Search

The U.S. Supreme Court has heard several cases regarding special education. These cases have resulted in decisions that have addressed issues involving special education programming and procedural issues. On March 21, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools. This decision, which was the most recent special education case heard by the highest court in the United States, involved litigation in special education. In this brief article, we address the Supreme Court's decision in Perez by (a) examining the background of the case, (b) reviewing the decision by the lower courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, and (c) discussing the implications of the case for special educators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In examining public evaluations of governing institutions, are job approval and legitimacy related? This question has dominated scholarship on Supreme Court legitimacy for decades. Conventional wisdom suggests that specific support (e.g., job approval) and diffuse support (e.g., legitimacy) are independent. Specific support captures short-term orientations based on policy alignment with the Court. Legitimacy is a long-term perspective reflecting more fundamental support for the Court as a governing institution. We challenge the paradigm that job approval and legitimacy are largely unrelated concepts. Specifically, we employ a variety of statistical techniques and panel data to show that changes in legitimacy are a direct effect of changes in public approval. Salient decisions and Court vacancies directly shape approval and indirectly shape legitimacy through their effects on approval. Longitudinal analysis confirms that changes in job approval precede and predict changes in legitimacy. These results suggest that the Court needs public approval, and its public approval is rooted in outcome-oriented perceptions of its decisions and membership. Further, sustained low levels of approval will eventually erode legitimacy and limit the Court's influence over policy. Thus, like the outwardly political executive and legislative branches, it is important for the Court to build political capital through job approval. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Groundwater allocation is rapidly becoming a contentious water resource management problem around the world. It is anticipated that the effects of climate change would further aggravate this problem. Conflicts over the distribution of freshwater are expected to increase as stakeholders want to access more groundwater to meet their growing demands. In the United States, water conflicts are settled through a litigation process. Water litigations can be expensive, protracted, and fraught with complex legal and technical difficulties. A landmark groundwater case involving Tennessee (TN) and Mississippi (MS) was recently litigated in the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). In this case, MS sued TN for stealing their groundwater and SCOTUS unanimously ruled that the water contained in the aquifer that naturally crosses the border between TN and MS is subject to equitable apportionment. This decision has significant ramifications for groundwater management as it established a precedent for resolving future interstate groundwater litigations. Although the Court has previously applied the legal doctrine of equitable apportionment to settle disputes involving surface water use, this is the first instance in which the doctrine has been applied to resolve an interstate groundwater dispute. Therefore, currently, there are little or no guidelines available for equitably distributing groundwater resources between two states. The objective of this article is to examine this historic legal dispute to fully understand the scientific justification for the judicial stances taken by the plaintiff and defendants, and the legal reasoning for the final verdict. We also discuss the challenges this ruling presents for managing interstate groundwater resources. Article impact statement: This paper examines the challenges in resolving groundwater conflicts using the equitable apportionment doctrine promulgated by SCOTUS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Global interest in circumcision, one of the oldest and most frequently performed surgical procedures worldwide, continues. There is a significant increase in cases regarding medical malpractice claims in the world and in our country. It is aimed to identify situations that lead to malpractice claims in circumcision surgery, which has question marks regarding its psychological and ethical aspects, to identify situations that are considered errors and professionally risky, and to contribute to eliminating these deficiencies. Methods: We examined the Supreme Court appeal decisions related to circumcision malpractice cases resolved between 2012 and 2022, using the keyword "circumcision" on the official website of the Republic of Turkiye Supreme Court. Results: We examined 30 Supreme Court decisions that met our criteria. It was determined that the most common lawsuit was filed due to negligence (43.3%), followed by carelessness (20%) and faulty action (20%). Conclusion: Physical conditions must be appropriate and healthcare personnel must be adequately trained for circumcision, which is frequently performed especially in pediatric patients and is more frequently subject to malpractice lawsuits than other pediatric operations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper systematizes and compares, based on the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court and its decisions, four pairings of concepts that arise from discussions on the operability of the presumption of innocence in the AngloAmerican legal system. The article illustrates that the partial conclusions in each of these comparisons must be reached by arguments consistent with the normative foundation of the presumption of innocence principle in order to find the defining characteristics of said principle. Ultimately, the paper sets forth a definition of the presumption of innocence that encompasses each of the partial conclusions thus reached. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court (OGH) in Austria has ruled that disputes between doctors regarding the purchase agreement of a medical practice are not subject to the arbitration clause of the Medical Act. The judgment states that such disputes cannot be considered inseparably connected to the exercise of the medical profession and can therefore be brought directly to court. It is emphasized that non-compliance with the arbitration clause does not constitute a procedural obstacle, but merely represents the objection of the claim's lack of enforceability. The judgment contributes to clarifying the legal protection route in conflicts within the medical profession, but leaves questions regarding the procedural impact of the clause unanswered. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court Judgment of April 3, 2024 resolves an administrative appeal filed by Mercantil against Royal Decree 35/2023, which approves the revision of the hydrological plans of several hydrographic basins. The appeal challenges provisions related to the use of desalinated water and argues that this water cannot be considered external resources and must be subject to the administrative concession regime. The Supreme Court concludes that desalinated water is part of the public hydraulic domain and its use is subject to concessions and authorizations granted by the Segura Hydrographic Confederation. The Court dismisses the appeal and establishes that previous agreements are not sufficient for the exclusive use of desalinated water. The judgment reinforces the perspective that desalinated water is a public hydraulic domain asset and must be used rationally. [Extracted from the article]

Law 7/2021 on climate change and energy transition, required municipalities with more than 50,000 inhabitants to create low-emission zones by 2023, but some cities (such as Barcelona in 2019) had already introduced them before the law was enacted. In 2022, the High Court of Justice of Catalonia annulled this zone in Barcelona, but the decision was appealed to the Supreme Court. At the end of 2023, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal and confirmed the annulment of the low-emission zone in Barcelona. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In October 2022, a two-judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on constitutional challenges to the "hijab ban" imposed in some educational institutions in the State of Karnataka. This case note identifies gaps in the manner in which three central constitutional claims, namely, religious freedom, privacy and freedom of speech and expression, and discrimination, were engaged with in this case. The note argues that while both judges' opinions on the inapplicability of the essential religious practices test are questionable, its application does not conclusively determine the constitutionality of the ban. It also argues that the Court should have subjected the hijab ban to a structured proportionality analysis to investigate if the ban violates the rights to privacy, and freedom of speech and expression. Finally, the note argues that claims of indirect discrimination are central to this case and demanded serious engagement by the bench. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay examines some of the social contexts underlying the Supreme Court's decision in the seminal case of United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923). Since the Court's decision in that case established that whiteness in the U.S. was based on 'common' sense, this essay examines how this 'common' sense was created in the public sphere. This essay presents arguments on how film, and in particular, the 1915 film Birth of a Nation, helped cement popular understandings of whiteness. Through these arguments, this essay provides further context to some of the social and political underpinnings of the Thind case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court Judgment of November 2, 2023 resolves the appeals filed by the Government of Catalonia, the Barcelona City Council, and the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona against a previous judgment that upheld the contentious-administrative appeal filed by several transport associations against an ordinance of the Barcelona City Council. The Supreme Court confirms the previous judgment and declares that the appeals filed by the recurring administrations are not admissible. The text presents arguments related to the repeal of an ordinance and its impact on the sanctioning regime. It mentions a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union that condemns Spain for non-compliance with Directive 2008/50/EC on air quality. The importance of environmental protection is highlighted, and principles related to sustainable development are mentioned. A debate is raised about the weighing of fundamental rights, and the need for reliable information to take appropriate measures is mentioned. The High Court of Justice of Catalonia has issued several judgments questioning the Barcelona Atmospheric Environmental Protection Ordinance. The court considers that the territorial delimitation of the Low Emission Zone (LEZ) is too broad and that the restrictive measures adopted are not proportionate. In addition, it criticizes the lack of updating of the pollution data used and the lack of motivation and evaluation of alternatives in the drafting of the regulation. The Supreme Court has confirmed the judgments of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia declaring the invalidity of the Barcelona Ordinance that restricted the circulation of polluting vehicles in the Low Emission Zone (LEZ). The Supreme Court argues that the Ordinance has not been adequately justified, nor have the effects of the measures adopted been evaluated in terms of proportionality. Furthermore, it points out that conclusive reports have not been taken into account, nor has the economic and social impact of the imposed restrictions been considered. As a result, the Barcelona City Council has approved a new Ordinance with a more limited territorial scope and includes social improvements. The article highlights the importance of adequately justifying restrictive measures and complying with the corresponding legal requirements. The Supreme Court Judgment STS 4853/2023, issued on November 2, 2023, is mentioned as a reference. No additional information is provided about the content of the judgment. [Extracted from the article]

"Judicial Vetoes: Decision-Making on Mixed Selection Constitutional Courts" by Lydia Brashear Tiede explores why and when courts decide to declare laws unconstitutional. Tiede argues that the method of appointing members of high courts significantly shapes the nature of judicial decisions. The book focuses on the composition of courts with judges with different approaches to constitutional interpretation and how this affects their decisions. Tiede analyzes two constitutional courts in Latin America, the Colombian Constitutional Court and the Chilean Constitutional Tribunal, to examine the role of institutional design in judicial decisions. The book also highlights the connection between the ideas of institutional selectors and the judges' voting records, as well as the presence of panel effects on court-level decisions. The findings suggest that the mixed method of selecting court judges can lead to collegial decision-making and a broader perspective beyond partisan perspectives. Future research could explore the contexts in which political ideology or institutional selectors have a greater impact on judges' decisions. Additionally, the book raises questions about how the appointment process influences courts' propensity to strike down laws and the potential effects on the deliberation process. Overall, "Judicial Vetoes" offers a nuanced analysis of the contextual factors that shape judicial decisions and invites further inquiry into the role of institutional selectors in shaping judicial outcomes. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court Judgment of October 18, 2023 resolves an appeal filed by the Júcar River Basin Authority against a judgment of the Higher Court of Justice of the Valencian Community. The case refers to the responsibility of a City Council for the discharge of wastewater from an urbanization. The Supreme Court determines that the reception of the urbanization works is necessary for the City Council to be considered responsible for the discharges, and dismisses the appeal of the City Council of Pego against the sanction imposed by the Júcar River Basin Authority. The article highlights the importance of completing the urbanization before authorizing the occupation of the buildings and points out that the omission of administrative powers by the City Councils can generate illegal situations. The Judgment STS 4344/2023 of the Supreme Court establishes that municipalities are responsible for illegal discharges into public watercourses from urbanizations with unreceived urbanization works. [Extracted from the article]

This article examines how the subjective element of gun-jumping infringements has developed since the National Court's judgment in the Bergé case. We analyse the main aspects of the decisions of the National Markets and Competition Commission, the National Court and Supreme Court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent Supreme Court judgment 914/2023 of 4 July confirms that the Bank of Spain's internal bulletins nos. 7/2011 and 2/2013 are lawful and holds that they are merely instructions for its own inspectors rather than general provisions. This decision has important consequences on an individual's guarantees during Bank of Spain inspections, particularly onsite ones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Takeover bids have recently given rise to administrative litigation in Spain. Ever since the National Court upheld the appeal against the decision to approve the Cementos Portland Valderrivas, S.A. takeover, the number of appeals against takeover bid approvals has escalated. This has resulted in various precedent-setting judgments by the National Court and the Supreme Court on essential issues regarding takeover bid regulations. This article analyses these and other imminent judgments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court of Pakistan plays an important mediatory role in managing political conflict. While there is a growing body of literature on the merits of the Eighteenth Amendment to Pakistan's Constitution, not much has been written about how those changes have actually played out in practice before the courts. This paper tries to plug this gap by critically examining the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd v Federation of Pakistan. This paper argues that while the outcome is consistent with a general tendency of constitutional courts to centralize power, the expansive rule laid down by the Supreme Court does not square up with the spirit of the Eighteenth Amendment which was intended to resolve long-standing disputes between the centre and the provinces by conferring greater provincial autonomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After the 2021 parliamentary elections, the Kosovo Supreme Court annulled some 5800 votes expressed for three minority lists running for guaranteed seats of the Bosniak and the Roma minorities. The court considered it impossible that they were cast by members of the respective ethnic communities. This court ruling has wider implications for consociational theory, as it makes novel normative prescriptions about group representation in divided societies. The debate in Kosovo closely mirrors similar controversies elsewhere, such as the 'Sejdić-Finci' case in the elections of the state presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or the reserved parliamentary seats in Lebanon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court ruling of July 17, 2023 resolves an administrative appeal filed by the City Council of Orihuela against Royal Decree 638/2021, which modifies Royal Decree 773/2014 regarding the transfer through the Tajo-Segura aqueduct. The Supreme Court denies the active legitimacy of the City Council and declares the appeal inadmissible, as it considers that the Royal Decree does not affect the autonomy or the assets or rights of the Corporation. The court argues that the contested regulation mainly affects supralocal interests and does not justify the need for substitute representation by the City Council. Therefore, the appeal filed by the City Council of Orihuela is declared inadmissible. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court Judgment of September 4, 2023 resolves an appeal filed by the Valencian Government against a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community. The Supreme Court must address three issues related to strategic environmental assessment, gender impact reports, and the requirement for alternative studies. The Supreme Court accepts the arguments of the Valencian Government and annuls the contested judgment. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court Judgment of June 30, 2023 resolves the appeals filed by the Extremadura Regional Government, the City Council of Cáceres, and the entity Soluciones Extremeñas de Recuperación, SL, against a previous judgment that had declared the nullity of a specific amendment to the Municipal General Plan of Cáceres. The Supreme Court determines that the approval of a specific amendment to an urban planning instrument that modifies uses in non-urbanizable protected land, while maintaining the classification, may violate the principle of non-regression in environmental protection. Therefore, it rejects the appeals filed. [Extracted from the article]

In the next Supreme Court term beginning in October 2023, the Justices will hear argument on whether the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT), passed as part of the Trump administration's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), violates the Sixteenth Amendment. Even if the Moores win on their individual MRT refund suit, the MRT on corporate shareholders could survive-and that tax on mega-companies that have retained billions in overseas affiliates forms the most significant part of the expected MRT tax. Even if the Court agrees that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes accrual-based taxation, making an annual mark-to-market accrual income tax such as that under section 475 constitutional, the Court could possibly conclude that the MRT look-back period is an unreasonably long period for taxation under the accrual method. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court has provided a landmark judgment in the law of private nuisance, overturning the decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal, and being decided by a narrow 3:2 majority to create one of the most captivating judgments handed down in recent times for property litigation. This case concerned the appeal to the Supreme Court from the residents of luxury flats overlooked by the Tate Modern Gallery viewing platform. The viewing platform was once considered one of London's best free viewpoints; indeed, the Supreme Court Justices describe it as a 'striking view of London'. It has, however, caused a great deal of controversy with its neighbours over the last six years and their story has generated a remarkable amount of publicity. While it had previously been acknowledged that nuisance need not amount to physical interference, the question of whether there was, or should be, a right to prevent public overlooking had never been considered within the scope of private nuisance before. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Viewpoint explicates the complex reasoning the US Supreme Court has used in rulings on gun control and raises concerns that the recent Rahimi decision poses more questions than it settled on the future of the Second Amendment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta has the potential to rework the long-standing division of authority among federal, state, and tribal governments. In issuing its decision in this June 2022 case, the majority departed from its previous decisions and congressional policy by enabling state governments to exercise criminal authority over non-Indians in Indian Country. This article examines the implications of Castro-Huerta for federal, tribal, and state governments on the ground in Indian Country as well as for scholarship and teaching on federal–tribal–state relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The U.S. Supreme Court concluded in Dobbs Case that the right to an abortion is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution. Since we are in a situation where we have to revise the abortion law according to the decision of constitutional nonconformity, We may feel a little bewildered about overruling of Roe v. Wade. However, considering 'social confusion' and 'legal stability', it is better to revise the abortion law quickly. It is also because revising the abortion law has already been unacceptably delayed. It must be included in the revised bill that abortion for social or economic reasons within about 22 weeks(the undeterminable period) is permitted. It is reasonable that unrestricted abortion within 'the first trimester' is not included in the revised bill because it follows the theory of 'Roe v. Wade'. Germany's 'Pregnancy Conflicts Act (SchKG)' and Japan's 'Reporting Obligations stipulated in the Maternity Protection Act' will be of great help in reviewing the revised bill. The author believes that the core subject of the abortion control law is to find measures to help pregnant women choose childbirth. The measures are not limited to punishment. The system to support pregnant women and the consultation system by experts should be supplemented more perfectly. In addition, The awareness and the consensus should be formed that 'pregnancy and childbirth are the responsibility of the whole society'. Only after such efforts have been made, Our society deserves to emphasize the 'dignity of life'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On June 24, 2022, the United States Supreme Court found that "the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion" in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization. The Supreme Court determined that the right to abortion is not a constitutional right, overruling Roe v. Wade (decided in 1973) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey (1992), which acknowledged a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. The Court, then, ruled that the authority to regulate abortion was returned to the people and their elected representatives in each state. With this decision, a pregnant woman's right to abortion, which has been recognized as a constitutional right in the United States for the past 50 years, loses its status, and each state's legislature is empowered to regulate abortion based on its own determination of legitimate that state's interests. This article aims to examine the legitimacy of the Court's ruling, by analyzing the legal principle for denying the right to abortion in Dobbs and presenting its problems from a critical perspective. In particular, it points out questionable parts in the logic ofDobbs through discussions on the way to interpret the Constitution vis-a-vis rights not specifically enumerated in it and where it is required to follow the doctrine of stare decisis. Finally, it claims that the right to abortion should be understood to be included in the right to privacy, as was found in Roe, which is protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The judicial review of Law Number 13 of 2003 concerning Manpower (UUK) has been granted by the Constitutional Court in 11 (eleven) requests for UUK testing. Of the 11 (eleven) decisions there were 3 (three) decisions whose follow-up was regulated by the Supreme Court Circular Letter (SEMA), namely SEMA Number 4 of 2014 and SEMA Number 3 of 2015, and gave rise to injustice and legal uncertainty in labor law. This legal research uses normative legal research methods. The data were analyzed qualitatively and are prescriptive. The approach used is a statutory approach (statute approach) and a case approach (case approach). This research is important to do to explain SEMA's position in labor law and the Constitutional Court's decision regarding UUK is erga omnes, the decision is final and binding. The results of the study show that SEMA has no legal standing to further regulate the Constitutional Court's decision because SEMA is not a statutory regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the past, when asserting a common-law fraud counterclaim in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the government has argued that it was entitled to rescission of a contract “tainted” by fraud and disgorgement of all monies paid under the contract. The government’s requests did not merely seek disgorgement of profits, but, rather, sought to recover all amounts paid under the contract, while also retaining the work provided by the contractor. A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, however, forecloses such a recovery for a common-law fraud claim. In Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Supreme Court explored the limitations on the use of disgorgement as an equitable remedy and explained that, when disgorgement is ordered as an equitable remedy, a court must deduct legitimate expenses from the amount that is to be disgorged. As discussed in this article, the principles articulated in Liu apply equally to a common-law fraud claim in the Court of Federal Claims and, in most cases, preclude disgorgement of amounts that exceed a contractor’s profit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors discuss the Supreme Court's decision in Saurav Yadav v State of Uttar Pradesh, which relates to reservation for women candidates in public offices under Articles 15(3) and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. The question which arose for consideration was whether candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, or Scheduled Tribes categories could be accommodated to the open category on securing the cut-off marks prescribed for candidates in the open category – which was answered in the affirmative. We first analyse the position of law as it stood prior to the decision. Then, we go on to analyse the judgement in detail, including an intersectional analysis from the perspective of "women" as a class. The authors also critique the judgement for its overemphasis on merit while resolving the dispute in question. Finally, the authors discuss the importance of providing relaxations and concessions to the reserved candidates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court Judgment of February 8, 2023 resolves an appeal filed by Naturgy Generación S.L. against a judgment of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia. The appeal refers to the taxable base in the Special Coal Tax and whether the "higher calorific value" or gross (HCV) or the "lower calorific value" or net (LCV) should be taken into account. The Supreme Court considers that the taxable base of the tax is constituted by the energy power of coal, expressed in gigajoules (GJ), taking into consideration the higher calorific value of coal. This decision is based on the environmental purpose of the tax. [Extracted from the article]

The article is about the reform of civil cassation in Peru and the implementation of binding judicial precedent. The new regulation seeks to ensure the unity of the legal norm and its interpretation, and the Supreme Court of Peru plays a fundamental role in this process. It is highlighted that the new regulation includes as a cassation ground the deviation from binding decisions of the Constitutional Court or the Supreme Court. Additionally, the importance of jurisprudence in other legal systems, such as the Italian and American systems, is discussed. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court Judgment of January 9, 2023 resolves an appeal filed by the Central Union of Irrigators against the lack of execution of the administrative act regarding the request for environmental information from the Segura Hydrographic Confederation. The Supreme Court determined that the silence produced should be considered negative, applying the Transparency Law 19/2013. The judgment establishes that the Administration's silence in response to a request for environmental information should be interpreted in a negative sense and highlights the need to review Law 27/2006 to establish a legal framework specific to the right of access to environmental information. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court Judgment of January 30, 2023 resolves an appeal filed by a commercial company against a judgment issued by the High Court of Justice of Castilla y León. The appeal refers to the exemption of taxes on hydrocarbons for the production of electricity from biogas. The Supreme Court determines that the production of electricity from biogas falls within the framework of promoting renewable energies and, therefore, enjoys direct exemption, while the production of energy from fossil sources may establish exceptions for environmental reasons. [Extracted from the article]

Cross-appeals in the field of contentious-administrative proceedings have been subject to some confusion, with contentious-administrative courts continuing even today to shape their evolving interpretation and application. In brief, in December 2022, Spanish Supreme Court established new criteria for the interpretation of the concept. Specifically, in judgment 1648/2022 of 14 December the Spanish Supreme Court held that it is necessary for the claimant to file a cross-appeal in the event that the claimant obtained an upheld judgment that failed to address specific grounds stated in the appeal in order for those grounds to be examined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigates support for changes to the U.S. Supreme Court using prospect theory. Risk domain is alternatively conceptualized as the perception of retrospective benefits and future risks posed by Supreme Court decision‐making. Two experiments explore how citizens think about gains and losses from Court outputs. Findings indicate that retrospective benefits are influenced by the relevant time frame respondents are asked to consider, political partisanship, and the interaction between them; prospective risks are affected by question wording, partisanship, and an interaction between respondents' partisanship and the relevant time frame. Using retrospective benefits as a proxy for determining if someone is in the domain of gains or losses does not yield consistent results regarding support for change to the Supreme Court. Conceptualizing risk domain in terms of the expectation of future gains and losses, however, does yield significant effects consistent with prospect theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Viewpoint examines the possible legal consequences of pregnancy loss following the Alabama Supreme Court's decision to extend personhood to laboratory-conceived embryos. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regarding the legal model, evidence suggested that the Court's decisions seemed to consider the law, as suggested by the effects of the lack of response of the authority charged, which divided the Court and increased the chances of religion winning. What factors explain court decisions in times of upheaval? As such, obedience to legal norms entails a moral duty.[56] The strategic model focuses on justices' behaviors within the Court, and outside the Court, n relation to other actors, such as other branches, levels of government, civil society, interest groups, the media, and society in general.[57] This model assumes that additional actors inside and outside of the Court influence the decisions of judges. However, a clarification is required because some research suggests that I Maximato i justices were just acquaintances rather than close friends of Calles.[53] Considering several anticlerical laws were passed between 1923 and 1933, it would be assumed the 1923-1928 and the 1929-1933 cohorts followed such laws rather than defying the regime, despite ideological convergences or divergences with the president at the time.[54] In contrast, the 1917 cohort is assumed to be more independent in religious matters when compared to the following ones. [Extracted from the article]

The aim of this paper is to investigate the reflexes and the political-social effects caused by the wide media dissemination of the activities developed by the Supreme Court. We examine, through bibliographic and descriptive research, the Brazilian Supreme Court performance, which, yearning for the conservation of power and popular approval, assumes a public agenda that ends up interfering in the content of the ministers' decisions. Specifically, the judgment of Habeas Corpus 152.752/PR and its legal and political repercussions are analyzed. It is concluded that granting control of public and political life only to Judiciary disharmonizes the division of powers between institutions, and, finally, the constitutional normative program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Section 30P of the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956 (hereafter PFA) is an important procedural tool that allows those dissatisfied with the Pension Funds Adjudicator's determinations to apply to the High Court for such determinations to be set aside. This article discusses this section and demonstrates that neither the legislature nor the courts have provided clarity on whether what is intended by this section is an appeal, a review or a reconsideration of determinations of the Pension Funds Adjudicator. It also illustrates the confusion that has been created by the courts with the High Court referring to this procedure as sui generis and the Supreme Court of Appeal, without referring to previous High Court decisions, referring to this procedure as an appeal in the wide sense. In this article a reflection on whether these two formulations are synonymous or if there is a need to settle for only one of them will be made. Furthermore, a call for judicial reconsideration of the applicability of the Plascon-Evan Rule in section 30P applications will be made in this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Land and land rights remain a contested issue in South Africa. Grobler v Phillips centered on the eviction of an 86-year-old woman, Mrs Phillips, and her disabled son from property she had lived on since she was 11 years old. After a fourteen-year court battle the Constitutional Court granted an eviction order against Mrs Phillips. This case note consists of a discussion of the judgments of the Magistrate's Court, High Court, Supreme Court of Appeal and Constitutional Court. It is found that the Constitutional Court erred in its decision as it applied a formalistic approach, disregarded the narrative of the occupier and did not sufficiently challenge the current neo-liberal regime in which property rights operate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The presented paper is devoted to the Czech Supreme Administrative Court's approach to the Russian invasion of Ukraine from the perspective of deciding asylum issues. Specifically, the author focuses on the principle of non-refoulement and breaking the standard rules of administrative court proceedings and Ukraine as a safe country of origin. Finally, the author describes a relatively recent Czech Supreme Administrative Court's ruling in which it addressed the issue of including temporary protection within the international protection system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]