Source: http://fsmlaw.org/chuuk/code/title05/T05_CH01.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:50:09+00:00

Document:
§ 1004. General Powers of State and Municipal Governments.
This Act Chapter is known and may be cited as the Chuuk State Judiciary Act of 1990.
Source: CSL 190-08, § 1.
Comment: CSL 190-08 was signed into law on September 20, 1990.
Section 40. Repeal. TSL Nos. 3-12, 5-32, 5-60, 5-73, 5-89 and 5-123 are repealed in their entirety.
(3) facilitate cooperation between the State Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the Federated State of Micronesia.
Source: CSL 190-08, § 2.
Cross-reference: The constitutional provisions on the Judicial branch of the Chuuk State Government are found in Art. VII of the Chuuk State Constitution. The constitutional provisions on the Judicial branch of the FSM National Government are found in Art. XI of the FSM Constitution.
The judicial power of the State Government is vested in a unified judiciary, consisting of the State Supreme Court, and inferior courts as established by law, and the municipal courts.
Source: CSL 190-08, § 3.
§ 1004. General powers of State and Municipal Courts.
Each court shall have power to issue all writs for equitable and legal relief, except the power of attachment, execution and garnishment of public property, and to issue other process, make rules and orders, and do all acts, consistent with law and with the rules established by the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court, as may be necessary for due administration of justice, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, may grant bail, accept and cause forfeit of security therefor, make orders for the attendance of witnesses with or without documents, and make orders for the disposal of exhibits.
Source: CSL 190-08, § 4.
Case annotations: The Chuuk Judiciary Act of 1990, Chk. S.L. No. 190-08, states in part that the reviewing court shall declare unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be unsupported by substantial evidence. Nakamura v. Moen Municipality, 8 FSM Intrm. 552, 554 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 1998).
The standard required for the review of a Land Commission decision by the Chuuk State Supreme Court trial division is whether the decision of the Land Commission is supported by substantial evidence. Nakamura v. Moen Municipality, 8 FSM Intrm. 552, 554 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 1998).
The Chuuk State Supreme Court trial division has jurisdiction to review the actions of any state administrative agency, board, or commission, as may be provided by law. Mathew v. Silander, 8 FSM Intrm. 560, 563-64 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).
When an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief ordinarily must not only be sought initially from the appropriate administrative agency but such remedy usually must be exhausted before a litigant may resort to the courts. Choisa v. Osia, 8 FSM Intrm. 567, 569 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).
The rule requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies is a wholesome one and an aid to the proper administration of justice. One of the important reasons, is to prevent the transfer to courts of duties imposed by law on administrative agencies. Choisa v. Osia, 8 FSM Intrm. 567, 569 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that no one is entitled to bring a land dispute to court until the Land Commission has been given a chance to decide the case because the Land Commission is the proper forum for the determination of land ownership. Choisa v. Osia, 8 FSM Intrm. 567, 569 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).
When a plaintiff seeks to establish a claim in a court action that is identical to the claim he already established in administrative proceedings, a court judgment could do no more, and payment of the claim can only be lawfully done by legislative appropriation. Mark v. Chuuk, 8 FSM Intrm. 582, 583 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).
The Chuuk State Supreme Court trial division has jurisdiction to review the actions of any state administrative agency, board, or commission, as may be provided by law. The Judiciary Act of 1990, Chk. 190-08, § 18, provides that a person adversely affected or aggrieved by an agency action, is entitled to judicial review thereof. Mark v. Chuuk, 8 FSM Intrm. 582, 584 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).
A person who has not been adversely affected or aggrieved by administrative action cannot seek court review when his rights were fully protected by his successful administrative claim. His remedy is not with the judiciary, but with the Legislature for an appropriation to pay his claim. Mark v. Chuuk, 8 FSM Intrm. 582, 584 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).
In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, any court of this State, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such. Further necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted, after reasonable notice and hearing against any adverse party whose rights have been determined by such judgment.
Source: CSL 190-08, § 16.
If any provision of this Act Chapter, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the invalidity of the Act Chapter does not affect other provisions or applications of the Act Chapter which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act Chapter are severable.
Source: CSL 190-08, § 41.

References: § 1
 § 2
 § 3

§ 1004
 § 4
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 18
 v. 
 v. 
 § 16
 § 41