbitrary detention and the right to be heard within a reasonable time.

‘Holding charge’ has become an unbending concept whose legality has also been the subject of judicial review wherein the Courts have declared it unlawful, unconstitutional and unknown. In the case of Olawoye v. Commissioner of Police, the Court of Appeal, held, per Abdullahi, JCA, as follows: “The arrangement before a Magistrate court tantamount to holding charge which has been described as unconstitutional and illegal by this court.

See also:  What Federal Law S Did South Carolina Nullify Quizlet?

In the case of Enwere v C.O.P(Supra) it was held that holding charge is unknown to Nigeria law and an accused detained thereunder is entitled to be released on bail within a reasonable time before trial more so in a non- capital offence.” The same penultimate Court re-echoed this position in the case of Shagari v.

Commissioner of Police, where it held: “A holding charge is unknown to Nigeria law and any person or an accused person detained thereunder, is entitled to be released on bail within a reasonable time before trial (more so in non-capital offences). A holding charge has no place in Nigerian Judicial system.

Persons detained under an ‘’illegal”, ‘’unlawful”, and ‘’unconstitutional” document tagged ‘’holding charge” must unhesitatingly be released on bail. In the instant case, the appellants were arraigned before a Chief Magistrate’s court which certainly lacked jurisdiction in homicide cases/offences and there was no formal charge framed against them accompanied by proof of evidence as to the time the high court heard their motion for bail.

The above amounted to special circumstances for High court to admit them to bail, but by continuing to detain them on a ‘’holding charge” was not a judicious exercise of discretion. See Enwere v C.O.P (1993) 6NWLR (PT 299) 333; Jimoh v C.O.P. (2004) 17NWLR (PT 902) 389; Ogori v Kolawole (1985)6NCLR 534; Onagoruwa v State (1993) 7NWLR (PT 303) 49, Oshinaya v C.O.P.

  1. 2004) 17NWLR (PT901)” In the earlier decided case of Anaekwe v.
  2. Commissioner of Police, the Court of Appeal had grounded the following, through Niki Tobi, JCA (as he then was).
  3. Thus: “The function of the prosecution is not to rush a charge to a magistrate court, a court which has no jurisdiction to try capital cases and play for time while investigation is in progress.

I have said it before and I will say it again that the unique police phraseology of a holding charge is not known to our criminal law and jurisprudence. It is either charge or not. There is nothing like holding charge.” The Repair The aberrant practice of holding charge raises quite a number of fundamental issues and ignites the questions about the point in which the Police are expected to institute an action in court after effecting an arrest, the duty of the judge in the event that he is made an adjudicator in a matter of holding charge, the legal justification for having an offence intentionally instituted at the wrong court, and the institutional adjustments to be made.

Section 31 of the Police Act provides that where an alleged offence is reported to the police or a person is brought to the police station on the allegation of committing an offence, the police shall investigate the allegation in accordance with due process and reports it’s finding to the Attorney General of the Federation or of a state, as the case may be, for legal advice.

Then, an arrest is to be effected after preliminary inquiry or investigation and the issuance of a legal advice issued from the office of the Attorney General of the State. This is the recognized procedure and not otherwise. Following this avoids the institution of a matter in court which has no jurisdiction in a rush to prosecute the alleged offender.

It is worthy to put upfront that the arrest contemplated here are those where warrant is a prerequisite and not those without warrant. The Police, as that branch of the executive charged primarily with the maintenance of law and order and the enforcement of the law in the same breath, are granted the power to investigate, make an arrest and prosecute a matter in court.

While it generally needs a warrant to effect an arrest, the police force is empowered by section 38(1) of the Police Act to make an arrest without warrant under certain circumstances, two of which are when the alleged offender is found committing the crime and where there’s a clear suspicion as to the person who commits an offence and other conditions as stipulated by law.

  1. Same is permitted in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (“ACJA”), the Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Law (“CPC”) and the (“CPL”).
  2. Arrests with warrant are expected to be issued by the Court, a Justice of Peace (JP) or a Superior Police Officer upon the completion of a clear and concise investigation.

Where the Alleged offender is arrested in the scene of the crime while committing the crime, the need for further investigation is unnecessary. Anything below or beyond that is a nullity. On a different stretch, the law mandates the judge before whom a holding charge suit is brought to decline jurisdiction and direct the FIR or Complaint to the proper court clothed with jurisdiction.

The different provisions make this mandatory and does not require either the alleged offender, the Accused or his counsel to raise a written or oral preliminary objection before this is recognized. It is unlawful, then, for a court with no jurisdiction over a matter to take cognizance of the matter, as has become the practice of Lower Court judges today.

A mere adherence to the requirements of the law will help throw this unconstitutional practice to the confines of extinction which will ultimately dissuade prosecutors from instituting matters untimely and at the wrong places. The legal justification for the continuity of holding charge has been fear that the alleged offender who was not arrested on the crime will tamper with evidence or be at large as at the time the Legal Advice is ready and the carefulness of bringing the alleged offender before a court on time as stipulated by the Constitution, the jurisdiction of the Court notwithstanding.

  • Suffice to say with deference that these justifications are both baseless and ironically unjustifiable.
  • First, investigations when carried out do not need to be carried out in a reasonable suspicion of the alleged offender or allies.
  • Secondly, in a bid to bring the alleged accuser before the court of within a reasonable time, due diligence can be taken to ensure that the matter is brought before a court with competent jurisdiction who can lawfully take cognizance.

In a bid to further make well the ills in the system by taking a heed at Prof Fagbohun’s recommendations, it is advised that strict adherence by remanding Magistrates and High Court Judges to the provisions of the Constitution and other relevant procedural laws on the subject matter, the Chief Judge or Chief Magistrate should play a supervisory role on remanding judges and magistrates making it a duty to visit Correctional and Custodial Centers to take inventory of suspects in prison custody whose dates of remand have lapsed, the Legal Departments in the respective Police Divisional Offices should be formally saddled with responsibility to follow up with police prosecutors on remand cases, and the Comptrollers of Custodial and Correctional Centers should equally be formally mandated to take and keep records of remand cases and forward same to the Comptroller General of Correctional Centers who in turn will make it available to Chief Judges of Federal and State High Courts and Chief Magistrates for appropriate action as provided for under the Constitution.

  • Conclusion It is the fundamental right of every citizen of Nigeria to be free from unlawful restrictions, inhuman treatments and other unconstitutional practices as guaranteed by the Constitution and the African Charter, and the practice of holding charge is one that falls short of these rights.
  • It is about time our democratic values evolve and the knowledge of the law, its principles and its application fully understood and imbibed especially in its relation holding charge.

While this may be through reformative trainings for the Police, there should be created a perfect synergy between the Bar, the Bench and the Police Force. These forces should be a uniting agent in promoting the rule of law and weeding out any form of unconstitutional practice.

  1. An eradication of holding charge will indeed reduce the number of inmates awaiting trial which will lead to a consequential decongestion of the correctional facilities in the country.
  2. While the recommendations await application and holding of charges subsists, anyone who is at the mercy of holding charge should be aware of his or her right to bail under the law pending the institution of the matter in the proper court, as well as his right to institute a fundamental human right action distinct from the holding charge suit.

End Notes See https://blogs.umass.edu/demco/about/more-quotes-nabout-law-and-society assessed 30/12/2020 See https://www.premuimtimenng.com/features-and-interviews/195426-a-holding-charge-is-patently-illegal-under-the-constitution-part 1 :html assessed 29/12/2020 See “Constitutional validity of Pre-charge Detention of Suspects by Femi Falana https://opinion.premiumtimesng.com/2016/02/09/171032-2/ assessed 5/1/2021 A felony is a crime whose punishment, without proof of previous conviction, ranges from three years and life imprisonment to death penalty.

  • Capital offences, on the other hand, are offences whose punishment on conviction are death sentences.
  • As succinctly explained by Justice Niki Tobi, JCA as he then was in the case of Onagoruwa v.
  • The State (1993) 7NWLR (PT 303) 49: ‘’It iss an elementary but most vital requirement of our adjectival law that before the prosecution takes the decision to prosecute, which is a forerunner or pre-cursor to the charge decision, it must have at its disposal all the evidence to support the charge.

In a good number of cases, police in this country rush to court on what they generally refer to as holding charge.” See secs.293-299 of ACJA (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt.1037) 535. The facts of the case are that the Respondent was taken along with others to the magistrate court on holding charge for treason, and a remand order was sought.

  • The charges were read out to them, but plea was not taken.
  • The magistrate eventually ordered their remand to prison custody.
  • The Respondent applied for bail, but same was denied by the magistrate on the ground that the court did not have jurisdiction to grant bail on an offence it did not have jurisdiction to try.

Dissatisfied, the Respondent appealed to the High Court which affirmed the decision of the Magistrate’s court. The Respondent further appealed to the Court of Appeal, and the decision of the High Court was set aside. The Appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court which upheld the decisions of the Magistrate Court and High Court.

  • See sec.293(1) ACJA, sec.364(1) ACJL The Magistrate therefore cannot order his release and has no option under the law but to remand him in custody on the basis of a holding charge, without any determination whether they are sufficient grounds for detention.
  • See https://www.justiceinitiative.org/litigation/alade-v-federal-republic-nigeria assessed 2/1/2020 See https://dnllegalandstyle.com/2017/read-full-text-prof-fagbohuns-paper-holding-charges-remand-prior-trial/ assessed 5/1/2021 Constitution of the Federal republic of Nigeria (CFRN) 1999, as amended.

Ibid Ibid at 35(5)(a)(b) (2006) 2NWLR (pt 965) 427 at 442-443, paras H-A (CA) (2007) 5NNWLR (PT.1027) 275 AT 298 paras. C-G 302 Para. G-H, per Sanusi, JCA (1996) NWLR (PT.436) 320 The Police Act 2020 Ibid at sec.4 Ibid See sec.18 of ACJA and sec.26(a)-(m) of the CPC, sec.55 CPL See sec.151 of the CPC. What Is Holding In Law Price: ₦15,000 or £20 per copy : Contact: [email protected], [email protected] WhatsApp only: 0803-703-5989 : Voice Call – Mobile: 0817-630-8030, 0909-965-1401; 0705-767-0347; 0912-173-4691 : Landline: 09-2913581; 09-2913499 Book On “International Arbitration & ADR And The Rule Of Law” What Is Holding In Law Price: ₦15,000 or £20 per copy Contact Information Email: [email protected], [email protected] WhatsApp only : 0803-703-5989 Voice Call – Mobile: 0817-630-8030, +234-805-2128-456, +234-909- 9651-401 Landline: 09-2913581, +234-9- 2913499, +234-9- 2919209 Office Address : 50 Julius Nyerere Crescent,, Asokoro, Abuja – Nigeria.

What is a holding order?

Held Order Definition A held order is a market order that requires prompt execution for an immediate, This can be contrasted with a, which provides brokers with both time and price discretion to try and get a better fill for a customer.

  • A held order is given to a broker for prompt execution and an immediate fill, such as with a market order.
  • The benefit of a held order is that the customer will be sure to have executed the entire size of their order, whether a buy or a sale, without delay.
  • A not-held order, on the other hand, gives some discretion to the broker to work the order to try to find a better price.

In most cases, a trade is expected to be executed at the best offer for buy orders or at the best bid for sell orders. are a common example of held orders. When filling a held order, traders have very little discretion in finding a price because time is scarce.

Typically, they will be required to match the highest bid or lowest offer to facilitate an immediate transaction. For example, if the in Apple Inc. () is $156.90 / $157.00 and a trader receives a held order to purchase 100 shares, they would place a buy order at the offer price of $157.00, which would be executed immediately under normal market conditions.

See also:  How Are Coulomb Law And Newton Law Different?

Held orders are used by investors who need to change their exposure to a particular stock and want their order(s) executed without delay. There are times when a placing held order is not advisable. One such instance is when you are dealing in stocks. Suppose a small-cap stock has a wide bid-ask market spread of $1.50 / $2.25.

A trader who uses a held order is forced to pay the 33.3% spread ($0.75 / $2.25) to get prompt execution. In this instance, the trader may get a better price if they use discretion and sit at the top of the bid and incrementally increase the order price to entice a seller out of the woodwork. Of course, the 33.3% spread may be a reasonable price to pay if the trader is playing a breakout or closing a position that was a to begin with.

Most investors want to get the best price possible, but there are three situations that held orders are ideal for:

  1. Trading Breakouts — A held order could be used to enter the market on a if the trader wants an immediate entry into a stock and is not concerned about slippage costs. Slippage occurs if a alters the spread to their advantage after receiving a market order. In a fast-moving stock, traders are often prepared to pay slippage to ensure they receive an instant fill.
  2. Closing an Error Position — Traders may place a held order to unwind an error position they want to close immediately to reduce, For example, an investor may realize they had purchased the wrong stock and would place a held order to quickly reverse the position before they buy the correct security.
  3. Hedging — If a trader is engaging in a order, the hedge should be filled as soon as possible after the initial position is established so that the price of the hedging instrument does not change such that it is no longer an effective hedge. A held order would be useful in facilitating this.

Compare Accounts × The offers that appear in this table are from partnerships from which Investopedia receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where listings appear. Investopedia does not include all offers available in the marketplace. : Held Order Definition

What is another name for legal hold?

Getting sued (or suing someone) certainly isn’t a phrase most of us are pleased to hear. But let’s face it – life, and litigation, just happen sometimes. – And when it does, it’s good for laypeople to be familiar with the fundamental jargon, and even some legal staffers may need to refresh themselves.

After all, if you’ve received notice, it’s not the best time to start Googling “what is a litigation hold notice?” So, without further ado, let’s just into it – just what is a litigation hold? Firstly, a litigation hold goes by a few different names. It can be called a ‘legal hold,’ a ‘preservation order’, or a ‘hold order’.

Issued by a company’s legal team, it is a temporary suspension of an organization’s electronic or paper document destruction policies pertaining to any documents that may be relevant to a new or impending legal case. Quite a mouthful! Essentially, employees are instructed to refrain from deleting or discarding any documents that may be relevant to a lawsuit.

What is the synonym of holding?

Seize. clutch. hang on to. nab. hold on (to)

What is the difference between holding and finding?

What’s the difference between a court’s finding and a court’s holding ? – Judges at any level make findings of fact and holdings or conclusions of law. Good legal writers observe the distinction and never say that a court holds on questions of fact. Ex.: Because the court finds that the jury’s finding is supported by the evidence, the court holds that Gibbons is entitled to recover punitive damages from Allred & Co.

  1. In appellate courts, properly, only holdings are affirmed, whereas factual findings are disturbed only when clearly erroneous, against the great weight of the evidence, etc., depending on the standard of review.
  2. Generally, it is not correct for an appellate court to say that it affirms a finding of fact.

Next week: rulings vs. opinions vs. judgments vs. verdicts, etc. Further reading: Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage 362, 412 (3d ed.2011). Black’s Law Dictionary 749, 849 (10th ed.2014). Thanks to Justin Browne, Peter Haven, Rick Linsk, and Arthur L. Shingler III for suggesting this topic.

  1. Attend the most popular CLE seminar of all time.
  2. More than 215,000 people—including lawyers, judges, law clerks, and paralegals—have benefited since the early 1990s.
  3. You’ll learn the keys to professional writing and acquire no-nonsense techniques to make your letters, memos, and briefs more powerful.
  4. You’ll also learn what doesn’t work and why—know-how gathered through Professor Garner’s unique experience in training lawyers at the country’s top law firms, state and federal courts, government agencies, and Fortune 500 companies.

Professor Garner gives you the keys to make the most of your writing aptitude—in letters, memos, briefs, and more. The seminar covers five essential skills for persuasive writing:

framing issues that arrest the readers’ attention; cutting wordiness that wastes readers’ time; using transitions deftly to make your argument flow; quoting authority more effectively; and tackling your writing projects more efficiently.

He teaches dozens of techniques that make a big difference. Most important, he shows you what doesn’t work—and why—and how to cultivate skillfulness. Have you wanted to bring Professor Garner to teach your group? Contact us at for more information about in-house seminars. : LawProse Lesson # 164: What’s the difference between a court’s finding and a court’s holding? — LawProse

What is a brief holding?

The decision, or holding, is the court’s answer to a question presented to it for answer by the parties involved or raised by the court itself in its own reading of the case.

What is holding you in contempt?

What Is Contempt of Court in Family Law? – Contempt of court is used when an individual intentionally disobeys a court order. In family law, if someone is held in contempt, he/she has violated a child support, spousal support, domestic violence protective order, child custody, and/or visitation order, which must then be enforced.

Refusing to pay child or spousal supportViolating a restraining orderDisallowing your co-parent visitation rights as ordered in a parenting planFailing to return the child to your co-parent at the end of a visitation period

It is important to note that both an action and inaction can lead you to being held in contempt of court. There are two types of contempt: civil and criminal. The purpose of civil contempt is to coerce the defendant to adhere to what is required by the order for the benefit of the complainant.

What are 3 types of Judgement?

When a creditor desires to collect a debt from a debtor, they must first receive a judgment. There are several types of judgments that will suffice in this situation. The pretrial types of judgments are as follows: Confession of Judgment, Consent Judgment, Default Judgment.

  1. And Summary Judgment.
  2. A Confession of Judgment is a judgment that is filed when the debtor admits that there is a debt and agrees the judgment may be entered against the debtor.
  3. This type of judgment can only be entered when there is no pending litigation regarding the matter.
  4. If a Defendant signs a Confession of Judgment, they forfeit any rights that they have to dispute any claim as to this debt in the future.

Note that this type of judgment can be used in concert with a promissory note or payment agreement. Often, after a lawsuit is filed, a debtor will agree to make payments and a note or agreement and Confession of Judgment are executed, then the pending lawsuit is dismissed as the parties shift their reliance to the note and Confession.

A Consent Judgment is used when there is pending litigation and the debtor admits to the debt but is not able to pay the full amount of debt at that time. This type of judgment is essentially a settlement agreement between the parties that will be filed as a judgment on the debtor as part of the pending litigation and is enforceable as such.

Typically, in the case of a consent judgment, the creditor agrees not to execute on the judgment for as long as the payments are being made. If a debtor completely ignores a Summons and Complaint, then a Default Judgment is available to the creditor. This type of judgment results from a Defendant’s failure to respond to a complaint.

To obtain a Default Judgment there must be a verified complaint filed for a sum that can be determined with certainty by the information provided in the Complaint. If there is no Answer to the complaint within the time permitted by statute, the Plaintiff files a Motion and Affidavit for Entry of Default along with an Entry of Default (Order) which provides the requisite information that service was proper and the defendant has failed to respond.

The Plaintiff then files a Motion for Default Judgment and submits a Default Judgment to the Court. The Court will enter the Default Judgment in the amount that is claimed in the Complaint plus interest, and attorney’s fees and costs, if appropriate. Further into the litigation process, another type of judgment is a Summary Judgment,

  1. A Summary Judgment is a court order ruling that there are no issues of material fact in the case and that there is sufficient evidence to declare one party the winner in a case without having a full trial.
  2. Either party can move for a Summary Judgment, and any motion for Summary Judgment should be accompanied by an affidavit from the moving party laying out the evidentiary elements necessary for the court to award Summary Judgment.

A motion for Summary Judgment requires notice and a hearing to be held allowing the parties to argue their positions. After the hearing, if a Judge finds that there are no issues of material fact in dispute and that a judgment as a matter of law is appropriate, the Judge will enter a Summary Judgment.

  1. Note that if the Plaintiff obtains a Summary Judgment in a “simple” collections case, then the judgment will be for the amount pled in the Complaint, plus interest, and attorney’s fees, if applicable.
  2. There is a fifth type of judgment that being a judgment awarded after a trial in an amount determined by the trier-of-fact (judge or jury).

The lifespan of any judgment in North Carolina is 10 years. The plaintiff will have 10 years from the date on which the judgment was entered to attempt to collect on the judgment through the post-judgment enforcement procedures. However, there is a way to “renew” a judgment to extend the enforceability for an additional 10 years.

A creditor can renew a judgment in North Carolina, by bringing an independent action against the debtor for the amount that the creditor is still owed, which could be the entire amount of the first judgment, within ten years of the date the original judgment was entered. It is important that there is no lapse in judgment, so it is imperative to file the new independent action before the ten years of the original judgment expires.

This action is typically a simple one, and if there is still money owed on the original judgment there will usually be a new judgment entered that will give the creditor another ten year period to collect the debt.

What is the difference between holding and dicta?

A holding is ‘a court’s determination of a matter of law pivotal to its decision’ that sets binding precedent; in contrast, a dictum is ‘a judicial comment that is unneces- sary to the decision in the case and therefore not prece- dential’ (Garner and Black 2009; Ryan 2003).

Why is holding not allowed?

Holding (American football) Type of penalty in American football A offensive lineman holds, preventing him from tackling, In, holding is the illegal use of the hand or arm to restrain another player who is not in possession of the ball. Holding is prohibited in most football leagues because it does not allow fair play of the game and increases the risk for injury.

  • While in the field of play, offensive holding results in a 10-yard penalty, or half the distance to the goal line when there are fewer than 20 yards between the line of scrimmage and the offense’s end zone.
  • If the act of holding is committed from within the offense’s own end zone, the result is a,
  • It is one of the most common penalties in American football.

In the NFL, when holding is committed by the defense, the penalty is 5 yards and an automatic first down. In the 2021 NFL season offensive holding was the most common penalty issued with 649 penalties being issued for 6,297 penalty yards. In addition Defensive holding was the forth most common penalty in the 2021 NFL season as well with 163 penalties being issued for a total of 780 penalty yards.

See also:  Why Is K Negative In Hooke'S Law?

What is a holding Offence?

A new definition clarifies that a HOLDING OFFENCE. occurs only when a player’s contact with an. opponent’s body or equipment impedes the opponent’s. movement.

Is a hold different than a charge?

In summary, the difference between a hold and a charge is that a hold can be cancelled and the money gets immediately released to your account, while a charge requires a refund and it may take 5-10 business days for the money to reach your account.

What Does not holding charge mean?

The Causes of a Failed Charge – Here’s a quick rundown of some of the most common causes of a battery that won’t hold a charge:

You’ve left your lights on, or some other accessory that draws battery power even when your car isn’t running. When you drive the car, the battery isn’t getting recharged, i.e., there is a mechanical charging problem. There is a parasitic electrical drain on the battery, possibly caused by a bad alternator. The battery is simply old and it’s time for you to replace it.

How long can you hold without a charge?

How long do the police have to hold me in custody in England and Wales ? – Under government law, the police may detain you for up to 24 hours until they have to charge you with a crime or release you. They may request to keep you for up to 36 or 96 hours.

If the Police want to detain you for 36 hours, they require authorisation from a Superintendent however strict criteria for this approval must be followed. Should the Police want to detain you for over 36 hours up to 96 hours, they can only do with approval from the Magistrates Court. The Police can detain you for up to 28 days in relation to a suspicion of terrorism under section 23 of the Terrorism Act 2006.

The police have a duty to not hold you in custody unreasonable or unnecessarily. You can only be kept in police custody without being charged for the time limits above. If you are held for longer or the Police have not followed the correct procedure, you may be able to make a claim against the police for false imprisonment.

What is a holding in law example?

The Language of Judicial Rulings – Legal literacy includes the ability to identify accurately the varieties of statements that a court makes in the course of a judicial opinion. The language in which a judicial statement appears may convey important information about the function of the statement within the underlying legal dispute and possibly its relation to other legal sources (when an opinion “follows,” “limits,” or “distinguishes” an earlier opinion).

  • For example, the “holding” in a case, as distinguished from the court’s recitation of a rule or its reasoning, refers to the court’s answer to the issue presented for decision, that is, it refers to the court’s application of the governing legal rule to the particular set of facts before it.
  • In some cases the court states its holding explicitly; in other instances the holding must be inferred from the result in the case coupled with the court’s key reasoning.

In either event, the holding is the portion of an opinion that a court or a litigant may cite as precedent in a later case involving a similar issue. The holding should also be distinguished from a court’s “finding” on a factual question in the case. In the following examples drawn from the report of the decision in Palmore v.

Sidoti, 466 U.S.429 (1984), which is summarized below, select the term that will characterize most accurately and precisely the character and function of the state court’s or the Supreme Court’s statements in this case. Summary of the case: In Palmore, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a state court decision which, in the words of the Court, had “divest a natural mother of her infant child because of her remarriage to a person of a different race” and awarded custody to the child’s biological father, who had also remarried.466 U.S.

at 430. Although, in the words of the state court, “there is no issue as to either devotion to the child, adequacy of housing facilities, or respectability of the new spouse of either parent,” the court based its custody decision on a determination that, when the child became of “school age and thus more vulnerable to peer pressures, suffer from the social stigmatization that is sure to come” from living in a household with a stepparent of a different race.

  1. Id, at 431. The U.S.
  2. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the state court on the ground that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited a court from basing its holding on the ground of race. Id, at 433.
  3. In the words of the Supreme Court, “t would ignore reality to suggest that racial and ethnic prejudices do not exist or that all manifestations of those prejudices have been eliminated.

There is a risk that a child living with a stepparent of a different race may be subject to a variety of pressures and stresses not present if the child were living with parents of the same racial or ethnic origin. The question, however, is whether the reality of private biases and the possible injury they might inflict are permissible considerations for removal of an infant child from the custody of its natural mother.

We have little difficulty concluding that they are not. (Footnote omitted.) The Constitution cannot control such prejudices but neither can it tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.” Id, For the full text of the Supreme Court decision, click here,

1. In Palmore v. Sidoti, the state court _ that there was no question as to either biological parent’s devotion to the child.2. The state court _ that remaining in a racially mixed household would ultimately have a damaging impact on the child.3. The state court _ that, where a child’s biological mother had remarried a person of a different race and it was inevitable that the child would suffer social stigma if she remained with her mother in a mixed-race household, the best interests of the child would be served by awarding custody to the child’s biological father.4.

In reversing the state court’s decision in Palmore, the U.S. Supreme Court _ that where a state court made no effort to place its custody determination on any ground other than the suspected impact of private racial biases, the state court’s ruling violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.5.

The Supreme Court _ that the law cannot give effect to private biases.

What is the difference between holding and finding?

What’s the difference between a court’s finding and a court’s holding ? – Judges at any level make findings of fact and holdings or conclusions of law. Good legal writers observe the distinction and never say that a court holds on questions of fact. Ex.: Because the court finds that the jury’s finding is supported by the evidence, the court holds that Gibbons is entitled to recover punitive damages from Allred & Co.

  1. In appellate courts, properly, only holdings are affirmed, whereas factual findings are disturbed only when clearly erroneous, against the great weight of the evidence, etc., depending on the standard of review.
  2. Generally, it is not correct for an appellate court to say that it affirms a finding of fact.

Next week: rulings vs. opinions vs. judgments vs. verdicts, etc. Further reading: Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage 362, 412 (3d ed.2011). Black’s Law Dictionary 749, 849 (10th ed.2014). Thanks to Justin Browne, Peter Haven, Rick Linsk, and Arthur L. Shingler III for suggesting this topic.

Attend the most popular CLE seminar of all time. More than 215,000 people—including lawyers, judges, law clerks, and paralegals—have benefited since the early 1990s. You’ll learn the keys to professional writing and acquire no-nonsense techniques to make your letters, memos, and briefs more powerful. You’ll also learn what doesn’t work and why—know-how gathered through Professor Garner’s unique experience in training lawyers at the country’s top law firms, state and federal courts, government agencies, and Fortune 500 companies.

Professor Garner gives you the keys to make the most of your writing aptitude—in letters, memos, briefs, and more. The seminar covers five essential skills for persuasive writing:

framing issues that arrest the readers’ attention; cutting wordiness that wastes readers’ time; using transitions deftly to make your argument flow; quoting authority more effectively; and tackling your writing projects more efficiently.

He teaches dozens of techniques that make a big difference. Most important, he shows you what doesn’t work—and why—and how to cultivate skillfulness. Have you wanted to bring Professor Garner to teach your group? Contact us at for more information about in-house seminars. : LawProse Lesson # 164: What’s the difference between a court’s finding and a court’s holding? — LawProse

What’s a holding order?

Held Order Definition A held order is a market order that requires prompt execution for an immediate, This can be contrasted with a, which provides brokers with both time and price discretion to try and get a better fill for a customer.

  • A held order is given to a broker for prompt execution and an immediate fill, such as with a market order.
  • The benefit of a held order is that the customer will be sure to have executed the entire size of their order, whether a buy or a sale, without delay.
  • A not-held order, on the other hand, gives some discretion to the broker to work the order to try to find a better price.

In most cases, a trade is expected to be executed at the best offer for buy orders or at the best bid for sell orders. are a common example of held orders. When filling a held order, traders have very little discretion in finding a price because time is scarce.

  • Typically, they will be required to match the highest bid or lowest offer to facilitate an immediate transaction.
  • For example, if the in Apple Inc.
  • Is $156.90 / $157.00 and a trader receives a held order to purchase 100 shares, they would place a buy order at the offer price of $157.00, which would be executed immediately under normal market conditions.

Held orders are used by investors who need to change their exposure to a particular stock and want their order(s) executed without delay. There are times when a placing held order is not advisable. One such instance is when you are dealing in stocks. Suppose a small-cap stock has a wide bid-ask market spread of $1.50 / $2.25.

  • A trader who uses a held order is forced to pay the 33.3% spread ($0.75 / $2.25) to get prompt execution.
  • In this instance, the trader may get a better price if they use discretion and sit at the top of the bid and incrementally increase the order price to entice a seller out of the woodwork.
  • Of course, the 33.3% spread may be a reasonable price to pay if the trader is playing a breakout or closing a position that was a to begin with.

Most investors want to get the best price possible, but there are three situations that held orders are ideal for:

  1. Trading Breakouts — A held order could be used to enter the market on a if the trader wants an immediate entry into a stock and is not concerned about slippage costs. Slippage occurs if a alters the spread to their advantage after receiving a market order. In a fast-moving stock, traders are often prepared to pay slippage to ensure they receive an instant fill.
  2. Closing an Error Position — Traders may place a held order to unwind an error position they want to close immediately to reduce, For example, an investor may realize they had purchased the wrong stock and would place a held order to quickly reverse the position before they buy the correct security.
  3. Hedging — If a trader is engaging in a order, the hedge should be filled as soon as possible after the initial position is established so that the price of the hedging instrument does not change such that it is no longer an effective hedge. A held order would be useful in facilitating this.

Compare Accounts × The offers that appear in this table are from partnerships from which Investopedia receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where listings appear. Investopedia does not include all offers available in the marketplace. : Held Order Definition

What does holding mean in a job?

To hold a job just means to keep your job for a certain period of time. It’s always best to keep a job for at least 6 months or longer before you decide to change.