Search

This manuscript examines how federal appeals courts respond to precedent, in this case, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission. This account includes a comprehensive theory that examines attitudinal factors that relate to Central Hudson, specific relevant legal factors that relate to the case, as well as strategic considerations. We additionally argue that federal appeals courts may reasonably ignore Central Hudson in certain specific instances (most notably when other highly relevant cases are available for lower federal court judges to use). Our results show partial support for several portions of our theory, including a lower propensity for federal appeals courts to positively treat precedent when ideological distance is high. We also find support for one of our factual-based hypotheses (regarding cases that involve drugs and attorney advertising, where other U.S. Supreme Court precedents are readily available for appeals court judges to use). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article aims to reconsider the significance of the controversy surrounding Queen Munjeong's (1501–65) reinstatement of the two Buddhist orders, Seon (meditation) and Gyo (doctrine), by using it as a window onto the nature of politics in the Joseon Dynasty. Queen Munjeong's restoration of Buddhism has received significant scholarly attention since the early 1990s, and most studies agree that the queen mother was able to bring her pro-Buddhist policy to fruition thanks to her supporters, i.e. officials loyal to her. Nevertheless, these allies were also found to have articulated opposition to her pro-Buddhist policies. Thus it would be logical to query what significance the disputes might have had in the context of early and mid-Joseon political dynamics. In King Myeongjong's reign, the monarch had to share power with the high-ranking officials and bureaucrats; the scholar-officials were acting as arbiters and the king sought their approval prior to taking any action. In case of a dispute, precedents were invoked to substantiate one's claim. By closely reading the contestations, I argue that Queen Munjeong's restoration of the Buddhist orders was an aborted attempt at establishing a precedent that the throne could use to its advantage in its attempts to wrestle back control from the scholar-officials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Studia Slavica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae is the property of Akademiai Kiado and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Ius et Praxis (07172877) is the property of Universidad de Talca and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The argument for building performance evaluation (BPE) has, to date, largely been made by actors focused upon ensuring the achievement of quantitative standards of performance, such as energy performance and carbon emissions. However, it can also be argued that the value of an understanding of quantitative and qualitative performance and its role in evidence-informed design is much broader. Indeed, that the potential provided by the embedding of learning cycles from BPE stretches across both architecturally and sustainability led design paradigms. Thus providing opportunities to inform the significant changes in architectural practice required to achieve architectural and sustainable holistic design excellence. This paper aims to explore the role that BPE might play in this transition through reporting of performance of Stirling Prize winners, as proxies for Architectural Design Excellence; framework evaluation of the language associated with current BPE practice and establishment of an expanded holistic scope for BPE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R v Marakah is a landmark decision under section 8 of the Charter, as it extended constitutional protection to some electronic communications that are no longer in the control of the sender. In other words, the presence or absence of control is no longer determinative. This article challenges the understanding of Marakah as a progressive decision, suggesting that Marakah has created a privacy paradox. By significantly expanding the scope of section 8 of the Charter, the Court in Marakah has created a right that is both extremely broad and practically illusory. In order to deal with the practical challenges resulting from the decision in Marakah, this article suggests that courts will deal with Marakah by diluting current principles under section 8 in order to avoid absurdities and undesirable results. The Supreme Court's majority decision in the 2019 decision of R v Mills illustrates the privacy paradox. Unable to rely on the accused's lack of control over communications as a determinative factor, the majority in Mills abandoned decades of jurisprudence under section 8 of the Charter to reach its desired result. The new concept of privacy as "relationship-based" places courts in the business of conducting a post facto assessment of which relationships are entitled to privacy. As shown by Marakah and Mills, those who seek progressive and idealistic development of Charter principles through Supreme Court jurisprudence should be careful what they wish for. The most well-intended decision can have very unintended results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article comments on the court case R. v. Barton and Booth related to dishonesty in criminal law wherein the British Court of Appeal found that the appellant, who ran a nursing home, had dishonestly targeted and befriended wealthy and childless elderly residents of the home to profit from them.

Why are some opinions widely discussed while others remain obscure? We theorize that opinions that can be understood efficiently are discussed, expanded, and contracted more frequently. Additionally, more persuasive precedents tend to be discussed and expanded more regularly, while less persuasive precedents are narrowed more often. These effects should also depend on institutional context. We compile an original dataset of 7,485 search and seizure opinions written by federal circuit and state high court judges and 567,062 judicial citations to those cases. The evidence demonstrates that efficiency, persuasiveness, and institutional context together determine how much an opinion affects legal development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role awarded to judge varies from one legal system to another. In the Anglo-Saxon legal systems, there is not a self-standing legislative body, so the judge is the one who creates the law; his mission consists in solving a specific case, given the existing judicial precedents; if he cannot find an appropriate rule of law, he has to develop one and to apply it. In the continental system, creation of law is the mission of the legislature, so the creative role of jurisprudence still raises controversy. Evolving under the influence of Roman law, the continental law systems differ from the Anglo-Saxon by: the continuous receiving of Corpus iuris civilis; the tendency to abstraction, leading to the creation of a rational law; the rule of law, with the consequence of blurring the role of jurisprudence. Underlining the creative force of jurisprudence, Vladimir Hanga wrote: "The law remains in its essence abstract, but the appreciation of the jurisprudence makes it alive, as the judge, understanding the law, taking into account the interests of parties and taking inspiration from equity, ensures the ultimate purpose of the law: suum cuique tribuere". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States Supreme Court has significant influence over the development of legal policy, yet it must rely on external actors to bring to fruition the desired effect of its decisions. Among the most important such actors are state high courts who are often motivated to issue decisions promoting policies at odds with the U.S. Supreme Court and who have mechanisms to legitimize such decisions. This study builds on existing work on state court compliance with U.S. Supreme Court precedent by introducing a new theoretical framework that accounts for the impact of state-specific precedent vitality, or the degree to which the high court of a specific state has positively treated a U.S. Supreme Court precedent, on state high court compliance. Our analysis of state high court treatment ofMiller v. Californiaprovides strong evidence for the importance of state-specific vitality as a determinant of state high court compliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports the decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in the case R. v Barre (Mohammed Said) concerning laws of alternative verdicts. It reports that Defendant charged with murder after fight with deceased. It mentions the court dismissing the appeal, that on the facts of the case, concluded that the judge had not been obliged to leave manslaughter to the jury.

Copyright of Megaron is the property of KARE Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Ius et Praxis (07172877) is the property of Universidad de Talca and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Chilena de Derecho is the property of Revista Chilena de Derecho and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Universitas Jus is the property of Revista Universitas Jus and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Chilena de Derecho is the property of Revista Chilena de Derecho and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Estudios Socio-Jurídicos is the property of Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Senora del Rosario and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article focuses on the recognition of foreign bankruptcy discharge and stare decisis by looking at the decision of Great Britain High Court in Global Distress Alpha Fund 1 Ltd. Partnership v. PT Bakrie Investindo. It provides an overview of the case and highlights the court's decision with regards to the doctrine of precedent. It discusses the principle of universalism as well as considers the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) on Cross-Border Insolvency.

This is the first sentence of the Supreme Court that unifies conflicting precedents. It marks the beginning of a new stage in our system of revision of sentences, given that for the first time the Supreme Court admits the infraction of a precedent as a case of an erroneous application of law, allowing superior courts to annul a sentence which does not follow such precedent when deciding a similar case. This new reality shall require working with legal concepts that so far have been neglected in the practice of law, which are reviewed in this article with the occasion of this landmark decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Universitas Jus is the property of Revista Universitas Jus and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The authors discuss the impact of the Constitutional Court decisions, in its role as the supreme interpreter of the Constitution, on the other branches of government, particularly the government itself and the Congress, especially when its sentences are about the meaning and scope of fundamental rights, such as the right to life of the unborn. Besides, they sustain that the precedents that this kind of sentences stand, can't be ignored neither by the Constitutional Court itself nor by the government entities in their future decisions, insofar the fundamental rights are an unbridgeable barrier for the colegislative branches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: We construct the complete network of 30,288 majority opinions written by the U.S. Supreme Court and the cases they cite from 1754 to 2002 in the United States Reports. Data from this network demonstrates quantitatively the evolution of the norm of stare decisis in the 19th Century and a significant deviation from this norm by the activist Warren Court. We further describe a method for creating authority scores using the network data to identify the most important court precedents. This method yields rankings that conform closely to evaluations by legal experts, and even predicts which cases they will identify as important in the future. An analysis of these scores over time allows us to test several hypotheses about the rise and fall of precedent. We show that reversed cases tend to be much more important than other decisions, and the cases that overrule them quickly become and remain even more important as the reversed decisions decline. We also show that the Court is careful to ground overruling decisions in past precedent, and the care it exercises is increasing in the importance of the decision that is overruled. Finally, authority scores corroborate qualitative assessments of which issues and cases the Court prioritizes and how these change over time. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article discusses a court case in which the defendant was convicted of two counts of possessing an article of terrorism in Great Britain. The first article is a notebook containing instructions on how to assemble and operate a mortar while the second is a substitution code of a list of articles and places. It states that the articles include components of explosives and targeted venues and countries. He filed an appeal arguing that he is not a terrorist and that the articles are for lawful defence of Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya, Russia.

Presents the ruling of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal in Great Britain in the case R. versus Hatton, which deals with murder and self-induced intoxication. Facts of the case; Arguments of the parties to the case; Basis of the ruling of the court; Comments on the ruling.

The article reflects on the opinion of the Canada Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of the prostitution laws in reference to the case Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford. Topics discussed include role of the prostitution laws in protecting the liberty, security and life of the victims of prostitution, application of common law in regulating the prostitution, and the rights to justice of the victims of prostitution.

The article examines a court ruling issued by the British Court of Appeal Criminal Division in two unrelated appeals by appellants who were convicted of murder. It is said that the court has adopted the decision of the Privy Council in the case Attorney General Jersey against Holley. The appeals by the appellants were dismissed.

The article reports that the judicial House of Lords is celebrating the 50 Birthday of the Practice Statement on Precedent and states that if the justices had apologized for failings of law and had provide blanket immunity on sentences passed, Supreme Court would corrected miscarriages of justice.

The article discusses a court case in which the appellants were charged of possessing an article to be used for terrorism under the Terrorism Act 1996 in Great Britain. The trial court decided that the electronically stored information was capable of being an article for the purpose of terrorism. The Court of Appeal overturned the trial court's ruling arguing that the compact disks were not for the purposes of terrorism under the section 58. The court accepted a submission be the prosecution that the decision in the first appeal reached per incuriam.