Search

Due to its intrinsic complexity and the principle of collective solidarity that governs it, solid organ transplantation (SOT) seems to have been spared from the increase in litigation related to medical activity. Litigation relating to solid organ transplantation that took place in the 29 units of the Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris and was the subject of a judicial decision between 2015 and 2022 was studied. A total of 52 cases of SOT were recorded, all in adults, representing 1.1% of all cases and increasing from 0.71% to 1.5% over 7 years. The organs transplanted were 25 kidneys (48%), 19 livers (37%), 5 hearts (9%) and 3 lungs (6%). For kidney transplants, 11 complaints (44%) were related to living donor procedures and 6 to donors. The main causes of complaints were early post-operative complications in 31 cases (60%) and late complications in 13 cases (25%). The verdicts were in favour of the institution in 41 cases (79%). Solid organ transplants are increasingly the subject of litigation. Although the medical institution was not held liable in almost 80% of cases, this study makes a strong case for patients, living donors and their relatives to be better informed about SOT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this research, an innovative state space-based Transformer model is proposed to address the challenges of complex system prediction tasks. By integrating state space theory, the model aims to enhance the capability to capture dynamic changes in complex data, thereby improving the accuracy and robustness of prediction tasks. Extensive experimental validations were conducted on three representative tasks, including legal case judgment, legal case translation, and financial data analysis to assess the performance and application potential of the model. The experimental results demonstrate significant performance improvements of the proposed model over traditional Transformer models and other advanced variants such as Bidirectional Encoder Representation from Transformers (BERT) and Finsformer across all evaluated tasks. Specifically, in the task of legal case judgment, the proposed model exhibited a precision of 0.93, a recall of 0.90, and an accuracy of 0.91, significantly surpassing the traditional Transformer model (with precision of 0.78, recall of 0.73, accuracy of 0.76) and performances of other comparative models. In the task of legal case translation, the precision of the proposed model reached 0.95, with a recall of 0.91 and an accuracy of 0.93, also outperforming other models. Likewise, in the task of financial data analysis, the proposed model also demonstrated excellent performance, with a precision of 0.94, recall of 0.90, and accuracy of 0.92. The state space-based Transformer model proposed not only theoretically expands the research boundaries of deep learning models in complex system prediction but also validates its efficiency and broad application prospects through experiments. These achievements provide new insights and directions for future research and development of deep learning models, especially in tasks requiring the understanding and prediction of complex system dynamics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For decades, legal academics have complained about a conflict between history and the doctrine of Article III standing. First in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (2016) and then notably in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (2021), Justice Clarence Thomas presented a halfway resolution. Justice Thomas grounded Article III standing in a historical distinction between private and public rights. Suits for violations of private rights would require no showing of concrete injury in fact. Suits for violations of public rights would require the injury in fact showing of special damage, a term borrowed from the public nuisance tort. This Article questions the Thomas retention of injury in fact for public rights. Part I explains Justice Thomas's nuanced approach to Article III standing. Part II investigates old English and early American materials on special damage to flesh out the meaning of Justice Thomas's requirement for public rights standing. The upshot is a lack of historical consensus on the content of the special damage standard. The materials do not align on a precise standard, making it difficult, either as a matter of 1788 original meaning or later liquidation, to operationalize Justice Thomas's special damage requirement. Part III argues that there are good reasons to doubt that the requirement of special damage is constitutionally relevant to the original meaning of Article III. The Framers did not discuss special damage in connection to Article III. Most of the relevant cases are from state courts, which are not bound by Article III. The traditional rationale for the special damage requirement does not have constitutional significance. And it seems implausible that the Constitution incorporated a legal doctrine in such flux without textual indication. The Article concludes with a critique of the current Supreme Court's lack of concern for originalism in standing doctrine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A deluge is coming. The Supreme Court's two most recent personal jurisdiction cases--Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District and Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railroad--have thrown this area of law into even more flux than before. Because of these cases' heavy emphasis on the fact-intensive nature of personal jurisdiction law, plaintiffs facing down motions to dismiss based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) are going to start asking an obvious question: If the Supreme Court thinks facts are so important to personal jurisdiction, then should I try to get access to more facts? The result will be more requests to conduct jurisdictional discovery, and more courts having to figure out how to decide those requests. Despite the occasional aspersions cast upon it, jurisdictional discovery's newfound relevance is to be applauded. When used wisely, the practice can be more than just a useful tool for uncovering facts. It can also further hone the law of personal jurisdiction, rendering the doctrine more attune to the interests of all the parties involved. All that is needed is more guidance on how to use that tool. This Article provides such guidance. Examining hundreds of orders that decided jurisdictional discovery requests, this Article uncovers a coherent set of rationales that courts have tacitly relied upon when rendering these decisions. These rationales provide a principled and practical framework for deciding jurisdictional discovery requests, one that courts can use both to bring additional coherence to the practice and to field what is likely to be the flood of discovery requests to come. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the funding structure of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Fifth Circuit decision finding the structure unconstitutional, and the Second Circuit's contrary decision in CFPB v. Law Offices of Crystal Maroney, P.C. Topics include the funding structure of the CFPB, the Appropriations Clause of Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, and the case Community Financial Services Association of America v. CFPB.

Some commentators have criticized the Supreme Court's 2016 decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins and especially the Court's 2021 decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez for limiting Congress' authority to confer standing by statute. For example, in his article, Injury in Fact Transformed, Professor Cass Sunstein argues that TransUnion is a "radical ruling" that uses the injury in fact standing requirement to limit the authority of Congress to enact only statutes that address harms that have a close relationship to traditional or common law harms. By contrast, Professor Ernst Young argues that the Supreme Court's injury in fact doctrine is justified in light of the history of equitable practice requiring a "grievance" rather than just a cause of action. The question of how much the TransUnion decision has narrowed Article III standing has resulted in a circuit split regarding when civil rights testers filing suits under the Americans with Disabilities Act have standing. The Tenth Circuit's 2022 decision in Laufer v. Looper and similar decisions in the Second and Fifth Circuits have read the TransUnion decision to limit but not eliminate the broad tester standing in the Supreme Court's 1982 decision in Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman. By contrast, the First Circuit, in its 2022 decision in Laufer v. Acheson Hotels, LLC, explicitly rejected these decisions in the Tenth, Second and Fifth Circuits to conclude that the TransUnion decision had not overruled the expansive tester standing in Havens Realty. The Eleventh Circuit had previously taken a similar position as the First Circuit but did not explicitly disagree with other circuits. On March 27, 2023, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the First Circuit decision for the 2023-24 term. This is an important issue because a broad reading of the TransUnion decision could limit tester standing and affect many other federal statutes that go beyond traditional common law damages. This article will argue that one's view of standing issues depends heavily upon whether one favors expansive government regulation as a social good or is a libertarian skeptical of government regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the development of the dual motivation defense, focusing on the U.S. Supreme court case, Flowers v. Mississippi. It discusses the development of discrimination doctrine in the U.S. Supreme Court and the treatment of dual motivation in other areas of the law. It provides examples of court decisions wherein whether to apply the footnote matters.

Our statute books use the word "any" ubiquitously in coverage and exclusion provisions. As any reader of the Supreme Court's statutory interpretation docket would know, a large number of cases turn on the contested application of this so-called universal quantifier. It is hard to make sense of the jurisprudence of "any." And any effort to offer a unified approach--knowing precisely when its scope is expansive (along the "literal-meaning" lines of "every" and "all") or confining (having a contained domain related to properties provided by contextual cues)--is likely to fail. This Article examines legislative drafting manuals, surveys centuries of Court decisions, and conducts in-depth pairwise comparisons of "any" cases to show the word's flexible set of uses in its multiple statutory guises. After evaluating evidence of the variability of "any," we recommend a new approach, a form of an "any" canon. We encourage adjudicators to appreciate the complexity of "any" more systematically and to consult a full range of sources--as even full-throated textualists have authorized from time to time--offering the relevant larger context judges will need to ascertain the scope of "any" in any given statutory scheme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the rulings of the Indiana Supreme Court and the Tax Court in taxation-related lawsuits from December 2021 to October 2022. Among the legal issues in the cases are real property tax, income tax, and tax deductions like standard homestead deduction. Also cited are some cases like Matthew A. Schiffler v. Marion County Assessor.

The article discusses the rulings by the Indiana Supreme Court and Court of Appeals in areas of banking, business and contract law from September 2021 to August 2022. Other topics include Indiana's summary judgment standard, the Supreme Court's commercial courts initiative, and the statewide online court case management system called Odyssey.

The Supreme Court of Spain's ruling on June 22, 2023 recognizes the right of animalist political parties to receive free legal assistance in cases related to the environment. The Animalist Party With the Environment (PACMA) challenged the denial of this right for an appeal before the Supreme Court. The court determined that political parties are included within the objective scope of recognition for non-profit organizations that protect the environment, as long as they meet the legal requirements. Therefore, PACMA's right to free legal assistance was recognized. The ruling also mentions other relevant judicial pronouncements regarding access to free justice in environmental matters. [Extracted from the article]

Background: In this article, we have analysed the way in which the balance between public interest and private interest is achieved in administrative litigation in Romania and China. The research aims to highlight the distinct ways of solving the specific problems of this legal institution by the legislator and capitalise on the positive aspects. Methods: The article uses the historical method of analysing the evolution of administrative litigation in the two countries diachronically and the comparative method that explains the similarities and differences existing at the regulatory level in the two systems. The comparison will be based on the law that regulates administrative litigation in each state and on doctrinal and jurisprudential interpretations. Results and Conclusions: Despite adopting the first administrative litigation law in China in 1989, and Romania in 1990 after the r evolution of 1989 and the return to democracy, both countries have made remarkable progress in the last decades. This progress provides assurance for the protection of fundamental human rights in the adoption of administrative decisions and their subsequent judicial control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The legal institution that delimits the powers of judicial bodies to resolve legal cases is the general jurisdiction. This interbranch institution which incorporates legal norms of several branches of procedural law that interact with one another. Within this jurisdiction, different types of competences exist, including alternative general competence and contractual general competence. This article aims to highlight the particularities of these types of general competence, starting from the alternative procedural right regulated in the legislation of both the Republic of Moldova and Romania. Methods: The results were obtained through applying various knowledge methods: synthesis, analysis, and comparison. The latter was particularly instrumental in highlighting the regulatory framework of alternative and contractual general jurisdiction in both the Republic of Moldova and Romania. This involved exploring the arguments that these jurisdiction types in the alternative procedural right, identifying the limits and conditions governing their exercise, and examining specifics of their regulation in each country. Additionally, the principles governing alternative and contractual general jurisdiction were also highlighted. Results and Conclusions: This article successfully distinguished between alternative general jurisdiction and contractual general jurisdiction, recognising them as two distinct types of general jurisdiction. This inability to recognise their difference has led to confusion and incorrect application in the judicial practice of the rules regarding the general competence of judicial bodies. The particularities of exercising the right to choose the jurisdictional body were highlighted both under the regulations regarding the alternative general competence and the contractual one. Finally, the study concludes with recommendations to ensure the correct application of these types of general competence in practice. It has been argued that the right to choose the jurisdictional body by virtue of general alternative and contractual jurisdiction constitutes a procedural right, not a substantive one. Proposals have also been proposed to amend the l, improving the alternative general jurisdiction and contract regulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author offers an appreciation to Judge Richard L. Young. He describes Young as a judge who can appear to solve difficult problems. He mentions the decision of Judge Young on Indiana's statutory ban on same-sex marriage in the case Baskin v. Bogan. He also cites a very important case where the essence of Judge Young as a problem solver can be seen.

Copyright of Sakarya University Journal of Law Faculty (SHD) is the property of Sakarya University Journal of Law Faculty (SHD) 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.)

Legal Judgment Prediction aims to automatically predict judgment outcomes based on descriptions of legal cases and established law articles, and has received increasing attention. In the preliminary work, several problems still have not been adequately solved. One is how to utilize limited but valuable label information. Existing methods mostly ignore the gap between the description of established articles and cases, but directly integrate them. Second, most studies ignore the mutual constraint among the subtasks, such as logically or semantically, each charge is only related to some specific articles. To address these issues, we first construct a crime similarity graph and then perform a distillation operation to collect discriminate keywords for each charge. Furthermore, we fuse these discriminative keywords instead of established article descriptions into case embedding with a cross-attention mechanism to obtain deep semantic representations of cases incorporating label information. Finally, under a constraint among subtasks, we optimize the one-hot representation of ground-truth labels to guarantee consistent results across the subtasks based on the label-enhancement algorithm. To verify the effectiveness and robustness of our framework, we conduct extensive experiments on two public datasets. The experimental results show that the proposed method outperforms the state-of-art models by 3.89%/7.92% and 1.23%/2.50% in the average MF1-score of the subtasks on CAIL-Small/Big, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper deals with specific problem regarding required joinder of parties in litigation, namely legal consequences of rendering the judgment despite the failure to join a necessary party, but with court's failure to detect the issue, i.e. is the lacking necessary party bound by judgement? Dominant opinion, both in domestic and foreign representative legal theory and case law, decline res judicata effect, while some Serbian scholars accept it. Research based on constitutional and dogmatic scale shows that extension of res judicata effect could not be deemed as Serbian lex lata. The concept of required joinder of parties is based on protection of right to be heard of all necessary parties, so the contrary standpoint would diminish, or moreover infringe such basic human right. In addition, there is no legal ground for such extension of res judicata effect, bearing in mind provisions of Serbian Code of Civil Procedure. Lastly, if lacking necessary party would be bound by judgement, the very concept of required joinder of parties would be reduced ad absurdum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Collected Papers of Zagreb Law Faculty / Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu is the property of Sveuciliste u Zagrebu, Pravni Fakultet 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.)

This article discusses the possibility of reviewing the decisions rendered by the Court of Auditors. It will be defended that it is admissible to broadly re-discuss the merits of the decisions of the Courts of Auditors, as a result of the fundamental principle of the inescapability of the Judiciary. It will be analyzed that, in view of the fact that we have a single jurisdiction, of exclusive competence of the Judiciary Branch, in the absence of administrative litigation in our legal system, there is no reason to understand the impossibility of the Judiciary Branch to review all the content, including the merits of the decisions of the Courts of Auditors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the legal issues related to alleged infinite arbitration clauses in contracts in the U.S. under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Also cited are some cases like Revitch v. DIRECTV and Mey v. DIRECTV, the FAA's section 2 provision on consumer disputes that do not focus mainly on container contracts, and a brief history of arbitration and the FAA.

It may seem counterintuitive to think that a judicial decision can be ignored. It would seem contrary to the rule of law and to the good governance of our society. Respect for judicial decisions is important. However, the authorities indicate that there are circumstances where a judicial decision can be ignored. In considering when that may occur, it is necessary to draw certain distinctions. First, it is necessary to distinguish between a court's orders and its reasons for judgment. Second, it is necessary to distinguish between different courts -- in particular between 'inferior courts' and 'superior courts of record'. And third, it is necessary to distinguish between the different actors who might wish to disregard a judicial decision: an individual, the executive, the legislature or a court. In this paper I will address some of the complexities that arise in answering the question I have posed, by reference to these distinctions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Obiter dicta by Lord Nicholls in Criterion Properties plc v Stratford UK Properties LLC suggest that in circumstances where a director contracts on a company's behalf and transfers company property pursuant to that contract, any resultant claim is to be singularly determined by principles of company and agency law. Therefore, a claim in equity for knowing receipt is irrelevant. Whilst a Full Federal Court in Great Investments Ltd v Warner appears to adopt a similar approach, this article argues that the Australian judgment is distinguishable, and seeks to retain knowing receipt as a viable and important source of liability whether or not property is transferred to a knowing recipient pursuant to a contract binding on the company. It argues that there are clear doctrinal reasons that justify knowing receipt's characterisation as a freestanding equitable wrong, as well as the availability of remedies reflective of this wrong that are more extensive than the return of the value of the misappropriated property. Nonetheless, it recognises the practical difficulties that a subsisting contract may pose to a successful pursuit of a claim for knowing receipt. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a court case wherein the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled in favor of Catalyst Pharms Inc., holding that the orphan drug exclusivity applies to all uses or indications related to the disease or condition for which the drug is designated. Topics include a summary the factual and procedural background leading to the court's opinion in the case Catalyst Pharms Inc. v. Becerra, means and ends of the Orphan Drug Act, and reasons underlying the court's decision.

The article focuses on the decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court in the lawsuit Energy Policy Advocates v. Ellison in which the court formally recognized the common interest doctrine. Topics discussed include brief history of the common interest doctrine in federal and state courts, the common interest doctrine in Minnesota and variation of the common interest doctrine.

Copyright of Mutefekkir, Faculty of Islamic Sciences is the property of Aksaray University, Faculty of Islamic Sciences 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.)

Supreme Court "companion cases" are decisions released on the exact same day that address substantially similar legal or factual matters. The list of consequential Supreme Court decisions that the Justices have resolved as part of a set of companion cases is lengthy: It includes NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., Korematsu v. United States, Brown v. Board of Education, Terry v. Ohio, Roe v. Wade, Miller v. California, and Gregg v. Georgia. Although it is not surprising that important topics like civil rights and abortion generate significant amounts of litigation, the Supreme Court's practice of conducting plenary review of multiple similar cases and issuing separate decisions resolving each one should give us pause. The Justices have a number of other procedural tools available for disposing of similar matters for which parties seek review. Options include granting certiorari for only one of the cases, vacating and remanding some of the matters, issuing at least one summary disposition, consolidating the cases, or releasing the decisions at very different times. The Court sidesteps these alternative approaches when it issues companion cases. Yet previous scholars have not devoted adequate attention to this practice as a distinct procedural mechanism, with unique characteristics that may motivate its usage. This Note fills that gap by studying some of the Court's most famous companion cases and taxonomizing them into four categories-coordinate hedges, contested hedges, extensional reinforcements, and applicative reinforcements-based on factors including the voting behavior of the Justices and the constitutive decisions' relationships to each other. The Note leverages that taxonomy to frame its analysis of why the Court chose to issue companion cases given all the procedural alternatives. This Note concludes by discussing how the practice of deciding certain sorts of companion cases-in which a majority of the Justices agree that they should resolve similar cases in ostensibly contradictory ways-may improve the Court's legitimacy by accentuating its responsibility and capacity to collaboratively identify subtle distinctions between comparable cases that compel different outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Jurídica (0103-3506) is the property of Revista Juridica 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.)

Employing as a quasi-natural experiment an unexpected judgment by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that raised the difficulty of shareholder litigation, we explore the effect of shareholder litigation rights on board gender diversity. Our difference-in-difference estimates show that an exogenous reduction in shareholder litigation risk results in significantly less female board representation, a decline by 11.44% in particular. Our findings corroborate the view that strong shareholder litigation rights strengthen internal governance such as board oversight. Therefore, when shareholder litigation rights are weakened, there is a drop in board quality. Additionally, we document a decline in board independence and an increase in board size following the Ninth Circuit ruling, both of which are associated with poorer board monitoring. Further analysis validates the results. i.e., propensity score matching, entropy balancing, GMM dynamic panel data estimation, and Oster's (2019) testing for coefficient stability. Based on a quasi-natural experiment, our conclusion probably reflects a causal influence, rather than a mere correlation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Prudentia Iuris is the property of Pontificia Universidad Catolica Argentina 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.)

Despite the promise of efficiency through the use of expert agency adjudication in U.S. patent law, administrative substitution continues to fall short. In a variety of ways, the decade-old system of Patent Office adjudication is simply an additional place to litigate rather than the robust technocratic alternative it was meant to be. These problems have arisen from important defects in the statutory design, but also from the enormous expansion and ascendancy of the Patent Office itself. Moreover, while duplicative litigation over patent validity is recognized and criticized, its scale and scope has eluded detailed empirical analysis until now. This Article documents and measures those ill effects and explains their structural origins. It evaluates varying responses from Federal Circuit and Supreme Court decisions and from regulatory experimentation in the Patent Office itself. The Article concludes with proposals for reform. The analytical framework for reform that is suggested here is especially timely given the incompleteness of judicial and regulatory responses thus far. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a court case in which the California Supreme Court ruled that the couple James and Norma Gund were injured during the course of their employment as peace officers when they responded to a sheriff's call to check on their neighbor's well-being. The couple suffered lifelong injuries as their throats were slashed by an attacker. In the case Gund v. County of Trinity, the couple filed a lawsuit to recover damages from their injuries.

Copyright of Revista Jurídica (0103-3506) is the property of Revista Juridica 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 presents a court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a district court ruling stating that the rules of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) limiting education-related compensation violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In the case NCAA v. Alston, the NCAA's restrictions on compensation unrelated to education. Also cited is the ruling in the case NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma.

Romania is still showing a strong resistance towards the spectacular changes in the way the family is currently regulated by the legal systems of other EU Member States. Under such conditions, through this study we are concerned about the issue of the recognition, by the Romanian State, of a marriage validly concluded abroad, between a Union citizen and his spouse of the same sex, who is a third country national. Our analysis starts from the principles developed by the European Union Court of Justice, in Coman case, a decision that brought back into the debate issues such as the right to family life and the right to freedom of movement, viewed from the perspective of the discrimination prohibition on grounds of sexual orientation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Antitrust class actions involve extremely high stakes and are vigorously contested by the parties. In particular, motions for class certification are invariably hard fought and increasingly turn on the question of whether plaintiffs can use multiple regression analyses and other statistical techniques to demonstrate that the impact of the alleged antitrust violation on class members and the damages they have suffered on account of the violation can be shown with proof that is common to all class members and that predominates over any individual questions. This Essay discusses the Supreme Court 's decision in Tyson Foods, Inc. v . Bouaphakeo, a class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), in which the Court upheld the plaintiffs' use Of statistical evidence to satisfy the predominance requirement of Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and to prove damages to the class at trial. This Essay demonstrates that the Supreme Court's reasoning in Tyson Foods applies with equal force outside of the FLSA context and is particularly well suited to antitrust cases. It focuses on why properly specified regression analyses, which calculate industry-wide overcharges and detect the probability that the overcharges were widespread, are relevant and probative in antitrust actions. Regression analyses can also be used to measure aggregate damages sustained by the class. These analyses and other statistical evidence can help courts and juries reach more well-informed decisions, and the allowance of such evidence promotes the strong public policy in favor of enforcement of the antitrust laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses litigation developments on claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in the U.S. as of March 2021. Also cited are the ruling by the Supreme Court in the case Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the Ninth Circuit's decision in Ramirez v. TransUnion LLC, and the FCRA Article III standing requirements to recover monetary damages.

The brazilian reality in the last few years is a lot of lawsuits requesting the provision of services based on the right to health, either due to the inefficiency and or ineffectiveness of existing public policies, or their inexistence. This situation, known as the judicialization of health, can lead judges to exagerated interpretations by applying and determining the realization of the right to health in an unlimited way. Consequently, the lawsuits carry inequalities and disproportionalities, because they only benefit their plaintiffs when it is proceeding. Therefore, in this context, this work, based in the deductive method, intends to demonstrate that the problems of the judicialization of health symbolizes an unequal way of accessing health services, and even disproportionate, considering the feasibility of judicial decisions. Thus, in conclusion, there is a need for fairness based on specialized technical support to the judge, such as the e-NATJus platform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The judiciary-exclusive role to allow or deny the commencement or continuation of contemporary derivative litigation is one of the critical aspects of such proceedings. Before the 2006 codification, derivative actions were brought under the common law as exceptions to the rule in Foss v Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189. However, after realising intolerable deficiencies in the common law, the United Kingdom Law Commission (the Law Commission) recommended that there should be a new derivative procedure that met modern demands. This resulted in a statutory derivative remedy which can be activated in terms of Chapter 1 of Part 11 of the Companies Act, 2006 (United Kingdom). The effectiveness of legislative regulatory devices generally, and commercial law-related ones in particular, may to a greater extent depend on judicial interpretation and application. A conservative and literal interpretive approach that is purpose-neutral will significantly undermine the prospect of the current derivative remedy regime’s achieving the intended policy objectives. To that end, this contribution examines several court decisions handed down after the enactment of the 2006 Act and spanning over a period of approximately ten years. Ultimately, it will be considered whether the leave requirement in English derivative litigation is proving to be an invaluable and indispensable procedural prerequisite or an implausible barrier to honest litigants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses issues on commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies under New York law, particularly with regards to faulty work and the term 'occurrence.' It examines the Tenth Circuit's decision in the case Black & Veatch Corp. v. Aspen Insurance (Great Britain) Ltd., in which faulty subcontractor work could be coverable occurrence under standard CGL policy.

DFSNZ v XYZ presents a worrying precedent for anti-doping law. That case arose after New Zealand's anti-doping enforcement body, Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ), expanded its jurisdiction over recreational athletes. It did so by internal administrative decision and without notice. This action was upheld in DFSNZ v XYZ by a majority of the Sports Tribunal resulting in an unsuspecting recreational golfer being banned for one year. The decision upheld DFSNZ's extension of onerous obligations and invasive testing powers designed for elite athletes to the large proportion of ordinary New Zealanders who partake in recreational sport. This article critiques the XYZ decision on two bases: (a) DFSNZ's illegitimate expansion of its jurisdiction to recreational athletes by mere administrative policy change; and (b) the pitfalls of extending a regime designed for elite athletes to recreational athletes. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has developed a new World Anti-Doping Code which will come into force in January 2021. The 2021 Code creates a new twotiered system which treats "athletes" and "recreational athletes" differently. This article analyses the new Code and critiques its shortcomings with regards to defining the Code's jurisdiction and ensuring a proportionate response to doping in recreational sport. WADA's new code is a step in the right direction but fails to go far enough to align with the participation, health and education objectives of recreational sport. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the court case Commonwealth v. Eldred to discuss the plight of defendants with substance use disorder (SUD) and opioid use disorder (OUD). Also cited are the ruling by a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court claiming that judges may demand a defendant to be drug-free as a probation condition, why the decision violated the Eighth Amendment, and the adverse social effects of the ruling.

The article discusses why the One Good Plaintiff Rule exemption to Article III standing should be retained by U.S. courts, and cites the 2017 ruling by the Supreme Court in the case Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc.

The article discusses developments in agricultural law in Indiana. Also cited are the North Carolina's Right to Farm Act (RTFA) application by analyzing a case filed against Smithfield Foods, Inc. subsidiary Murphy-Brown, LLC due to the nuisance caused by its swine farms, the Indiana RTFA's protection on the farmers' ability to produce food, and the ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals in the cases Parker v. Obert's Legacy Dairy LLC, and Himsel v. Himsel.