- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
We used to do that, and maybe there's still a state that does, but we now as a general rule keep the caption the same on appeal.In jurisdictions where the head of state is the British monarch, criminal prosecutions are brought in their name using the Latin for King or Queen, Rex or Regina, abbreviated to R, eg R v Yaniv. On appeal, that then becomes Yaniv v The King, abbreviated to Yaniv v R (at least in my part of his realms. Canada still cites the appeal as R v Yaniv because much stupid).
There are some exceptions, like habeas, mandamus, and other petitions for extraordinary writs, but those are generally considered original actions in their own right against a penitentiary (often naming the warden or other official), a lower court, or government agency.
There used to be more arcane rules, like the appellant showing up first regardless of whether they were the plaintiff below, with bizarre names like "plaintiff-in-error" and "defendant-in-error," (rather than merely appellant and appellee). And there are still conventions when both parties appeal to call the responding party "cross-appellant" for purposes of that party's own appeal of the trial court's judgment.
So it's a somewhat more standard chaotic mess but there are still enough old cases with the old styles of captioning that you have to keep track of whatever quirks there used to be (or still are) (and never mind In res and ex rel.s and the like).
I'd suggest exiling him to Texas where the natives will take matters into their own hands, but seriously, Texas has done nothing to deserve him.It'd be nice to at least see someone beat his ass, but sadly there are no Canadians with the strength or will to do so.