document_title: High Court of Australia

question_text: how many courtrooms does the high court have

question_tokens: how many courtrooms does the high court have

text: High Court of Australia

text: Role of the court[edit]

text: The High Court exercises both original jurisdiction (cases that originate in the High Court) and appellate jurisdiction (appeals made to the High Court from other courts). The High Court is the court of final appeal with the ability to interpret the common law for the whole of Australia, not just the state or territory in which the matter arose. The High Court's broad jurisdiction is similar to that of the Supreme Court of Canada and unlike the Supreme Court of the United States which has a more limited jurisdiction. As such, the court is able to develop the common law consistently across all the states and territories. This role, alongside its role in constitutional interpretation, is one of the court's most significant. As Sir Owen Dixon said on his swearing in as Chief Justice of Australia:

text: "The High Court's jurisdiction is divided in its exercise between constitutional and federal cases which loom so largely in the public eye, and the great body of litigation between man and man, or even man and government, which has nothing to do with the Constitution, and which is the principal preoccupation of the court."[3]

text: This broad array of jurisdiction enables the High Court to take a leading role in Australian law and contributes to a consistency and uniformity among the laws of the different states.[4]

text: Original jurisdiction[edit]

text: The original jurisdiction of the High Court refers to matters that are originally heard in the High Court. The Constitution confers actual (section 75) and potential (section 76) original jurisdiction.

text: Section 75 of the Constitution confers original jurisdiction in regard to "all matters":

text:
arising under any treaty
affecting consuls or other representatives of other countries
in which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party
between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State
in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth.

tag: ol

text: The conferral of original jurisdiction creates some problems for the High Court. For example, challenges against immigration-related decisions are often brought against an officer of the Commonwealth within the original jurisdiction of the High Court.

text: Section 76 provides that Parliament may confer original jurisdiction in relation to matters:

text:
arising under the constitution or involving its interpretation
arising under any laws made by the Parliament
of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
relating to the same subject matter claimed under the laws of different states.

text: Constitutional matters, referred to in section 76(i), have been conferred to the High Court by section 30 of the Judiciary Act 1903.[5] However, the inclusion of constitutional matters in section 76, rather than section 75, means that the High Court's original jurisdiction regarding constitutional matters could be removed. In practice, section 75(iii) (suing the Commonwealth) and section 75(iv) (conflicts between states) are broad enough that many constitutional matters would still be within jurisdiction. The original constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is now well established: the Australian Law Reform Commission has described the inclusion of constitutional matters in section 76 rather than section 75 as "an odd fact of history."[6] The 1998 Constitutional Convention recommended an amendment to the constitution to prevent the possibility of the jurisdiction being removed by Parliament. Failure to proceed on this issue suggests that it was considered highly unlikely that Parliament would ever take this step.

text: The requirement of "a matter" in section 75 and section 76 of the constitution means that a concrete issue must need to be resolved and the High Court cannot give an advisory opinion.[7]

text: Appellate jurisdiction[edit]

text:
Australian court hierarchy

Federal Law Courts

High Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Family Court of Australia
Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Commonwealth courts and tribunals

Courts of Australian states and territories

New South Wales courts
Victorian courts
Queensland courts
Western Australian courts
South Australian courts
Tasmanian courts
Australian Capital Territory courts
Northern Territory courts
Norfolk Island courts

v
t
e

text: The High Court's appellate jurisdiction is defined under section 73 of the Constitution. The High Court can hear appeals from the Supreme Courts of the states and territories, any federal court or court exercising federal jurisdiction (such as the Federal Court of Australia, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, or other federal courts), and decisions made by one or more Justices exercising the original jurisdiction of the court.

text: However, section 73 allows the appellate jurisdiction to be limited "with such exceptions and subject to such regulations as the Parliament prescribes". Parliament has prescribed a large limitation in section 35A of the Judiciary Act 1903. This requires "special leave" to appeal. Special leave is granted only where a question of law is raised that is of public importance; or involves a conflict between courts; or "is in the interests of the administration of justice". Therefore, while the High Court is the final court of appeal, it cannot be considered a general court of appeal. The decision as to whether to grant special leave to appeal is determined by one or more Justices of the High Court (in practice, a panel of two or three judges). That is, the Court exercises the power to decide which appeal cases it will consider.[8]

text: Appeals to the Privy Council[edit]

text: The issue of appeals from the High Court to the United Kingdom's Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was a significant one during the drafting of the Constitution and it continued to be significant in the years after the court's creation. The wording of section 74 of the constitution that was put to voters in the various colonies was that there was to be no appeal to the Privy Council in any matter involving the interpretation of the Constitution or of the Constitution of a State, unless it involved the interests of some other dominion.[9]

text: Section 74 of the Constitution, as enacted by the Imperial Parliament,[10] prohibited appeals on constitutional matters involving disputes about the limits inter se of Commonwealth or state powers, except where the High Court certified it was appropriate for the appeal to be determined by the Privy Council. It did so only once: in the 1912 case of Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth) when the Court was equally divided.[11] After that case, in which the Privy Council refused to answer the constitutional questions put to it, the High Court never certified another inter se appeal.[12] Indeed, in the case of Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (1985), the court said that it would never again grant a certificate of appeal.[13]

text: In general matters, however, section 74 did not prevent the Privy Council from granting leave to appeal against the High Court's wishes and the Council did so often. In some cases the Council acknowledged that the Australian common law had developed differently from English law and thus did not apply its own principles (for example, in Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren (1967),[14] or in Viro v The Queen (1978)),[15] by using a legal fiction that stated that different common law can apply to different circumstances.[16] However, in other cases, the Privy Council enforced English decisions, over-ruling decisions by the High Court. In Parker v The Queen[17] (1963), Chief Justice Sir Owen Dixon led a unanimous judgment that rejected a precedent of the House of Lords in DPP v Smith saying, "I shall not depart from the law on this matter as we have long since laid it down in this Court and I think that Smith's case should not be used in Australia as authority at all".[17] the following year the Privy Council upheld an appeal, applying the House of Lords precedent.[18]

text: Section 74 did provide that the parliament could make laws to prevent appeals to the Privy Council and it did so, beginning in 1968, with the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968, which closed off all appeals to the Privy Council in matters involving federal legislation.[19] In 1975, the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975 was passed, which had the effect of closing all routes of appeal from the High Court.[20] Appeals from the High Court to the Privy Council are now only theoretically possible in inter se matters if the High Court grants a certificate of appeal under section 74 of the Constitution. As noted above, the High Court indicated in 1985 it would not grant such a certificate in the future and it is practically certain that all future High Courts will maintain this policy. In 1986, with the passing of the Australia Act by both the UK Parliament[21] and the Parliament of Australia (with the request and consent of the Australian States),[22] appeals to the Privy Council from state Supreme Courts were closed off, leaving the High Court as the only avenue of appeal.

text: Thirteen High Court judges have heard cases as part of the Privy Council. Sir Isaac Isaacs is the only judge to have sat on an appeal from the High Court, in 1936 after his retirement as Governor-General.[23] Sir Garfield Barwick insisted on an amendment to Privy Council procedure to allow dissent,[24] however he exercised that only once.[25] The appeals mostly related to decisions from other Commonwealth countries, although they occasionally included appeals from a State Supreme Court.[26][27][28][29]

text:
Sir Samuel Griffith [26]
Sir Edmund Barton [30]
Sir Adrian Knox [27]
Sir Isaac Isaacs [23]
Sir George Rich [31]
Sir Garfield Barwick [28]
Sir Douglas Menzies [32]
Sir Alan Taylor [33]
Sir Frank Kitto [34]
Sir Edward McTiernan [35]
Sir Victor Windeyer [36]
Sir Harry Gibbs [29]
Sir Ninian Stephen [37]

text: Appellate jurisdiction for Nauru[edit]

text: As per an agreement between Nauru and Australia signed on 6 September 1976, in application of article 57 of the Constitution of Nauru, the High Court of Australia became the ultimate court of appeal for the sovereign Republic of Nauru, formerly an Australian League of Nations mandate. The High Court was empowered to hear appeals from the Supreme Court of Nauru in both criminal and civil cases, with certain exceptions; in particular, no case pertaining to the Constitution of Nauru could be decided by the Australian court.[38] There were a total of five appeals to the High Court under this agreement in the first 40 years of its operation. In 2017, however, this jumped to 13 appeals, most relating to asylum seekers.[39] Some legal commentators (including the Australian Law Reform Commission[40]) have argued that this appellate jurisdiction sits awkwardly with the High Court's other responsibilities and should be renegotiated or repealed.[41] Problems identified including the need to apply Nauruan law and customary practice and that the High Court need not grant leave for an appeal to be heard.[39]

text: Matthew Batsiua, a former Justice Minister of Nauru, has suggested that the Nauruan government was unhappy with the arrangement following an October 2017 decision from the High Court.[42] Following a protest in May 2015 outside the Nauruan parliament, 19 people were charged with unlawful assembly and other civil offences. The Supreme Court of Nauru subsequently increased the sentences imposed by the District Court, leading to an appeal in which the High Court quashed the decision.[39][43] The case was remitted to the Supreme Court "differently constituted, for hearing according to law."[43]

text: On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Nauru's independence, President Baron Waqa declared to parliament that "[s]everance of ties to Australia’s highest court is a logical step towards full nationhood and an expression of confidence in Nauru’s ability to determine its own destiny."[39] Nauruan Justice Minister David Adeang cited the cost of appeals to the High Court as another reason for Nauru to establish its own Court of Appeal as the country's highest court.[44] Under the agreement, the government of either country could end the arrangement with 90 days notice. Nauru unilaterally exercised that option on 12 December 2017 and the High Court's jurisdiction ended on 12 March 2018.[42][45] However, the termination of the arrangement did not become known until after the Supreme Court had reheard the case of the protesters and again imposed increased sentences. With the new Court of Appeals not yet established, the defendants are left with no avenue of appeal, a situation criticised as deeply unfair.[45]

text: History[edit]

text: The genesis of the court can be traced back to the middle of the 19th century. Before the establishment of the High Court, appeals from the state Supreme Courts could be made only to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which involved the great expense of travelling to London. For this reason some politicians in the colonies wanted a new court that could travel between the colonies hearing appeals.

text: Following Earl Grey's 1846 proposal for federation of the Australian colonies, an 1849 report from the Privy Council of the United Kingdom suggested that a national court be created.[46] In 1856, the then Governor of South Australia, Richard Graves MacDonnell, suggested to the Government of South Australia that they and the other colonies should consider establishing a court of appeal that would hear appeals from the Supreme Courts in each colony, and in 1860 the Parliament of South Australia passed legislation encouraging MacDonnell to put forward the idea to his colleagues in the other colonies. However, only the Government of Victoria seriously considered this proposal.[47]

text: At an inter-colonial conference in 1870 in Melbourne, the idea of an inter-colonial court was again raised and subsequently a Royal Commission was established in Victoria to investigate options for establishing a court of appeal and for unifying extradition laws between the colonies and other similar matters. A draft bill establishing a court was put forward by the Commission, but it completely excluded appeals to the Privy Council, which reacted critically and prevented any serious attempts to implement the bill in London (before federation, any laws affecting all the colonies would have to be passed by the British Imperial Parliament in London).[47]

text: In 1880 another inter-colonial conference was convened, which proposed the establishment of an Australasian Court of Appeal. This conference was more firmly focussed on having an Australian court. Another draft bill was produced, providing that judges from the colonial Supreme Courts would serve one-year terms on the new court, with one judge from each colony at a given time. New Zealand, which was at the time also considering joining the Australian colonies in federation, was also to be a participant in the new court.[47] However, the proposal retained appeals from colonial Supreme Courts to the Privy Council, which some of the colonies disputed, and the bill was eventually abandoned.

text: Constitutional conventions[edit]

text: The Constitutional Conventions of the 1890s, which met to draft an Australian Constitution, also raised the idea of a federal Supreme Court. Initial proposals at a conference in Melbourne in February 1890 led to a convention in Sydney in March and April 1891, which produced a draft constitution. The draft included the creation of a Supreme Court of Australia, which would not only interpret the Constitution, like the United States Supreme Court, but also would be a court of appeal from the state Supreme Courts. The draft effectively removed appeals to the Privy Council, allowing them only if the British monarch gave leave to appeal and not allowing appeals at all in constitutional matters.

text: This draft was largely the work of Sir Samuel Griffith,[12] then the Premier of Queensland, later Chief Justice of Queensland and the first Chief Justice of Australia. Other significant contributors to the judicial clauses in the draft included Attorney-General of Tasmania Andrew Inglis Clark, who had prepared his own constitution prior to the convention. Inglis Clark's most significant contribution was to give the court its own constitutional authority, ensuring the separation of powers; the original formulation from Griffith, Edmund Barton and Charles Kingston provided only that the parliament could establish a court.[46]

text: At the later conventions, in Adelaide in 1897, in Sydney later the same year and in Melbourne in early 1898, there were changes to the earlier draft. In Adelaide, the name of the court was changed from Supreme Court of Australia to High Court of Australia. Many people also opposed the new court completely replacing the Privy Council: many large businesses, particularly those which were subsidiaries of British companies or regularly traded with the United Kingdom, preferred for business reasons to keep the colonies under the unified jurisdiction of the British courts, and petitioned the conventions to that effect.[12] Other arguments posited against removing Privy Council appeals were that Australian judges were of a poorer quality than English ones, and that without the Council's oversight, the law in the colonies risked becoming different from English law.[46] Some politicians, such as Sir George Dibbs, supported the petitioners, but others, including Alfred Deakin, supported the design of the court as it was.[12] Inglis Clark took the view that the possibility of divergence was a good thing, for the law could adapt appropriately to Australian circumstances.[46] Despite the debate, the portions of the draft dealing with the court remained largely unchanged, as the delegates focused on different matters.

text: After the draft had been approved by the electors of the colonies, it was taken to London in 1899, for the assent of the British Imperial Parliament. However the issue of Privy Council appeals remained a sticking point with a number of Australian and British politicians, including the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Joseph Chamberlain, the Chief Justice of South Australia, Sir Samuel Way, and the Chief Justice of Queensland, Sir Samuel Griffith.[16] Indeed, in October 1899, Griffith made representations to Chamberlain soliciting suggestions from British ministers for alterations to the draft, and offering some alterations of his own.[16] Indeed, such was the effect of these and other representations that Chamberlain called for delegates from the colonies to come to London to assist with the approval process, with a view to their approving any alterations that the British government might see fit to make; delegates were sent, including Deakin, Barton and Charles Kingston, although they were under instructions that they would never agree to changes.[16]

text: After intense lobbying both in Australia and in the United Kingdom, the Imperial Parliament finally approved the draft constitution, albeit with an altered section 74, which represented a compromise between the two sides: there would be a general right of appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council, except that the Parliament of Australia would be able to make laws restricting this avenue, and also that appeals in inter se matters (matters concerning the boundary between and limits of the powers of the Commonwealth and the powers of the states) were not as of right, but had to be certified by the High Court.[16]

text: Formation of the court[edit]

text: The Constitution was passed by the Imperial Parliament, and came into effect on 1 January 1901. However, the High Court was not established immediately; it was necessary for the new Parliament of Australia to make laws about the structure and procedure of the court. Some of the members of the First Parliament, including Sir John Quick, then one of the leading legal experts in Australia, opposed legislation to set up the court. Even H. B. Higgins, who was himself later appointed to the court, objected to setting it up, on the grounds that it would be impotent while Privy Council appeals remained, and that in any event there was not enough work for a federal court to make it viable.[12]

text: In 1902, the then Attorney-General Alfred Deakin introduced the Judiciary Bill 1902 in the House of Representatives. Although Deakin and Griffith had produced a draft bill as early as February 1901, it was continually delayed by opponents in the parliament, and the success of the bill is generally attributed to Deakin's passion and effort in pushing the bill through the parliament despite this opposition.[46] Deakin had proposed that the court be composed of five judges, specially selected to the court; opponents instead proposed that the court should be made up of state Supreme Court justices, taking turns to sit on the High Court on a rotation basis, as had been mooted at the Constitutional Conventions a decade before.[48] Deakin eventually negotiated amendments with the opposition, reducing the number of judges from five to three, and eliminating financial benefits such as pensions.

text: At one point, Deakin even threatened to resign as Attorney-General due to the difficulties he faced.[46] In what is now a famous speech, Deakin gave a second reading to the House of Representatives, lasting three and a half hours, in which he declared:

text: "The federation is constituted by distribution of powers, and it is this court which decides the orbit and boundary of every power... It is properly termed the keystone of the federal arch... The statute stands and will stand on the statute-book just as in the hour in which it was assented to. But the nation lives, grows and expands. Its circumstances change, its needs alter, and its problems present themselves with new faces. [The High Court] enables the Constitution to grow and be adapted to the changeful necessities and circumstances of generation after generation that the High Court operates."[49]

text: Deakin's friend, painter Tom Roberts, who viewed the speech from the public gallery, declared it Deakin's "magnum opus".[46] The Judiciary Act 1903 was finally passed on 25 August 1903, and the first three justices, Chief Justice Sir Samuel Griffith and Justices Sir Edmund Barton and Richard O'Connor were appointed on 5 October of that year. On 6 October, the court held its first sitting in the Banco Court in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

text: On 12 October 1906, the size of the High Court was increased to five Justices, and Deakin appointed H. B. Higgins and Isaac Isaacs to the High Court. In February, 1913, the High Court was increased again, with the addition of two justices, bringing the total to seven. Charles Powers and Albert Bathurst Piddington were appointed, however, the outcry against their appointments was so great that Justice Piddington resigned on 5 April 1913, without having taken up his seat.[50]

text: First years of the court[edit]

text: After the court's first sitting in the Banco Court in Melbourne, the court continued to use that court until 1928, when a dedicated courtroom was built in Little Bourke Street, next to the Supreme Court of Victoria, which provided the court's Melbourne sitting place and housed the court's principal registry until 1980.[51] The court also sat regularly in Sydney, where it originally shared space in the Criminal Courts in the suburb of Darlinghurst, before a dedicated courtroom was constructed next door in 1923.[52]

text: The court travelled to other cities across the country, where it did not have any facilities of its own but used facilities of the Supreme Court in each city. Deakin had envisaged that the court would sit in many different locations, so as to truly be a federal court. Shortly after the court's creation, Chief Justice Griffith established a schedule for sittings in state capitals: Hobart, Tasmania in February, Brisbane, Queensland in June, Perth, Western Australia in September and Adelaide, South Australia in October; it is said that Griffith established this schedule because those were the times of year he found the weather most pleasant in each city. The tradition remains to this day, although most of the court's sittings are now conducted in Canberra.

text: Sittings were dependent on the caseload and to this day sittings in Hobart occur only once every few years. There are annual sittings in Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane for up to a week each. During the Great Depression, sittings outside of Melbourne and Sydney were suspended to reduce costs.

text: During World War II, the court faced a period of change. The Chief Justice, Sir John Latham, served from 1940 to 1941 as Australia's first ambassador to Japan, although his activities in this role were limited by the mutual assistance pact that Japan had entered into with the Axis powers before he could arrive in Tokyo, and were curtailed by the commencement of the Pacific War.[53] Justice Sir Owen Dixon was also absent for several years, while he served as Australia's minister to the United States in Washington.[54] Sir George Rich was Acting Chief Justice in Latham's absence. There were many difficult cases concerning the federal government's use of the defence power during the war.

text: Post-war period[edit]

text: From 1952, with the appointment of Sir Owen Dixon as Chief Justice, the court entered a period of stability. After World War II, the court's workload continued to grow, particularly from the 1960s onwards, putting pressures on the court.[55] Sir Garfield Barwick, who was Attorney-General from 1958 to 1964, and from then until 1981 Chief Justice, proposed that more federal courts be established, as permitted under the Constitution. In 1976 the Federal Court of Australia was established, with a general federal jurisdiction, and in more recent years the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court have been set up to reduce the court's workload in specific areas.

text: In 1968, appeals to the Privy Council in matters involving federal legislation were barred by the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968. In 1975, the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975 closed all routes of appeal from the High Court. In 1986, with the passing of the Australia Act by both the UK Parliament and the Parliament of Australia (with the request and consent of the Australian States), direct appeals to the Privy Council from state Supreme Courts were also closed off, leaving the High Court as the only avenue of appeal.

text: The life tenure of High Court Justices was ended in 1977. A national referendum in May 1977 approved the Constitution Alteration (Retirement of Judges) Act (Cth), which upon its commencement on 29 July 1977 amended section 72 of the Constitution so as require that all Justices appointed from then on must retire on attaining the age of 70 years.[56][57]

text: The High Court of Australia Act 1979 (Cth), which commenced on 21 April 1980, gave the High Court power to administer its own affairs and prescribed the qualifications for, and method of appointment of, its Justices.[56][58]

text: Jurisprudence[edit]

text: The legal history of the court is commonly summarised by reference to the Chief Justice of the time. While it is a convenient way of breaking the history of the Court into periods, it tends to overstate the importance of the Chief Justice and ignores the influence and tenure of other members of the Court. For example, Isaacs J was the primary force in the Knox Court, while the time of his own appointment as Chief Justice saw the emergence of Dixon J as the new intellectual leader of the Court.[59]

text: Griffith court[edit]

text: As the first High Court, the court under Chief Justice Sir Samuel Griffith had to establish its position as a new court of appeal for the whole of Australia and had to develop a new body of principle for interpreting the Constitution of Australia and federal legislation. Griffith himself was very much the dominant influence on the court in its early years, but after the appointment of Sir Isaac Isaacs and H. B. Higgins in 1906, and the death of foundation Justice Richard O'Connor, Griffith's influence began to decline.[60]

text: The court was keen to establish its position at the top of the Australian court hierarchy. In Deakin v Webb (1904)[61] Griffith criticised the Supreme Court of Victoria for following a Privy Council decision about the Constitution of Canada, rather than following the High Court's own decision on the Australian Constitution.[47]

text: In Australian constitutional law, the early decisions of the court were influenced by United States constitutional law. In the case of D'Emden v Pedder (1904),[62] which involved the application of Tasmanian stamp duty to a federal official's salary, the court adopted the doctrine of implied immunity of instrumentalities which had been established in the United States Supreme Court case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1803).[63] That doctrine established that any attempt by the federal government to interfere with the legislative or executive power of the Australian states was invalid, and vice versa. Accompanying that doctrine was the doctrine of reserved State powers, which was based on the principle that the powers of the Australian parliament should be interpreted narrowly, to avoid intruding on areas of power traditionally exercised by the state parliaments. The concept was developed in such cases as Peterswald v Bartley (1904),[64] R v Barger (1908)[65] and the Union Label case (1908).[66]

text: Together the two doctrines helped smooth the transition to a federal system of government and "by preserving a balance between the constituent elements of the Australian federation, probably conformed to community sentiment, which at that stage was by no means adjusted to the exercise of central power."[60] The court had a generally conservative view of the Constitution, taking narrow interpretations of section 116 (which guarantees religious freedom) and section 117 (which prevents discrimination on the basis of someone's state of origin), interpretations that were to last well into the 1980s.[60]

text: Two of the original judges of the Court, Griffith and Sir Edmund Barton, were frequently consulted by governors-general, including on the exercise of the reserve powers.[67] This practice of consultation has continued from time to time since.

text: Knox, Isaacs and Gavan Duffy courts[edit]

text: Adrian Knox became Chief Justice on 18 October 1919 and less than three months later, foundation Justice Sir Edmund Barton died, leaving no original members. The most significant case of the era was the Engineers case (1920),[68] decided at the beginning of Knox's term. In that case, the doctrines of reserved State powers and implied immunity of instrumentalities were both overturned, and the court entered a new era of constitutional interpretation in which the focus would fall almost exclusively on the text of the Constitution, and in which the powers of the Australian parliament would gain increasing importance.

text: Knox was knighted in 1921, the only Chief Justice to be knighted during his term. Some of the Knox court's early work related to the aftermath of World War I. In Roche v Kronheimer (1921),[69] the Court upheld federal legislation which allowed for the making of regulations to implement Australia's obligations under the Treaty of Versailles. The majority decided the case on the defence power, but Higgins decided it on the external affairs power, the first case to decide that the external affairs power could be used to implement an international treaty in Australia.

text: Sir Isaac Isaacs was Chief Justice for only forty-two weeks, before leaving the court to be appointed Governor-General of Australia. Isaacs was ill for much of his term as Chief Justice and few significant cases were decided under his formal leadership; rather, his best years were under Knox, where he was the most senior Justice and led the court in many decisions.[70]

text: Sir Frank Gavan Duffy was Chief Justice for four years beginning in 1931, although he was already 78 when appointed to the position and did not exert much influence, given that (excluding single-Justice cases) he participated in only 40 per cent of cases in that time, and regularly gave short judgments or joint judgments with other Justices.[71] In the context of the Great Depression, the court was reduced to six Justices, resulting in many tied decisions which have no lasting value as precedent.

text: During this time, the court did decide several important cases, including Attorney-General (New South Wales) v Trethowan (1932),[72] which considered Premier of New South Wales Jack Lang's attempt to abolish the New South Wales Legislative Council, and the First State Garnishee case (1932),[73] which upheld federal legislation compelling the Lang government to repay its loans. Much of the court's other work related to legislation passed in response to the Depression.

text: Latham court[edit]

text: The court under Chief Justice Sir John Latham, who came to the office in 1935, was punctuated by World War II. Although it dealt with cases in other areas, its most important and lasting work related to wartime legislation, and the transition back to peace following the war.[74]

text: The court upheld much legislation under the defence power, interpreting it broadly wherever there was a connection to defence purposes, in cases such as Andrews v Howell (1941)[75] and de Mestre v Chisholm (1944).[76] In general, the Curtin Labor government was rarely successfully challenged, the court recognising the necessity that the defence power permit the federal government to govern strongly. The court also allowed the federal government to institute a national income tax scheme in the First Uniform Tax case (1942),[77] and upheld legislation allowing the proclamation of the pacifist Jehovah's Witnesses religion as a subversive organisation, in the Jehovah's Witnesses case (1943).[78]

text: The court reined in the wide scope of the defence power after the war, allowing for a transitional period. It struck down several key planks of the Chifley Labor government's reconstruction program, notably an attempt to nationalise the banks in the Bank Nationalisation case (1948),[79] and an attempt to establish a comprehensive medical benefits scheme in the First Pharmaceutical Benefits case (1945).[80] However the court also famously struck down Menzies Liberal government legislation banning the Communist Party of Australia in the Communist Party case (1951),[81] Latham's last major case.

text: Apart from the wartime cases, the Latham court also developed the criminal defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact, for example in Proudman v Dayman (1941).[82] It also paved the way for the development of the external affairs power by upholding the implementation of an air navigation treaty in R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry (1936).[83]

text: Dixon court[edit]

text: Under Chief Justice Sir Owen Dixon, who was elevated to that role in 1952 after 23 years as a Justice, the court enjoyed its most successful period, with British judge, Master of the Rolls Lord Denning, describing the time as the court's "Golden Age".[84] Dixon, widely regarded as Australia's greatest judge,[85] had a commanding personal and legal influence over the court in this time, measurable in the rise in joint judgments (many of which were led by Dixon) and good relations between the Justices.[84]

text: While there were fewer cases which tested the limits of federal power, probably due to the Menzies government which was firmly entrenched in its conservative phase throughout Dixon's tenure, the court did decide several important constitutional cases. Dixon led the court in firmly establishing the separation of powers for the judiciary in the Boilermakers' case (1956),[86] and the court also upheld the continuing existence of the federal government's income tax scheme in the Second Uniform Tax case (1957).[87]

text: During Dixon's time as Chief Justice, the court came to adopt several of the views that Dixon had advanced in minority opinions in years prior. In several cases, the court upheld Dixon's interpretation of section 92 (one of the most troublesome sections of the Constitution), which he regarded as guaranteeing a constitutional right to engage in interstate trade, subject to reasonable regulation. It also followed Dixon's interpretation of section 90 (which prohibits the states from exacting duties of excise), although both these interpretations were ultimately abandoned many years later.[84]

text: Barwick court[edit]

text: Sir Garfield Barwick came to the court as Chief Justice in 1964. A significant decision of the Barwick court marked the beginning of the modern interpretation of the corporations power, which had been interpreted narrowly since 1909. The Concrete Pipes case (1971)[88] established that the federal parliament could exercise the power to regulate at least the trading activities of corporations, whereas earlier interpretations had allowed only the regulation of conduct or transactions with the public.

text: The court decided many other significant constitutional cases, including the Seas and Submerged Lands case (1975),[89] upholding legislation asserting sovereignty over the territorial sea; the First (1975)[90] and Second (1977)[91] Territory Senators' cases, which concerned whether legislation allowing for the mainland territories to be represented in the Parliament of Australia was valid; and Russell v Russell (1976),[92] which concerned the validity of the Family Law Act 1975. The court also decided several cases relating to the historic 1974 joint sitting of the Parliament of Australia, including Cormack v Cope (1974)[93] and the Petroleum and Minerals Authority case (1975).[94]

text: The Barwick court decided several infamous cases on tax avoidance and tax evasion, almost always deciding against the taxation office. Led by Barwick himself in most judgments, the court distinguished between avoidance (legitimately minimising one's tax obligations) and evasion (illegally evading obligations). The decisions effectively nullified the anti-avoidance legislation and led to the proliferation of avoidance schemes in the 1970s, a result which drew much criticism upon the court.[95]

text: Gibbs court[edit]

text: Sir Harry Gibbs was appointed as Chief Justice in 1981. Under his leadership, the court moved away from the legalism and conservative traditions which had characterised the Dixon and Barwick courts.[96]

text: The Gibbs court made several important decisions in Australian constitutional law. It allowed the Federal Parliament to make very wide use of the external affairs power, by holding that this power could be used to implement treaties into domestic law with very few justiciable limits. In Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982)[97] four judges to three upheld the validity of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, although no single view had majority support. However, in the Tasmanian Dams case (1983),[98] a majority of the court upheld federal environmental legislation under the power.

text: The court also adopted a more expansive interpretation of the corporations power. In the Actors Equity case (1982),[99] the court upheld regulations which, although they did not directly regulate corporations, indirectly protected corporations. In the Tasmanian Dams case, the court indicated that it would interpret the power to uphold legislation regulating the non-trading activities of corporations, although it did not decide the case on that basis. The external affairs power and the corporations power have both been increasingly relied on by the federal government to extend its authority in recent years.[96]

text: In administrative law, the court expanded on the doctrines of natural justice and procedural fairness in Kioa v West (1985).[100] Although Gibbs himself dissented on those points, he did decide that executive decision makers were obliged to take humanitarian principles into consideration. Outside of specific areas of law, the court was also involved in several cases of public significance, including the Chamberlain case (1984),[101] concerning Lindy Chamberlain, and A v Hayden (1984),[102] concerning the botched ASIS exercise at the Sheraton Hotel in Melbourne.

text: Mason court[edit]

text: Sir Anthony Mason became Chief Justice in 1987. The Mason court was very stable, with only one change in the bench in its eight years, the appointment of Michael McHugh after Sir Ronald Wilson's retirement. The court under Mason was widely regarded as the most liberal bench in the court's history.[103]

text: The Mason court made many important decisions in all areas of Australian law. One of its first major cases was Cole v Whitfield (1988),[104] concerning the troublesome section 92, which had been interpreted inconsistently and confusingly since the beginning of the court. For the first time, the court referred to historical materials such as the debates of the Constitutional Conventions to ascertain the purpose of the section, and the unanimous decision indicated "a willingness to overturn established doctrines and precedents perceived to be no longer working", a trend which typified the Mason court.[105]

text: The most popularly significant case decided by the Mason court was the Mabo case (1992),[106] in which the court found that the common law was capable of recognising native title. The decision was one of the High Court's most controversial of all time and represented the tendency of the Mason court to receive "high praise and stringent criticism in equal measure."[105] Other controversial cases included the War Crimes Act case (1991),[107] regarding the validity of the War Crimes Act 1945; Dietrich v The Queen (1992),[108] in which the court found that a lack of legal representation in a serious criminal case can result in an unfair trial; Sykes v Cleary (1992),[109] regarding the disputed election of Phil Cleary; and Teoh's case (1995),[110] in which the court held that ratification of a treaty by the executive could create a legitimate expectation that members of the executive would act in accordance with that treaty.

text: The court developed the concept of implied human rights in the Constitution in cases such as Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992),[111] Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992)[112] and Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (1994),[113] in which the court recognised an implied freedom of political communication arising from the nature of the Constitution in laying out a system of representative government.

text: In other areas of law, the court developed doctrines of equity in relation to commercial law and contract law, in cases such as Waltons Stores v Maher (1988)[114] and Trident General Insurance v McNiece (1988),[115] and made significant developments in tort law, in cases such as Rogers v Whitaker (1992)[116] and Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994).[117]

text: Brennan court[edit]

text: Sir Gerald Brennan succeeded Mason in 1995. In contrast to the previous court, the Brennan court had many changes in its membership despite being only three years long. The court decided many significant cases.[118]

text: In Ha v New South Wales (1997)[119] the court invalidated a New South Wales tobacco licensing scheme, reining in the licensing scheme exception to the prohibition on states levying excise duties, contained in Section 90 of the Constitution. While it did not overturn previous cases in which schemes had been upheld, it did emphasise that the states could not stray too far from the constitutional framework.

text: The Brennan court made a number of significant decisions in relation to the judiciary of Australia. In Grollo v Palmer (1995)[120] and Hindmarsh Island Bridge case (1998),[121] the court developed the persona designata doctrine, and in Kable v DPP (1997),[122] the court rejected attempts by the Parliament of New South Wales to establish a system of preventative detention and found that the states do not have unlimited ability to regulate their courts, given the place of the courts in the Australian court hierarchy.

text: The court decided several cases relating to the implied freedom of political communication developed by the Mason court, notably Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997)[123] and the Duck shooting case (1997).[124] It also decided several native title cases, including the controversial Wik case (1996).[125]

text: Gleeson court[edit]

text: Murray Gleeson was appointed Chief Justice in 1998. The court under Gleeson's leadership was generally regarded as more conservative than under Mason or Brennan, favouring legalism in the tradition of the Dixon and Barwick courts. In the Cross-vesting case (1999),[126] the court struck down legislation vesting state jurisdiction in the Federal Court. In Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004)[127] a majority of the court applied a narrow interpretation of the Migration Act 1958, finding that it permitted executively-imposed indefinite detention of stateless persons. However, the court did not entirely shy away from principle and public policy in its decisions.[128]

text: In Egan v Willis (1998),[129] the court supported the New South Wales Legislative Council's ability to suspend the Treasurer when he failed to produce documents before the Council, emphasising the purpose of the ability in facilitating responsible government. In Sue v Hill (1999),[130] the court recognised Australia's emergence as a sovereign independent nation, finding that the United Kingdom was a "foreign power".

text: The Gleeson court decided a number of important native title cases, including Yanner v Eaton (1999),[131] Western Australia v Ward (2002)[132] and the Yorta Yorta case (2002).[133] In tort law, the court's significant decisions include Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999),[134] concerning negligence actions where there is only pure economic loss as opposed to physical or mental injury, Dow Jones v Gutnick (2002),[135] regarding defamation on the Internet, and Cattanach v Melchior (2003),[136] a wrongful life case involving a healthy child. In criminal law, the court in R v Tang (2008)[137] upheld slavery convictions against the owner of a brothel who had held several women in debt bondage after they had been trafficked to Australia.

text: Perhaps the Gleeson court's most significant case was among its later ones. In the WorkChoices case (2006),[138] the court finally explicitly accepted a wide reading of the corporations power, after years of gradual expansion following the Concrete Pipes case (1971).[88]

text: French court[edit]

text: Robert French was appointed Chief Justice in September 2008. The first decision handed down by the French Court was Lujans v Yarrabee Coal Company Pty Ltd (2008),[139] a case dealing with a motor vehicle accident. One of the most notable judgments handed down by the French Court was Pape v Commissioner of Taxation (2009),[140] a constitutional law case concerning the existence of the Commonwealth's so-called "appropriation power" and the scope of its executive and taxation powers.

text: Kiefel court[edit]

text: Susan Kiefel was appointed Chief Justice in January 2017. The Kiefel court has decided two important constitutional cases: in Brown v Tasmania,[141] its members adopted a conflicting variety of approaches to the implied freedom of political communication;[142][143] while in Re Canavan,[144] which attracted huge public interest,[145] the court's unanimous decision adhered to an interpretation of section 44 of the Constitution according to its "ordinary and natural meaning". In Wilkie v Commonwealth the Court held that expenditure for the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey had been approved by Parliament and was the collection of "statistical information" that could be conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.[146]

text: Composition of the court[edit]

text: The High Court of Australia is composed of seven Justices: the Chief Justice of Australia and six other Justices. Their salary is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, an independent statutory authority. Since 1 July 2017, the Chief Justice has received an annual salary of $584,520 and the other Justices have received $530,440.[147][148]

text: Appointment process[edit]

text: Appointments are officially made by the Governor-General in Council. In practice, appointees are nominated by the Prime Minister, on advice from the Cabinet, particularly from the Attorney-General of Australia. For example, four Justices were appointed while Andrew Fisher was Prime Minister, but it was largely on Attorney-General Billy Hughes' authority that the candidates were chosen.[149] Since 1979, the Attorney-General has been required to consult with the Attorneys-General of the states and territories of Australia about appointments to the court.[150] The process was first used in relation to the appointment of Justice Wilson, and has been generally successful, despite the occasional criticism that the states merely have a consultative, rather than a determinative, role in the selection process.[151]

text: There are no qualifications for Justices in the Constitution (other than that they must be under the compulsory retirement age of 70[152]). The High Court of Australia Act 1979 requires that appointees have been a judge of a federal, state or territory court, or that they have been enrolled as a legal practitioner for at least five years with either the High Court itself or with a state or territory Supreme Court. There are no other formal requirements.[153]

text: The appointment process stands in stark contrast with the highly public selection and confirmation process for justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. While there are people who are critical of the secrecy of the process and who advocate a more public method for appointments, there are relatively few who dispute the quality of appointees.[citation needed] Three Chief Justices (Sir Adrian Knox, Sir John Latham and Sir Garfield Barwick) had previously been conservative politicians prior to their appointment. However, there is frequent criticism of Barwick's intervention in the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, when he gave advice to Governor-General Sir John Kerr.[154] On the other side of politics, Labor politicians Dr H. V. Evatt QC, Sir Edward McTiernan and Lionel Murphy QC were also appointed to the High Court; Murphy, Attorney-General in the Whitlam government, was criticised by the conservative side at the time of his appointment but after a decade in office had risen, on occasion, to the heights of Acting Chief Justice. His reputation was gravely damaged in 1985 after illegal police phone-tapping led to charges that he had attempted to pervert the course of justice. He was eventually acquitted of all charges.[155]

text: Current composition[edit]

text:
v
t
e

text:
Name[156]
State
Date appointed
Mandatory retirement
Appointing
Governor-General
Nominating
Prime Minister
Previous judicial posting(s)
Education

Kiefel, SusanSusan Kiefel AC
(Chief Justice)
Queensland
000000002017-01-30-000030 January 2017
(as Chief Justice)
000000002007-09-04-00004 September 2007
(as Justice)
000000002024-01-17-000017 January 2024
Cosgrove, Sir PeterSir Peter Cosgrove (as Chief Justice)
Jeffery, MichaelMichael Jeffery (as Justice)
Turnbull, MalcolmMalcolm Turnbull (Liberal, as Chief Justice)
Howard, JohnJohn Howard (Liberal, as Justice)
Supreme Court of Queensland
Federal Court of Australia
Queensland Barristers' Admission Board
University of Cambridge

Bell, VirginiaVirginia Bell AC
New South Wales
000000002009-02-03-00003 February 2009
000000002021-03-07-00007 March 2021
Bryce, Dame QuentinDame Quentin Bryce
Rudd, KevinKevin Rudd (Labor)
Supreme Court of New South Wales
University of Sydney

Gageler, StephenStephen Gageler AC
New South Wales
000000002012-10-09-00009 October 2012
000000002028-07-05-00005 July 2028
Bryce, Dame QuentinDame Quentin Bryce
Gillard, JuliaJulia Gillard (Labor)
None; former Solicitor-General of Australia
Australian National University
Harvard University

Keane, PatrickPatrick Keane AC
Queensland
000000002013-03-01-00001 March 2013
000000002022-10-26-000026 October 2022
Bryce, Dame QuentinDame Quentin Bryce
Gillard, JuliaJulia Gillard (Labor)
Supreme Court of Queensland
Federal Court of Australia
University of Queensland
University of Oxford

Nettle, GeoffreyGeoffrey Nettle
Victoria
000000002015-02-03-00003 February 2015
000000002020-12-02-00002 December 2020
Cosgrove, Sir PeterSir Peter Cosgrove
Abbott, TonyTony Abbott (Liberal)
Supreme Court of Victoria
Australian National University
University of Melbourne
University of Oxford

Gordon, MichelleMichelle Gordon
Victoria
000000002015-06-09-00009 June 2015
000000002034-11-19-000019 November 2034
Cosgrove, Sir PeterSir Peter Cosgrove
Abbott, TonyTony Abbott (Liberal)
Federal Court of Australia
University of Western Australia

Edelman, JamesJames Edelman
Western Australia
000000002017-01-30-000030 January 2017
000000002044-01-09-00009 January 2044
Cosgrove, Sir PeterSir Peter Cosgrove
Turnbull, MalcolmMalcolm Turnbull (Liberal)
Federal Court of Australia
Supreme Court of Western Australia
University of Western Australia
Murdoch University
University of Oxford

text: Initial composition[edit]

text: The first three justices of the High Court were Chief Justice, Sir Samuel Griffith, Justice Sir Edmund Barton, and Justice Richard Edward O'Connor.[157] There were a number of possible candidates for the first bench of the High Court. In addition to the eventual appointees, names which had been mentioned in the press included two future Justices of the court, Henry Higgins and Isaac Isaacs, along with Andrew Inglis Clark, Sir John Downer, Sir Josiah Symon and George Wise. (Crucially, all of the above had previously served as politicians, with only Griffith and Inglis Clark possessing both political and judicial experience.) Barton and O'Connor were both members of the federal parliament and both from the government benches; indeed Barton was Prime Minister. Each of the eventual appointees had participated in the drafting of the Constitution and had intimate knowledge of it. All three were described as conservative and their jurisprudence was very much influenced by English law, and in relation to the Constitution, by United States law.[158]

text: Expansion of composition[edit]

text: In 1906, at the request of the Justices, two more seats were added to the bench, with Isaacs and Higgins the appointees. After O'Connor's death in 1912, an amendment to the Judiciary Act 1903 expanded the bench to seven. For most of 1930 two seats were left vacant due to monetary constraints placed on the court by the Depression. The economic downturn had also led to a reduction in litigation and consequently less work for the court. After Sir Isaac Isaacs retired in 1931, his seat was left empty, and in 1933 an amendment to the Judiciary Act officially reduced the number of seats to six. However, this led to some decisions being split three-all. With the appointment of William Webb in 1946, the number of seats returned to seven, and since then the court has had a full complement of seven Justices.[159] As of 2015[update] there have been 52 Justices, twelve of whom have been Chief Justice.[160]

text: Recent developments in composition[edit]

text: Current Justices Susan Kiefel, Virginia Bell and Michelle Gordon are the third, fourth and fifth women to sit on the bench, after Justices Mary Gaudron and Susan Crennan. There are three women sitting concurrently on the bench, alongside four men. In 2017, Justice Kiefel became the first woman to be appointed Chief Justice.[161]

text: More than half of the Justices, twenty-six, have been residents of New South Wales (with twenty-four of these graduates of Sydney Law School). Thirteen have been from Victoria, eight from Queensland and four from Western Australia. No Justices have been residents of South Australia, Tasmania or any of the territories. The majority of the Justices have been from Protestant backgrounds, with a smaller number from Catholic backgrounds. Sir Isaac Isaacs was of Polish/Jewish background, the only representative of any other faith. Many Justices have not indicated whether they have religious views.

text: Michael Kirby was the first openly gay justice in the history of the Court; his replacement, Virginia Bell, is the first lesbian,[162] who has been an active campaigner for gay and lesbian rights and was one of the participants in the first Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras in 1978.[163]

text: Almost every single judge on the High Court has taken silk as a Queen's Counsel (QC), King's Counsel (KC) or Senior Counsel (SC) before appointment. The exceptions are: Justice Sir Hayden Starke (although he refused to take silk), Justices Sir Edward McTiernan, Sir William Webb, Sir Cyril Walsh, Michael Kirby, Robert French and James Edelman.

text: From the retirement of Ian Callinan in 2007 until the appointment of Stephen Gageler in 2012, every justice of the High Court had prior judicial experience (serving on state supreme courts or the Federal Court of Australia) for the only time in its history. Although 13 justices of the Court had previously served in state, colonial or federal Parliaments, no parliamentarian has been appointed to the Court since Lionel Murphy's appointment in 1975.

text: Judge's Associates[edit]

text: The Chief Justice and each of the Justices engage associates to assist them in the exercise of their judicial functions. At present, all members of the High Court engage two associates for one-year terms. In addition, the Chief Justice is assisted by an employee of the library as a legal research officer. The role of the associate is broadly equivalent to that of a law clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States. Depending on the judge, an associate's responsibilities will typically include legal research, assistance in preparation for oral arguments, tipping in court during oral argument, editing judgments and assisting with extrajudicial functions, such as speechwriting.[164] Associates generally will have graduated with first class honours, at or near the top of their class, from a leading law school.[165] Associates will typically also have research experience (and often experience working for a law firm or university or another court).[165] Accordingly, competition for associate positions is very high with hundreds of applications being received annually.[165]

text: Sir Keith Aickin, Justice Stephen Gageler and Justice James Edelman all served as associates at the High Court of Australia to Sir Owen Dixon, Sir Anthony Mason and Justice Toohey respectively.[166]

text: Facilities[edit]

text: Building[edit]

text: In the 1950s, Prime Minister Robert Menzies established a plan to develop Canberra and construct other important national buildings. A 1959 plan featured a new building for the High Court on the shore of Lake Burley Griffin, next to the location for the new Parliament House and the National Library of Australia. This plan was abandoned in 1968 and the location of the Parliament was moved, later settling on the present site on Capital Hill.[12]:ch 4

text: In March 1968, the government announced that the court would move to Canberra.[12]:ch 4 In 1972 an international competition was held attracting 158 entries. In 1973 the firm of Edwards Madigan Torzillo Briggs was declared the winner of the two-stage competition. Architect Chris Kringas was the Principal Designer and Director in charge working with Feiko Bouman. In March 1975, only one month before construction began, Kringas died, aged 38. Following his death, Feiko Bouman, Hans Marelli and Colin Madigan supervised the construction of the design.[167] The constructed building is largely identical to the 1973 competition design.

text: Construction began in April 1975 on the shore of Lake Burley Griffin, in the Parliamentary Triangle. The site is just to the east of the axis running between Capital Hill and the Australian War Memorial. The High Court building houses three courtrooms, Justices' chambers, and the Court's main registry, library, and corporate services facilities. It is an unusual and distinctive structure, built in the brutalist style, and features an immense public atrium with a 24-metre-high roof. The neighbouring National Gallery was also designed by the firm of Edwards Madigan Torzillo and Briggs. There are similarities between the two buildings in material and style but significant differences in architectural form and spatial concept. The building was completed in 1980 and the majority of the court's sittings have been held in Canberra since then.

text: The High Court and the National Gallery Precinct were added to the Australian National Heritage List in November 2007.[168]

text: Online[edit]

text: The High Court makes itself generally available to the public through its own website.[169] Judgment Alerts, available on the Court's website and by email with free subscription, provide subscribers with notice of upcoming judgments (normally a week beforehand) and, almost immediately after the delivery of a major judgment, with a brief summary of it (normally not more than one page). All of the Court's judgments, as well as transcripts of its hearings since 2009 and other materials, are made available, free of charge, through the Australasian Legal Information Institute. The Court has recently established on its website an "eresources" page, containing for each case its name, keywords, mentions of relevant legislation and a link to the full judgment; these links go to the original text from 2000 onward, scanned texts from 1948 to 1999 and facsimiles from the Commonwealth Law Reports for their first 100 volumes (1903 to 1959); there are also facsimiles of some unreported judgments (1906-2002).[170] Since October 2013, audio-visual recordings of full-court hearings held in Canberra have been available on its website.[171]


document_title: Little House on the Prairie (TV series)

question_text: where did little house on the prairie film

root

text: Little House on the Prairie (TV series)

text: Premise[edit]

text: Based on the autobiographical "Little House" stories, episodes of Little House on the Prairie usually concern members of the Ingalls family, who live on a small farm near the village of Walnut Grove, Minnesota. Many episodes concern the maturation of the family's second daughter, Laura. However, episodes also focus on other family and community members, providing a depiction of life in a small agrarian community in late nineteenth-century America. The show's central characters are Charles Ingalls (farmer and mill worker), his wife Caroline, and their three daughters, Mary, Laura, and Carrie, though the family expands with the birth of daughter Grace and adoption of son Albert in season five, as well as the adoption of birth siblings Cassandra and James at the end of season seven (a son, Charles "Freddy" Jr., was also born, but died as an infant).

tag: p

text: Other essential characters include the Oleson family: Nels, proprietor of the town's general store, Oleson's Mercantile; his malicious, gossiping wife, Harriet, who runs the Mercantile with him; and their three children, Nellie, Willie, and Nancy; Isaiah Edwards, Grace Snider Edwards and their three children; the Garvey family, Jonathan, Alice, and Andy; Rev. Robert Alden; Lars Hanson, the town's founder and proprietor of the town's mill; and Dr. Hiram Baker, the town's physician. Teacher-turned-lawyer Adam Kendall is introduced at the end of season four and later weds Mary Ingalls, and Almanzo Wilder is introduced in season six and later weds Laura Ingalls.

text: Cast and characters[edit]

text: Melissa Gilbert has the most appearances of the series, a total of 190 of the 204 episodes. Michael Landon appeared in all but four episodes of seasons one through eight, but departed from being a regular part of the cast when the show was retooled as Little House: A New Beginning (season nine).

text: Main cast[edit]

text:
Michael Landon as Charles Ingalls
Karen Grassle as Caroline Quiner Ingalls (seasons 1–8, one Post-series movie)
Melissa Gilbert as Laura Ingalls Wilder
Melissa Sue Anderson as Mary Ingalls Kendall (seasons 1–7, 8)
Lindsay and Sidney Greenbush as Carrie Ingalls (seasons 1–8)
Matthew Labyorteaux as Albert (Quinn) Ingalls (seasons 5–9, one Post-series movie)
Richard Bull as Nels Oleson
Katherine "Scottie" MacGregor as Harriet Oleson
Alison Arngrim as Nellie Oleson Dalton (seasons 1-7, 9)
Jonathan Gilbert as Willie Oleson
Victor French as Isaiah Edwards (seasons 1–3, 6, 8–9, two Post-series movies)
Bonnie Bartlett as Grace Snider Edwards (seasons 1–3, 6)
Kevin Hagen as Dr. Hiram Baker
Dabbs Greer as Rev. Robert Alden
Charlotte Stewart as Eva Beadle Simms (seasons 1–4)
Karl Swenson as Lars Hanson (seasons 1–5)
Radames Pera as John (Sanderson, Jr.) Edwards (seasons 2 & 3)
Brian Part as Carl (Sanderson) Edwards (seasons 2 & 3)
Kyle Richards as Alicia (Sanderson) Edwards (seasons 2–3, 6, 8)
Merlin Olsen as Jonathan Garvey (seasons 4–7)
Hersha Parady as Alice Garvey (seasons 4–6)
Patrick Labyorteaux as Andrew "Andy" Garvey (seasons 4–7)
Linwood Boomer as Adam Kendall (seasons 4–8)
Ketty Lester as Hester-Sue Terhune (seasons 5–9)
Wendi and Brenda Turnbaugh as Grace Ingalls (seasons 5–8)
Dean Butler as Almanzo Wilder (seasons 6–9, three post series movies)
Lucy Lee Flippin as Eliza Jane Wilder (seasons 6–8)
Allison Balson as Nancy Oleson (seasons 8 & 9, three Post-series movies)
Jason Bateman as James (Cooper) Ingalls (seasons 7 & 8)
Missy Francis as Cassandra (Cooper) Ingalls (seasons 7 & 8)
Shannen Doherty as Jenny Wilder (season 9, three post series movies)
Steve Tracy as Percival Dalton, character Nellie Oleson's husband, in the early 1980's.

tag: ul

text: Notable guest stars[edit]

text: Many actors, who were either well-known or went on to become famous, guest-starred on the show.

text:
Willie Aames (episode 3.15)
Anne Archer (episode 1.17)
Hermione Baddeley (3 episodes)
Jonathan Banks (episode 6.16)
Billy Barty (2 episodes)
Peter Billingsley (episode 8.12)
Dirk Blocker (episode 1.9)
Ray Bolger (2 episodes, S5)
Ernest Borgnine (episode 1.13/14)
Christopher Bowman (episodes 5.9, 5.18)
Todd Bridges (episode 3.18)
Red Buttons (episode 1.19)
Johnny Cash & June Carter Cash (episode 3.1)
Charles Cioffi (episode 5.22)
Michael Conrad (episode 4.8)
Keith Coogan (episode 7.15)
James Cromwell (episode 7.1)
David Faustino (episode 7.5)
Gil Gerard (episode 4.4)
Louis Gossett, Jr. (episode 2.18)
Moses Gunn as Joe Kagan (5 episodes)
Jerry Hardin (episode 5.23)
Melora Hardin (episodes 8.1/2, Look Back to Yesterday)
Mariette Hartley (episode 2.19)
John Hillerman (episode 5.8)
Rance Howard (episode 3.13)
Ernie Hudson (episode 8.8)
Rick Hurst (episode 1.3)
John Ireland (episode 3.4)
Burl Ives (episode 3.10)
Ford Rainey (episodes 2.2, 4.21)
Richard Jaeckel (episodes 2.18, 7.17/18)
Jack Kruschen (episode 8.6)
Katy Kurtzman (episodes 3.19, 4.16)
Charles Lane (episode 9.3)
Sheila Larken (episode 9.13)
Robert Loggia (episode 9.4)
Mike Lookinland (episode 4.4)
Chuck McCann (episode 1.11)
Vera Miles (episode 9.19)
Richard Mulligan (episode 2.21)
Patricia Neal (episode 2.7)
James Olson (episode 6.10)
Sean Penn (uncredited student extra)
Eddie Quillan (7 episodes)
Anne Ramsey (episode 5.1)
Nick Ramus (episode 4.13)
Kim Richards (episode 1.7)
James B. Sikking (episode 3.17)
Queenie Smith (5 episodes)
Madeleine Stowe (episode 7.6)
Robert Torti (episode 8.6)
Mitch Vogel (episode 1.23)
M. Emmet Walsh (episode 8.8)[4]
Collin Wilcox (episode 4.7)
Harris Yulin (episode 1.20)
and three of Landon's children:
Michael Landon, Jr. (episode 3.20)
Leslie Landon (4 guest episodes)
Shawna Landon (Little House Years / episode 9.15; both uncredited)

text: Production notes[edit]

text: Of the 204 episodes, Michael Landon directed the largest number at 87; producer William F. Claxton handled the majority of the remaining shows at 68, while co-star Victor French helmed 18. Maury Dexter (who was often an assistant director) and Leo Penn directed the remaining episodes at 21 and 3 episodes respectively.

text: Interior shots were filmed at Paramount studios in Los Angeles, while exteriors were largely filmed at the nearby Big Sky Ranch in Simi Valley, where the town of Walnut Grove had been constructed. Many other filming locations were also used during the course of the series including Old Tucson Studios and various locations in Sonora, California. Many of the exterior shots of Walnut Grove and the other Minnesota towns shown in the series have noticeable mountain terrain in the background of the scenes. In actuality the southern Minnesota landscape, where the show is supposed to take place, there are no tall mountains.

text: The series theme song was titled The Little House and was written and conducted by David Rose. The ending theme music, also written by Rose, originally appeared as a piece of incidental music in a later-season episode of Michael Landon's previous long-running series, Bonanza.

text: Themes[edit]

text: Little House explored many different themes including frequently portrayed ones of adoption, alcoholism, faith, poverty, blindness, and prejudice of all types including racism. Some plots also include subjects such as drug addiction (i.e. morphine), leukemia, child abuse, and even rape. Although predominantly a drama, the program has many lighthearted and comedic moments as well.

text: Some of the episodes written by Michael Landon were recycled storylines from ones that he had written for Bonanza. Season two's "A Matter of Faith" was based on the Bonanza episode "A Matter of Circumstance"; season five's "Someone Please Love Me" was based on the Bonanza episode "A Dream To Dream"; season seven's "The Silent Cry" was based on the Bonanza episode "The Sound of Sadness"; season eight's "He Was Only Twelve" was based on the Bonanza episode "He Was Only Seven"; and season nine's "Little Lou" was based on the Bonanza episode "It's A Small World".

text: Spin-offs and sequels[edit]

text: Little House: A New Beginning[edit]

text: When Michael Landon decided to leave the show (though he stayed on as executive producer and occasional writer and director), season nine was renamed, the focus was put on the characters of Laura and Almanzo, and more characters were added to the cast. A new family, the Carters (Stan Ivar as John, Pamela Roylance as Sarah, Lindsay Kennedy as older son Jeb, and David Friedman as younger son Jason), move into the Ingalls house. Meanwhile, Almanzo and Laura take in their niece, Jenny Wilder, when Almanzo's brother dies and raise her alongside their daughter, Rose. The Wilders appear prominently in some episodes, while in others they appear only in early scenes used to introduce the story or its characters. The explanation given for the original characters' absence was that they moved to Burr Oak, Iowa, to pursue a promising life. The show lost viewers, and this version of the series was canceled after one season. However, the show lived on for another 1.5 years in movie format.

text: Backdoor pilot[edit]

text: The series finale Hello and Goodbye, in which Laura and Almanzo finish renovating the late Mrs. Flannery's home into a boardinghouse and start to take in residents, was meant as a backdoor pilot for an entirely new spinoff alongside what was supposed to have been another few seasons of the original show.

text: In that episode, Mr. Edwards moved in after his mute son Matthew left with his father and he realized that not only was his cabin falling down, it was situated a considerable distance from all his friends.

text: Willie and Rachel, wanting their own space and to be out from under Harriet's thumb in the rooming house upstairs of the mercantile, elected to move in with Laura and Almanzo as well, while Willie cooked and ran the restaurant with Nellie, Percival and Rachel.

text: Sophisticated writer Sherwood Montague rounded out the ensemble and the show was supposed to have covered his and Willie's attempts to bring sophistication to Walnut Grove, however low viewership forced cancellation of both the main show as well as the intended spinoff.

text: The three movie specials listed below were produced to tie up loose ends to storylines on both the main series, as well as those that were opened up in Hello and Goodbye.

text: Movie specials[edit]

text: Three made-for-television post-series movies followed during the 1983-84 television season: Little House: Look Back to Yesterday (1983), Little House: The Last Farewell (1984), and Little House: Bless All the Dear Children (1984).

text: In The Last Farewell, Charles and Caroline decide to visit Walnut Grove. They learn that a railroad tycoon actually holds the deed to the township, and he wants to take it over for his own financial gain. Despite their best efforts, the townspeople are unable to drive the businessman away. At a town meeting, John Carter offers a supply of explosives that he has. Each man takes turn blowing up his own building in an emotional farewell to the town.[5]

text: When asked why the set was blown up, the show's producer, Kent McCray, said that when the series started, he made an agreement with the property owners that at the end of the series he would put the acreage back to its original state. When the production crew were estimating the cost of dismantling all the buildings, Michael Landon thought for a while and said, "What if we blow up the town? That would get the buildings all in pieces and you can bring in your equipment to pick up the debris and cart it away." He then said that he would write it where they blow up all the buildings, except for the little house and the church. Both McCray and Landon wept as the town blew up.[6]

text: Bless All the Dear Children was filmed prior to The Last Farewell, but ended up being the last of the three movies to air.[7] Given its Christmas-related content, NBC opted to air it during the following Christmas season.

text: Two other Little House movies were made in conjunction with the Landon series: the 1974 pilot for the program and The Little House Years (1979), a Thanksgiving special/clip show that aired in the middle of season six.

text: Broadcast history[edit]

text: For the first two seasons, the show was aired on Wednesday nights at 8pm ET/7pm CT, to moderate ratings. In 1976, the series became a Monday night staple on NBC; after the move, it remained in the top 30 for the rest of its run.

text: Reception[edit]

text: Nielsen ratings[edit]

text:
Season 1 (1974–75): #13[8]
Season 2 (1975–76): Not in top 30[9]
Season 3 (1976–77): #15
Season 4 (1977–78): #7[10]
Season 5 (1978–79): #14[11]
Season 6 (1979–80): #16[12]
Season 7 (1980–81): #10[13]
Season 8 (1981–82): #24 (Tied with: The Facts of Life)
Season 9 (1982–83): #28

text: Accolades[edit]

text:
1978: Emmy Award for Outstanding Cinematography in Entertainment Programming for a Series, Ted Voigtlander, episode "The Fighter"[14]
1979: Emmy Award for Outstanding Cinematography for a Series, Ted Voigtlander, episode "The Craftsman"[14]
1979: Emmy Award for Outstanding Music Composition for a Series, David Rose, episode "The Craftsman"
1980: TP de Oro, Spain, Mejor Actriz Extranjera (Best Foreign Actress), Melissa Sue Anderson[citation needed]
1981: Western Writers of America Spur Award for Best TV Script, Michael Landon, episode "May We Make Them Proud"[citation needed]
1982: Emmy Award for Outstanding Achievement in Music Composition for a Series (Dramatic Underscore), David Rose, episode "He Was Only Twelve" (Part 2)
1983: Young Artist Award for Best Young Actress in a Drama Series, Melissa Gilbert
1984: Young Artist Award for Best Young Actress in a Drama Series, Melissa Gilbert

text: Popularity in Spain[edit]

text: In the late 1970s and early 1980s, La Casa de la Pradera (Little House on the Prairie) was one of Spanish Television's most popular series. In 1976 Karen Grassle (Caroline Quiner Ingalls) won Spanish television's prestigious TP de Oro award for best foreign actress, and the series itself won for best foreign series; Melissa Sue Anderson (Mary Ingalls) won the TP de Oro in 1980 thanks in part to the enhanced profile she received as a result of her visit to Spain and her appearance on Spanish Television's 625 Lineas program in early 1979. The continued popularity of the show led to the appearance of Katherine MacGregor (Harriet Oleson) on 625 Lineas and Ding Dong in 1980.

text: Other media[edit]

text: Syndication[edit]

text: The show remains popular in syndicated reruns and has been on the air in the U.S. continuously since its original run. In addition to airing on local stations, it has been airing multiple times each day on INSP[15] and Hallmark Channel.[16] In the past, it has aired on TV Land and TBS. As of September 19, 2016, the show is currently airing on COZI TV four times daily, with the exception of Seasons eight and nine.

text: In the U.S., television syndication rights are currently owned by CBS Television Distribution. Originally, NBC licensed these rights to Worldvision Enterprises, since networks could not own syndication arms at the time. As a result of corporate changes, Paramount Domestic Television and CBS Paramount Domestic Television would inherit the rights via Spelling Entertainment, finally passing to CTD in 2007. In Canada, reruns of the series began airing weeknights on CTS, a Christian-based network, as of September 1, 2008.

text: Because of its historical context and its connection to the book series, it is deemed acceptable for use by the FCC to meet federal E/I programming guidelines. The show is typically stripped (run five days a week) in syndication, which is enough to completely cover a TV station's E/I requirements and more.

text: NBC owns ancillary rights and thus is the worldwide licensor for DVD rights as well. Sister company NBCUniversal International Television and MGM Worldwide Television Distribution distributes the series internationally.

text: DVD, Blu-ray and Digital Copy releases[edit]

text: The entire series has been released on standard-definition DVD, high-definition Blu-ray, and on both standard and high-definition Digital Copy.  In addition, some individual episodes have been released on DVD and VHS.  Starting with Season 7, the Blu-ray's are only available exclusively through Amazon.com.

text: There are multiple DVD sets which are noticeably different from one another.  The original DVD sets sold in the U.S. and Canada were released under license from NBCUniversal by Imavision Distribution, a company based in Quebec. A majority of the episodes in the original North American DVD versions had scenes cut from the episodes—these were derived from the syndicated television versions by Worldvision Enterprises, the series' former distributor. Other episodes were time-compressed and are NTSC-converted video prints from UK PAL masters, while others were derived from 16MM syndication prints, also from Worldvision. Only a handful of episodes in the original sets were in their original uncut versions. The episodes in these original sets are also known to have relatively poor video quality, such as tracking lines, as well as audio problems, though the quality issues are not as pronounced in the first few seasons as they are in the later seasons.  The first three seasons of the old sets notably are also missing closed-captioning.

text: These original North American DVD sets included interviews with former cast members Alison Arngrim, Dabbs Greer and Dean Butler. For the original movies & complete series sets, Imavision provided numerous additional special features including additional interviews with many of the cast members such as Melissa Gilbert and Melissa Sue Anderson and specials highlighting Michael Landon, the casting of the show, and more.  Imavision also released a French-language version of the series. Both versions are in NTSC color and coded for all regions. Later copies of these original sets were distributed by Lionsgate Home Entertainment following their acquisition of Imavision, but these should not be confused with the Lionsgate re-releases described below. The DVD sets sold in the United Kingdom were released by Universal Playback (a Universal Studios Home Entertainment label); this version is in PAL color and coded for region 2.  Unlike the original North American DVD sets, the UK version contains mostly uncut episodes.

text: In 2014, Lionsgate Home Entertainment began re-releasing the series in North America on DVD, and also for the first time, in high definition on Blu-ray, as well as Digital Copy through providers such as Vudu and Amazon Video. These new releases, which are stated to come direct from the original broadcast masters, contain mostly uncut episodes and are remastered to have superior picture and sound. The Blu-rays, with their high bitrate, high definition 1080p picture (as opposed to standard definition picture on the DVDs) currently provide the best viewing experience of the show that is commercially available.  The first six seasons on Blu-ray notably also contain lossless audio as opposed to the compressed audio on the DVDs.  Starting with Season 7, Lionsgate chose to only release the remaining Blu-ray's exclusively through Amazon.com.  In the process, they made several other changes to the Blu-ray's including compressing the audio (though with a relatively high bitrate), simplifying the on-screen disc menus, and eliminating the slipcovers and included Digital Copy codes that had been present for the previous seasons.

text: The newer Lionsgate remastered sets all contain English, French, and Spanish audio as well as English subtitles.  They do not include the special features present on the earlier non-remastered releases, but rather seasons 1 through 6 each contain a roughly 15 minute segment of a special called "The Little House Phenomenon".  Season 1 also contains the original Pilot movie.  Season 7 contains no special features.  Seasons 8 & 9 contain the three post-series movie specials as extras, with "Look Back to Yesterday" and "The Last Farewell" appearing on Season 8, and "Bless All The Dear Children" appearing on Season 9.  Some fans of the show have been perplexed as to why Lionsgate did this, both because all of the movies take place after the Season 9 timeline, and also because they included "The Last Farewell" on Season 8 when that is considered by fans to be the end to the show given its significant and memorable ending.  Lionsgate's decision as to which movies to include on which season appears to have been based on broadcast order rather than production order, since "Bless All The Dear Children" was the last episode broadcast even though "The Last Farewell" was the last one produced.  None of the available releases of the series contain "Little House Years", which was a three-hour Thanksgiving special aired during Season 6 that largely consisted of flashback clips.

text: While the re-releases are substantially better than what was previously available, there are a handful of episodes that still were released in edited form or contain other problems.  The most significant of these, affecting all formats of the remastered releases, include over 3 minutes missing from the Season 7 episode, "Divorce, Walnut Grove Style," almost 4 minutes missing from Season 9's "Home Again," and extremely low volume of the townspeoples' singing on the English audio of the last scene of the final movie, "The Last Farewell."[17]

text: List of releases[edit]

text:
Name
No. of episodes
Originally aired
DVD release dates
Remastered DVD & Blu-ray release date
Digital Copy release date

Region 1
Region 2

Region 1

Region 1

Season 1

24

1974–1975

July 8, 2003

July 25, 2005

March 25, 2014

March 25, 2014

Season 2

22

1975–1976

July 8, 2003

March 27, 2006

May 6, 2014

May 6, 2014

Season 3

22

1976–1977

November 4, 2003

March 10, 2008

September 9, 2014

September 9, 2014

Season 4

22

1977–1978

February 17, 2004

May 26, 2008

January 20, 2015

September 9, 2014

Season 5

24

1978–1979

June 29, 2004

August 4, 2008

April 14, 2015

September 9, 2014

Season 6

24

1979–1980

October 26, 2004

May 3, 2010

July 14, 2015

September 9, 2014

Season 7

22

1980–1981

February 15, 2005

July 17, 2010

October 6, 2015 (DVD)  December 22, 2015 (Blu-ray)

September 9, 2014

Season 8

22

1981–1982

June 14, 2005

March 20, 2011

January 19, 2016 (DVD)  March 22, 2016 (Blu-ray)

September 9, 2014

Season 9

22

1982–1983

November 1, 2005

January 20, 2012

April 19, 2016

September 9, 2014

3-Movie Box Set

3 movies

1983–1984

November 28, 2006

None (but is in Complete set)

September 13, 2016 (DVD only)

September 13, 2016

The Complete Television Series

204

1974–1984

November 11, 2008

October 7, 2015 (Dutch import)

October 6, 2015 (DVD only)

September 9, 2014

tag: table

text: Announced film adaptation[edit]

text: In October 2012, Sony Pictures announced that a film based on the series's pilot is under development, with Scott Rudin as the producer.[18] However, the film was later on turnaround to Paramount Pictures in 2016, where the film resumed development.[19] [20] It has Sean Durkin as the director and Abi Morgan as the screenwriter, although Rudin is still the film’s producer. [21] No actors have been selected or joined the cast yet.


document_title: The Incident (Modern Family)

question_text: who plays claire's mom on modern family

question_tokens: who plays claire 's mom on modern family

text: The Incident (Modern Family)

text: Plot[edit]

text: DeDe (Shelley Long), Claire (Julie Bowen) and Mitchell's (Jesse Tyler Ferguson) mother, stops in for a surprise visit and wants to try to make up with everyone that she offended during "the incident" that she caused at Jay (Ed O'Neill) and Gloria's (Sofía Vergara) wedding. DeDe had become progressively drunk during the event, eventually having to be carried out, making a scene. In the meantime, Haley (Sarah Hyland) wants to attend a concert with her boyfriend, Dylan (Reid Ewing), but Claire and Phil (Ty Burrell) refuse to let her go.

text: Later, everything comes into play when the whole family meets at Claire's house for dinner. Dylan sings a song to prove that he is good enough to take Haley to the concert. While the song still sounds appropriate Phil and Claire are considering to let her go with him at the concert. When though Dylan starts singing the words "I just wanna do you, do you. Do you wanna do me, do me" and the parents see that Haley is smiling, they change their minds. The next morning everyone sings Dylan's song to themselves.

text: Production[edit]

text: The episode "The Incident" was written by Steven Levitan and directed by Jason Winer. The episode is Steven Levitan's third writing credit after the "Pilot" and "The Bicycle Thief".[2] The episode is also Jason Winer's fourth directors credit after "Pilot", "The Bicycle Thief" and "Come Fly with Me.[3][4] It is also Shelley Long's first guest appearance on the show as Jay's Ex-wife and Mitchell & Claire's mother.[5]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Ratings[edit]

text: In its original American broadcast, "The Incident" was viewed by an estimated 9.353 million households and a 5.8 rating/9% share Nielsen rating receiving a 3.6 rating/10% share in the 18-49 demographic coming second in its timeslot after Criminal Minds.[6]

text: Reviews[edit]

text: "The Incident" was widely acclaimed by television critics. BuddyTV named this episode the 33rd best episode of 2009 saying "The matriarch of the family returned to cause trouble, but what sealed the deal on this episode's greatness was Dylan's performance of his catchy but wildly inappropriate song "In the Moonlight"[7] Robert Canning of IGN gave the episode a 9.0/10 saying it was "Outstanding" and ""The Incident" was a great episode with a far more personal storyline than generically learning responsibility with a new bike." referring to "The Bicycle Thief," the second episode of the first season"[8]

text: Jason Hughes of TV Squad gave the episode a positive review and praised the casting of Shelley Long saying "She hasn't lost even a bit of her comic chops, either. I'm hoping she agreed to come back and play this role over and over again."[9]

text: Donna Bowman of The A.V. Club gave the episode an A saying "Last week I wrote that Modern Family's sense of sky's-the-limit potential arises "not because it's starting from somewhere and going somewhere else -- but because it's got so much territory to explore right where it's plopped itself down."  And this week it's like they've set out to prove me right."[10]

text: Michael Slezak of Entertainment Weekly remarked that "Just when you think Modern Family can’t get any funnier, it does. And I say that both about the series generally and last night’s episode specifically. "[11]

text: James Poniewozik of Time stated "With the arrival of Mom (Shelley Long) providing the excuse (of Claire and Mitchell acting as brother and sister), this episode added some layers to their family dynamic (though we had already heard that Claire had been a rebellious daughter)."[12]

text: Many critics have praised the casting of Shelley Long as DeDe. Michael Slezak said "The casting of Shelley Long as Jay’s passive-aggressive (except when violently aggressive) yet sexually reactivated ex-wife was a stroke of genius."[11] Robert Canning said "Long was a great choice for this sweet but aggravating character that could be as free-spirited as she was mean.".[8]


document_title: Ring finger

question_text: what hand does wedding ring go on in germany

text: Ring finger

text: Etymology[edit]

text: The origin of the selection of the fourth finger as the ring finger is not definitively known. According to László A. Magyar, the names of the ring finger in many languages reflect an ancient belief that it is a magical finger. It is named after magic or rings, or called nameless (for example, in Chinese: 无名指, unnamed finger).[1] In Sanskrit and other languages like Finnish or Russian, the ring finger is called respectively - "Anamika", "Nimetön" and "Безымянный" ("nameless"). In Arabic and Hebrew, the ring finger is called respectively - bansur (meaning "victory") - and kmitsa (meaning "taking a handful").

text: In anatomy, the ring finger is called digitus medicinalis, the fourth finger, digitus annularis, digitus quartus, or digitus IV. It may also be referred to as the third finger,[2] excluding the thumb. In Latin, the word anulus means "ring", digitus means "finger", and quartus means "fourth".

text: History[edit]

text: Before medical science discovered how the circulatory system functioned, people believed that a vein ran directly from the fourth finger on the left hand to the heart.[citation needed] Because of the hand–heart connection, they chose the descriptive name vena amoris, Latin for the vein of love, for this particular vein.[3]

text: Based upon this name, their contemporaries, purported experts in the field of matrimonial etiquette, wrote that it would only be fitting that the wedding ring be worn on this finger.[citation needed] By wearing the ring on the fourth finger of the left hand, a married couple symbolically declares their eternal love for each other.

text: Contemporary customs[edit]

text: Western customs[edit]

text: In Western cultures, a wedding ring is traditionally worn on the ring finger. This developed from the Roman "anulus pronubis" when a man would give a ring to the woman at their betrothal ceremony. Blessing the wedding ring and putting it on the bride's finger dates from the 11th century. In medieval Europe, during the Christian wedding ceremony the ring was placed in sequence on the thumb, index, middle, and ring fingers of the left hand. The ring was then left on the ring finger. In a few European countries, the ring is worn on the left hand prior to marriage, then transferred to the right during the ceremony. For example, a Greek Orthodox bride wears the ring on the left hand prior to the ceremony, then moves it to the right hand after the wedding. In England, the 1549 Prayer Book declared "the ring shall be placed on the left hand". By the 17th and 18th centuries the ring could be found on any finger after the ceremony — even on the thumb.

text: The wedding ring is generally worn on the ring finger of the left hand in the former British Empire, certain parts of Western Europe, certain parts of Catholic Central and Eastern Europe (and some not so), Mexico and Bolivia. These include: Australia, Botswana, Canada, Egypt, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, the UK, and the US; France, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, and Finland; Czech Republic, Slovakia, Switzerland, Romania, Croatia, and Slovenia.

text: The wedding ring is worn on the ring finger of the right hand in some Orthodox and a small number of Catholic European countries, some Protestant Western European, as well as some Central and South American Catholic countries.[4] In Eastern Europe, these include: Bulgaria, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Russia, and Serbia. In Central or Western Europe, these include: Austria, Denmark, Greece, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Netherlands [if not Catholic], Norway, and (Catholic) Spain. In Central or South America, these include: Colombia, Cuba, Peru, Venezuela.

text: The ring is worn on the right hand until the actual wedding day, when it is moved to the left hand in Turkey, Lebanon, and Syria as well as in Brazil.

text: In a traditional Jewish wedding ceremony, the wedding ring is placed on the bride's left hand index finger, but other traditions place it on the middle finger or the thumb, most commonly in recent times.[5] Today, the ring usually is moved to the left hand ring finger after the ceremony. Some Jewish grooms have adopted wearing a wedding ring.

text: Non-Western customs[edit]

text: In Sinhala and Tamil culture, the groom wears the wedding ring on his right hand and bride wears it on her left hand ring finger. This can be seen in countries like Sri Lanka where there is a rich Sinhala and Tamil cultural influence in the society.[6]

text: A wedding ring is not a traditional part of the religious Muslim wedding and wedding rings are not included in most Islamic countries, However, if a wedding ring is worn in an Islamic country, it may be worn on either the left (such is the custom in Iran) or the right ring finger (as in Jordan). As opposed to the wedding ring, use of a ring to denote betrothal or engagement is quite prevalent in Muslim countries, especially those in West and South Asia. Muslim engagement rings are typically worn on the right finger by men, and the left finger by women.

text: Rings are not traditional in an Indian wedding. However, in modern society it is becoming a practice to wear rings for engagements and not for actual marriage. Though the left hand is considered inauspicious for religious activities, a ring (not to be called wedding ring) is still worn on the left hand. Men generally wear the rings on the right hand and the women on the left hands. If a wedding ring is worn, the ring is worn on the left ring finger mostly for men.