User:Notecardforfree/sandbox

=Motion to tax costs=

A motion to tax costs is procedure where a party challenges court costs that are claimed by an opposing party. This type of motion is permitted in a number of American jurisdictions, and some state legislatures have set specific guidelines for the types of costs that are recoverable.

Procedures
A motion to tax costs is filed by the party "against whom costs are sought". Some jurisdictions provide that motions to tax costs may be filed after judgment is entered in a case, and even after the resolution of an appeal, as long as the motion is filed within a reasonable period of time. Some jurisdictions also allow parties to appeal rulings on motions to tax by filing an appropriate motion in an appellate court.

Recoverable costs
Some jurisdictions have established statutory guidelines for costs that may be recovered by a prevailing party. In California, for example, parties may recover fees that were paid to expert witnesses as long as the costs are "reasonable in amount".

Definition
A trial is generally defined as process where a tribunal makes a determination about disputed issues of fact or law.

"The general term for proceedings, civil or criminal, in a court of first instance, leading to the court's determination of the matter in issue. In various kinds of proceedings there are other terms for the same process, such as 'hearing' in the Chancery Division, where the trial is by affidavit, or 'proof' in the Scottish civil courts in cases without a jury."

Trial by a court or judge
Bench trials

Summary adjudication

Function of trials
The exercise of judicial power by courts of law has been described as an "important" component of "national governance."

Fourth Amendment searches and seizures based on anonymous tips
Before conducting an arrest, law enforcement officers must have probable cause that a suspect has engaged in criminal activity. Officers may also conduct temporary detentions when they have reasonable suspicion "that criminal activity may be afoot", but officers cannot rely upon a mere "hunch". In the 1960s, the Supreme Court of the United States developed a two-step test to determine whether a tip from an anonymous informant can be used to supply probable cause. This test was derived from the Court's decisions in Aguilar v. Texas and Spinelli v. United States, which held that an anonymous tip may provide probable cause if officers can establish the "basis of knowledge" and "veracity" of the anonymous tip. Under this standard, a tip had "veracity" if the informant was "credible" and "reliable". Additionally, the "basis of knowledge" and "veracity" elements were "treated as entirely separate requirements, which must be independently satisfied in every case in order to sustain a determination of probable cause."

In 1983, the Supreme Court abandoned the Aguilar–Spinelli test in Illinois v. Gates, where the Court established that a "totality of the circumstances" test should be used to determine whether an anonymous tip is sufficiently reliable to provide probable cause. The Court held that the Aguilar-Spinelli text could not be "be reconciled with the fact that many warrants are ... issued on the basis of nontechnical, common-sense judgments of laymen applying a standard less demanding than those used in more formal legal proceedings". In Gates, ... TALK ABOUT FACTS OF CASE.

Although the court ultimately endorsed a "totality of the circumstances" test, the Court also concluded that an informant's "veracity," "reliability," and "basis of knowledge" remained "highly relevant in determining the value of his report."