本网页基于《法律英语泛读教程(上)》第一单元
WILLIAM MARBURY v. JAMES MADISON案法庭意见书设计,聚焦法律英语学习与案例展示
Supreme Court of United States Opinion of the Court. At the last term on the affidavits then read and filed with the clerk, a rule was granted in this case, requiring the secretary of state to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, directing him to deliver to William Marbury his commission as a justice of the peace for the county of Washington, in the district of Columbia. No cause has been shown, and the present motion is for a mandamus. The peculiar delicacy of this case, the novelty of some of its circumstances, and the real difficulty attending the points which occur in it, require a complete exposition of the principles on which the opinion to be given by the court is founded. These principles have been, on the side of the applicant, very ably argued at the bar. In rendering the opinion of the court, there will be some departure in form, though not in substance, from the points stated in that argument. In the order in which the court has viewed this subject, the following questions have been considered and decided: 1stly. Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands? 2ndly. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy? 3rdly. If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court? The first object of inquiry is, 1stly. Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands? His right originates in an act of congress passed in February, 1801, concerning the district of Columbia. After dividing the district into two counties, the 11th section of this law enacts, “that there shall be appointed in and for each of the said counties, such number of discreet persons to be justices of the peace as the president of the United States shall, from time to time, think expedient, to continue in office for five years.” It appears, from the affidavits, that in compliance with this law, a commission for William Marbury, as a justice of peace for the county of Washington, was signed by John Adams, then President of the United States; after which the seal of the United States was affixed to it; but the commission has never reached the person for whom it was made out.
| Element Name(要素名称) | Definition(定义) | Example in the Excerpt(原文示例) | 
|---|---|---|
| Court Identification (法院标识) | Indicates the judicial body issuing the opinion, usually placed at the beginning of the document to confirm the authority of the decision-maker.(指明出具意见书的法院,通常位于文档开头,确认裁决主体的权威性) | "Supreme Court of United States" | 
| Opinion Label (意见书标识) | Distinguishes the official opinion of the court from dissenting opinions (by judges who disagree) or concurring opinions (by judges who agree for different reasons).(表明内容为法院官方意见,区别于反对意见或协同意见) | "Opinion of the Court" | 
| Procedural History (诉讼程序史) | Describes the background of the case, including previous court proceedings and the current motion, to help readers understand the case's development.(描述案件背景,包括先前诉讼程序与当前动议,帮助读者了解案件进展) | "At the last term on the affidavits... No cause has been shown, and the present motion is for a mandamus." | 
| Legal Questions (法律问题) | Core legal issues that the court needs to resolve, usually listed clearly to guide the subsequent reasoning and judgment.(法院需裁决的核心法律问题,通常明确列出,引导后续推理与裁决) | The three questions: 1. Marbury’s right to the commission; 2. Legal remedy for violated right; 3. Mandamus as a proper remedy. | 
| Factual Basis (事实依据) | Presents key facts of the case (e.g., events, evidence) that support the court's analysis and judgment.(呈现案件关键事实,如事件经过、证据等,为法院的分析与裁决提供支撑) | "a commission for William Marbury... was signed by John Adams... the seal of the United States was affixed to it; but the commission has never reached him." | 
| Legal Authority (法律依据) | Cites laws, statutes, or precedents to justify the court's reasoning, ensuring the judgment is based on legal provisions.(引用法律、制定法或先例,为法院的推理提供依据,确保裁决有法可依) | "an act of congress passed in February, 1801" and "the 11th section of this law" |