In the U. S. federal court system, criminal defendants must file a notice of appeal within 10 days of the entry of either the judgment or the order being appealed, or the right to appeal is forfeited.

All those convicted defendants appealed.

The defendants appealed against that court's ruling.

In her rationale, the judge also said that it is not up to the defendants to teach youngsters human anatomy ; however, her decision was appealed by Krzysztofek's female friend soon afterwards, with the plea of not guilty.

Kunstler brought the first federal case under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which allowed the removal of cases from county court to be appealed ; the defendants were protestors at the 1964 New York World's Fair.

" The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal but the appeal was dismissed, Lord Justice Laws giving a judgment with which the Chancellor of the High Court and Lady Justice Rafferty agreed.

Following the 2003 intrasession appointment of William H. Pryor, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, a small number of criminal defendants whose appeals were denied by panels including Pryor appealed on the basis that Pryor's appointment was invalid.

From there, the school-district defendants appealed to the United States Supreme Court, where the consolidation with Brown occurred.

Both the plaintiffs and the defendants appealed this award.

The defendants appealed their case directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.

They appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled against the defendants on June 4, 1951 by a vote of six to two in Dennis v. United States,.

LaRouche and the other defendants appealed that effort on October 5, 1988, saying that a new trial would create double jeopardy.

The defendants in the Alexandria trial appealed their convictions to Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 6, 1989.

The case was appealed in 1996 before the Court of Appeal for Ontario by the Church of Scientology and one of the individual defendants, Jacqueline Matz.

On 3 December 2003, the court found all three defendants guilty and sentenced Nahimana and Ngeze to life imprisonment and Barayagwiza to imprisonment for 35 years-this was appealed.

Lawyers for the defendants had previously appealed to the Supreme Court of Victoria, in an Originating Motion alleging both that Higgins showed signs of bias, that there were errors in the decision and that the Act itself was unconstitutional.

The court ultimately dismissed before trial on defendants ' motion for summary judgment, but the plaintiffs appealed.

The defendants appealed to the House of Lords.

Although state officials were party defendants in the action, only the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York appealed.

The judges ruled in favor of the defendants, and the ruling was upheld when the plaintiffs appealed in 2001.

KAPL then appealed higher to the U. S. Supreme Court and while its petition was pending, the related case of Smith v. City of Jackson ( Docket 03-1160 ) caused the Court in to vacate the judgment in favor of the defendants ( Meacham II ).

The defendants ultimately appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

All these defendants appealed their convictions and argued that the consensual sodomy statute was unconstitutional.

Following conviction the defendants appealed.

Indeed, as Justice Brennan observes, the United States played an instrumental role in the criminal prosecution of Nazi officials who experimented with human subjects during the Second World War, and the standards that the Nuremberg Military Tribunals developed to judge the behavior of the defendants stated that the ' voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential ... to satisfy moral, ethical, and legal concepts.

In a 2 – 1 decision issued on September 17, 2010, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that corporations cannot be held liable for violations of customary international law, finding that: ( 1 ) under both U. S. Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedents over the previous 30 years that address ATS suits alleging violations of customary international law, the scope of liability is determined by customary international law itself ; ( 2 ) under Supreme Court precedent, the ATS requires courts to apply norms of international law — and not domestic law — to the scope of defendants ' liabilities.

On August 1, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the five Gen Re and AIG defendants ’ convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that the reported drop in share prices could not be attributed to the two reinsurance deals.

After exhausting the first appeal as of right, defendants usually petition the highest state court to review the decision.

Authorities making this decision tend to be cautious, and as a result, defendants can often be institutionalized for longer than they would have been incarcerated in prison.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the death sentences of Furman for murder, as well as two other defendants for rape.

Furthermore, although the decision awarded £ 60, 000 to the company, McDonald's legal costs were much greater, and the defendants lacked the funds to pay it.

In September 2005, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the defendants ' argument and affirmed the lower court's decision.

Those defendants unsuccessfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari from the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision.

The Supreme Court's decision opened up an era in which the Supreme Court gave closer scrutiny to the criminal justice given to black defendants in the segregated South, at least in well-publicized cases.

Anderson stated that the defendants had not been accorded a fair trial and strongly dissented to the decision to affirm their sentences.

On appeal once again, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that its first decision left little question as to the constitutionality of the statute, both under the defendants ' state constitutional challenge and a new argument based on due process under the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.

The coalition claimed Holder's decision gave alleged war criminals the same rights as American citizens ; it also said trying the defendants in New York City would endanger the citizenry.

Before Chappell's 1976 trial and conviction there was significant media criticism of the decision by the courts to refuse bail to various of the Headingley defendants ( for example Daily Telegraph editorial " WHEN TO GIVE BAIL ".

The defendants moved for summary judgment based on the U. S. Supreme Court's decision in < i > City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation </ i > ( 2005 ), in which the Court ruled that tribes could not re-establish sovereignty over lands they purchased on the open market, although the land was previously part of their reservation and traditional territory.

On June 23, 2008, the court issued a decision that dismissed a portion of the suit relying on New York law but rejected a motion by the defendants to dismiss the trademark claims.

In 1993, an appeals court decision said that Bostetter had specifically rejected that view, and said that the defendants had " greatly distorted the character of much of the evidence ".

Under the Hobbs Act, when an STB order or decision is challenged in the U. S. Court of Appeals, both the STB ( represented by the agency's own attorneys ) and the United States ( represented by U. S. Department of Justice ( DOJ ) attorneys ) must be named as " respondents " ( defendants ), and both have authority to appear in court in such cases.

In January 2008, the Hangzhou court issued a decision against the defendants.

In 1963 Mitchelson won a landmark United States Supreme Court decision, Douglas v. California, protecting indigent defendants ' right to legal counsel.

Topuria's American legal council have decryed the decision to close the courtroom and have urged the government of Georgia to stop the political persecutions against the defendants.

The court based its decision on its determination that ( 1 ) Apple's property as received by defendants was stolen, ( 2 ) that defendants did not convince the court they were journalists who could make legitimate use of the shield privilege, and ( 3 ) even if defendants were journalists, Apple's property rights took precedence over journalists ' rights to protect their sources.