libterm.com Prohibition was a significant social and legal movement that banned the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcoholic beverages in the United States from 1920 to 1933. This era aimed to reduce crime and corruption but often led to unintended consequences such as the rise of organized crime and illegal speakeasies. Discover how Prohibition shaped American history and what lessons your understanding of this period can reveal by reading the full article.
Table of Comparison
| Aspect | Prohibition | Allocatur |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Judicial writ restraining a lower court from exceeding its jurisdiction | Permission granted by a higher court to issue a writ or proceed with a case |
| Purpose | Prevent unlawful exercise of judicial power | Authorize issuance of specific writs or legal actions |
| Authority | Issued by higher courts to lower courts | Granted by appellate or superior courts |
| Usage | Stops ongoing proceedings exceeding jurisdiction | Allows courts to review or intervene in cases |
| Legal Effect | Immediate halt of illegal court actions | Permits further judicial process or review |
| Application Area | Writ of prohibition in civil and criminal cases | Allocatur applies primarily in appellate procedures |
Introduction to Prohibition and Allocatur
Prohibition and Allocatur are distinct legal remedies serving different functions in judicial review processes. Prohibition is a writ issued by a higher court directing a lower court or tribunal to stop proceedings that exceed their jurisdiction or act contrary to the rules of natural justice. Allocatur, on the other hand, is an allowance or permission granted by the court to proceed with a writ or legal process, signifying the court's approval for the matter to be heard or acted upon.
Historical Evolution of Prohibition and Allocatur
Prohibition originated in common law as a writ issued by courts to prevent inferior tribunals from exceeding their jurisdiction, serving as a preliminary check against legal overreach. Allocatur evolved as a formal court authorization allowing the allowance of writs and appeals, gradually institutionalized in the English legal system during the 18th and 19th centuries to regulate appellate procedures. The historical evolution of these legal instruments reflects the development of checks and balances in judicial authority, shaping procedural law frameworks in common law jurisdictions.
Legal Definitions: Prohibition vs Allocatur
Prohibition is a writ issued by a higher court to prevent a lower court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting contrary to the law. Allocatur is an order granted by a court allowing a party to appeal a lower court's decision, serving as a preliminary approval in the appellate process. Both serve distinct legal functions: prohibition restricts unlawful judicial action, while allocatur permits judicial review through appeal.
Core Purpose and Function of Prohibition
Prohibition serves as a judicial remedy designed to restrain inferior courts or public authorities from acting beyond their jurisdiction or violating procedural fairness, ensuring adherence to legal boundaries. Its core purpose is to maintain the rule of law by preventing unlawful actions before they occur, safeguarding individuals' rights from arbitrary or ultra vires decisions. Allocatur, in contrast, is an authorization to allow a writ to be issued, functioning as a procedural approval rather than a substantive restriction on authority.
Primary Objectives of Allocatur
Allocatur primarily aims to review the propriety of a lower court's decision by granting permission for an appeal, ensuring the case meets specific legal criteria for higher court consideration. It serves as a procedural tool to filter cases involving significant legal questions or matters requiring authoritative interpretation. The primary objective of allocatur is to maintain judicial efficiency by preventing frivolous appeals and focusing appellate resources on cases with substantive legal impact.
Procedural Differences Between Prohibition and Allocatur
Prohibition is a judicial order issued by a higher court to a lower court, preventing it from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting contrary to law, while allocatur refers to the allowance of a writ or the permission to appeal in certain jurisdictions. Prohibition acts as an interlocutory remedy to halt proceedings before an error occurs, whereas allocatur is procedural approval for appellate review after a decision has been rendered. The key procedural difference lies in timing and function: prohibition is a preventive measure to restrain jurisdictional overreach, while allocatur serves as a gateway for appellate jurisdiction.
Circumstances Calling for Prohibition
Prohibition is issued to prevent a lower court or tribunal from acting without or in excess of jurisdiction, especially when no other remedy exists to restrain illegal acts. Circumstances calling for prohibition include cases where judicial authorities proceed against natural justice, act contrary to the law, or when no jurisdiction is vested upon them by law. In contrast, allocatur serves as a formal writ granting permission, often related to procedural wrangles, and does not function as a preventive remedy like prohibition.
Situations Where Allocatur is Applicable
Allocatur is applicable in legal contexts where a court grants permission to appeal or review a lower court's decision, often after a petition highlighting significant legal errors or questions of law. It is typically invoked in appellate or supreme courts to ensure proper judicial oversight and correct application of legal principles in complex or precedent-setting cases. Unlike prohibition, which prevents a lower court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction, allocatur deals with the procedural authorization for appellate examination and is crucial in upholding justice through higher court intervention.
Key Case Laws on Prohibition and Allocatur
Key case laws on Prohibition include *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Northumbria Police Authority* (1989), which established limits on judicial review via prohibition orders to prevent lower courts from acting beyond jurisdiction. In *Bennion v Tennessee Valley Authority* (1933), the court emphasized that prohibition serves as a remedy against tribunals acting without legal authority. Regarding Allocatur, *Steel v State* (1888) demonstrated the discretionary power of courts in granting allocatur for appeals, underscoring the importance of legal merit and jurisdictional considerations in appellate procedures.
Comparative Analysis: Prohibition vs Allocatur
Prohibition and allocatur serve distinct functions in appellate law, with prohibition acting as a writ to prevent a lower court or public authority from exceeding jurisdiction, ensuring legal boundaries are respected. Allocatur, on the other hand, primarily grants permission to appeal or file a petition, functioning as a procedural gatekeeper in higher courts. The comparative analysis reveals prohibition as a corrective mechanism halting unauthorized actions, while allocatur facilitates judicial review by authorizing appellate consideration of a case.
Prohibition Infographic
