Search

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to assist in endoscopy and improve decision making, particularly in situations where humans may make inconsistent judgments. The performance assessment of the medical devices operating in this context is a complex combination of bench tests, randomized controlled trials, and studies on the interaction between physicians and AI. We review the scientific evidence published about GI Genius, the first AI-powered medical device for colonoscopy to enter the market, and the device that is most widely tested by the scientific community. We provide an overview of its technical architecture, AI training and testing strategies, and regulatory path. In addition, we discuss the strengths and limitations of the current platform and its potential impact on clinical practice. The details of the algorithm architecture and the data that were used to train the AI device have been disclosed to the scientific community in the pursuit of a transparent AI. Overall, the first AI-enabled medical device for real-time video analysis represents a significant advancement in the use of AI for endoscopies and has the potential to improve the accuracy and efficiency of colonoscopy procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the past decade, there have been increasing calls for greater use of real-world evidence (RWE) and data (RWD), with the explicit goal of enabling faster provision of effective medicines to patients in need. The push for decision makers to accept RWE is especially noticeable in the pursuit of regulatory approval, but RWE, particularly when used to estimate the relative effectiveness of interventions, is not always readily accepted by agencies responsible for reimbursement and pricing of new pharmaceuticals and, to a varying degree, is not accepted across jurisdictions. This lack of trust hampers the use of RWE despite a very large and growing literature base on the principles of how RWE should be used. In this article, we suggest an important part of the explanation of why this situation has arisen and make suggestions for its alleviation. Given that problems commonly arise that are particular to the question being asked and the data sources being used, general guidance on the principles of how to use RWD cannot cover all eventualities. Therefore, we are suggesting the creation of an archive, or repository, to record uses of RWD in support of decisions by funding bodies or their advisors. This article introduces a proposed, structured classification of decision types using RWE, around which evidence can be assembled in a curated source (RWD/RWE taxonomy) and thus facilitate judgments on when evidence is "good enough." This article is part of a series in a special issue of this journal that looks at the barriers to optimal use of RWE in health technology assessment and how to overcome them. We begin significantly to populate our "taxonomy" with examples in an accompanying article. We also propose recommendations for international standards of evaluating the acceptability of RWD governance practices. [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]

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of India in Welspun Specialty Solutions Limited v Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd discusses several issues critical to Indian contract law. The court considered the important issue of the interface between liquidated damages clause and time-as-essence stipulations. This paper discusses the decision and critically evaluates its reasoning. It argues that the question of whether time is of the essence of an agreement is not relevant for determining whether liquidated damages are payable under the agreement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The promulgation of the Supervision Law in China reflects the central government's determination to combat 'corruption' at a new level. The National Supervisory Commission was established as an independent commission with broad-ranging supervisory powers, along with other supervisory commissions at local level. While these commissions' jurisdiction over 'dutyrelated crimes' is prescribed in detail by law, what 'duty-related violations' are and how the commissions supervise them remain blind spots in the Supervision Law. This article argues that such ambiguities can lead to politicisation of the 'anti-corruption' mission. Moreover, the present threefold litigation system in China has not stipulated judicial reviews of the supervisory commissions' power and has instead left the question to judicial construction. This paper analyses supervision-related administrative judgments from 2018 to 2021 to summarise the three channels through which supervisory commissions can become involved in administrative litigation, yet none of them support the undertaking of judicial review. In this respect, the vague definition of duty-related violations, combined with the lack of an effective judicial review mechanism, can have adverse effects on the rule of law project that China has been striving to build over the past four decades. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Legal judgments are generally very long, and relevant information is often scattered throughout the text. To complete a legal judgment summarization, capturing important, relevant information comprehensively from a lengthy text is crucial. The existing abstractive-summarization models based on pre-trained language have restrictions on the length of an input text. Another concern is that the generated summaries have not been well integrated with the legal judgment's technical terms and specific topics. In this paper, we used raw legal judgments as information of different granularities and proposed a two-stage text-summarization model to handle different granularities of information. Specifically, we treated the legal judgments as a sequence of sentences and selected key sentence sets from the full texts as an input corpus for summary generation. In addition, we extracted keywords related to technical terms and specific topics in the legal texts and introduced them into the summary-generation model as an attention mechanism. The experimental results on the CAIL2020 and the LCRD datasets showed that our model achieved an overall 0.19–0.41 improvement in its ROUGE score, as compared to the baseline models. Further analysis also showed that our method could comprehensively capture essential and relevant information from lengthy legal texts and generate better legal judgment summaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is a consequential moment for American labor unions. Over the past decade, public support for labor unions has skyrocketed. Yet even in thismoment of renewed public interest, I argue that the American conversation about unions remains constrained by the legacy of past legal decisions. Within the post-New Deal constitutional framework, unions were categorized as engaging in commercial activity, rather than advancing inherently normative claims about justice at work. I refer to this jurisprudential paradigm and the sociolegal accommodations that followed as the "law of apolitical economy." Synthesizing labor history, legal doctrine, sociological theory on social movements, and original empirical work, this Feature traces the trajectory of the law of apolitical economy in courts, identifies its broader cultural reverberations, and marshals new evidence to show that it still matters today. When liberal lawyers made the political and constitutional case for labor unions in the 1930s, they operated within a socioeconomic context radically altered by the Great Depression. Instead of arguing, as labor movement leaders had in the 1800s and early 1900s, that democracy required people to have autonomy and self-determination in their working lives, and instead of advancing unions' own emergent fundamental rights claims, they emphasized labor law as sound economic policy, boosting aggregate demand and promoting industrial peace. In the new constitutional equilibrium that emerged afer the New Deal, labor-union advocacy within the workplace was treated as transactional rather than normative. This choice had benefits, but it also had costs. Under the law of apolitical economy, labor unions increasingly found themselves denied First Amendment protection for the forms of broad, solidaristic protest that built the labor movement. And as new social movements began pressing rights claims in the public sphere, labor unions came to be seen as categorically distinct, as interest groups rather than social-movement organizations. When supply-side economics gained promi- nence in the late 1970s, it was devastating for union legitimacy. New economic theories and the on-the-ground realities they facilitated undermined the New Deal-era economic arguments that had justified labor law. At the same time, unions' ability to counter with broadly resonant norma- tive arguments was hampered by the detritus of their previous legal bargain. In a moment when rights had become, in sociological parlance, the "master frame" for articulating justice claims, it was well-established that bread-and-butter unionismhad little to do with rights, or even right and wrong. Returning to the present day, I argue that the legacy of the lawof apolitical economy continues to shape contemporary discourse, even with public approval at a sixty-year high. Faced with a decimated membership and a legitimacy crisis, labor-movement organizations have sought over the past decade to reassert the normative stakes of unionization. They have used what social scientists call "collective action frames" to show that unions further causes with defined normative stakes. These frames underscore the inherently intersectional role of labor unions in an unequal economy--as institutions that advance society-wide economic equity, racial and gender justice, and community well-being. Yet, they too ofen discount the value of unions' primary statutory role: bringing workers together to improve their working conditions. In so doing, they fail to re- claim the inherently political vision of work and workers lost to the law of apolitical economy. In conclusion, I reflect on the broader implications of this project. The dialogic relationship between law and social movements over the twentieth century--how labor unions were steered away from rights claims while other social movements were steered toward them--continues to shape American law and politics today. In turn, upending the law of apolitical economy can be about more than reclaiming the normative stakes of labor unions; it ofers an opportunity to reclaim a transformative vision of rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The governing law of arbitration agreements determines the validity of an arbitration agreement and equally the entire arbitration. However, there is huge disagreement around the world as to the appropriate choice-of-law rules for deciding this governing law, particularly between rules favoring the governing law of the underlying contract (represented by the English approach) and the curial law (represented by the Chinese approach). By comparing the choice-of-law rules of these two jurisdictions, the authors argue that this disagreement is futile and unnecessary because both jurisdictions' choice-of-law rules are pro-validity in substance and likely lead to the arbitration agreement being upheld. There is, therefore, no urgency to change the status quo by asking one jurisdiction to follow another's choice-of-law approach. The authors conducted empirical research on relevant Chinese judicial decisions to add further depth to the comparison. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During most of the post-independence period, many African countries have either been unwilling or unable to protect human rights or relegated this important function to a small group of poorly funded but brave and courageous non-state actors. Most importantly, some African governments have either actively engaged in human rights violations or failed to bring to justice those who have committed atrocities against their fellow citizens. In the 1970s and 1980s, many African heads of state were more concerned with national sovereignty in an effort to hide the violation of human rights committed within their jurisdictions than participating in the building, within the continent, of supranational institutions for the protection of human rights. Despite this opposition, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) was still able to adopt the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Banjul Charter) in 1981, paving the way for the eventual adoption of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (African Court Protocol) in 1998--the latter established the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (African Human Rights Court), as the judicial arm of the African Union. Since the Court officially commenced its operations in November 2006, it has developed a relatively progressive human rights jurisprudence, which provides the continent with a solid foundation for the adjudication of cases involving the violation of human rights. However, its sustainability is being threatened by financial instability, the unwillingness of African Union (AU) member states to accept the Court's rulings, and the decisions by some countries to take actions that deny their citizens and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) within their jurisdictions the right to directly bring cases to the Court. The way forward calls for the AU to greatly strengthen both the Court's financial and institutional architecture and its independence and ensure that its rulings are accepted and respected by all member states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Perceptual learning reflects experience-driven improvements in the ability to detect changes in stimulus characteristics. The time course for perceptual learning overlaps with that for procedural learning (acquiring general skills and strategies) and task learning (learning the perceptual judgment specific to the task), making it difficult to isolate their individual effects. This study was conducted to examine the role of exposure to stimulus, procedure, and task information on learning for auditory temporal-interval discrimination. Eighty-three listeners completed five online sessions that required temporal-interval discrimination (target task). Before the initial session, listeners were differentially exposed to information about the target task's stimulus, procedure, or task characteristics. Learning occurred across sessions, but an exposure effect was not observed. Given the significant learning across sessions and variability within and across listeners, contributions from stimulus, procedure, and task exposure to overall learning cannot be discounted. These findings clarify the influence of experience on temporal perceptual learning and could inform designs of training paradigms that optimize perceptual improvements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The research aims at: rooting for the truth of the jurisprudential portrayal, showing its importance, controls, and obstacles, and the impact of portraying the jurisprudential issue on jurisprudence and contemporary calamities. It is judged by a judgment, and the understanding of the jurisprudential issue and the coming down comes in the first place for the one looking into it before asking for its ruling, and this is of great importance and narrowing the gap of disagreement, and the depiction of the jurisprudential issue has controls, including: resorting to God and seeking help from Him, and exerting the wide in the perception of the incident the correct and complete perception, and sounding the words of the people Knowledge of problematic issues and comparison between them, reference to books that deal with mentioning the problem and its answer, knowledge of the jurisprudential skills and landmarks necessary when studying contemporary emerging issues, and there are a number of obstacles to depicting the jurisprudential issue, including: distance from the generation of companions and the creation of a new understanding, negligence and lack of understanding of the issue, and intolerance The doctrine, the error in transferring from the doctrine or not standing on it, the possibility of terminology, change and alteration in matters of life, and the depiction of the jurisprudential issue has important effects on jurisprudence and contemporary issues, Including: protecting the side of the Sharia from challenging it or replacing it due to its inability to include the rulings of contemporary calamities, and the mujtahid not getting reward for his diligence, and avoiding the occurrence of error in the jurisprudential ruling, or the abnormality of his saying, or adherence to it in what contradicts the rules of the Sharia, collecting sayings, and editing the place of dispute, narrowing the gap of disagreement, differentiating between similar jurisprudential issues, avoiding error in attributing to the doctrine or the scholar, and bringing the science of jurisprudence closer and understanding its understanding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Due to the influence of the connection distance between the mutual inductor primary circuit and the metering device secondary circuit, the detection induced current of the traditional method is extremely small, which cannot accurately detect the authentic situation of the wiring, resulting in long detection time and low detection accuracy. Therefore, this paper proposes the automatic detection method of the secondary circuit connection of the metering device mutual inductor. Through the voltage sampling circuit, the secondary circuit measurement data are obtained. Using the pulse signal shaping function and the ADE7753 chip to process the secondary circuit measurement data, the secondary circuit connection fault judgment is determined. According to the judgment, the electric energy meter is used, combined with the secondary circuit measurement data, and the automatic detection of the secondary circuit connection is achieved by calculation. The experimental results show that compared with the traditional detection method, the automatic detection method of the secondary circuit connection of the metering device mutual inductor designed in this paper achieves normal and stable detection induction current. There is no inductive current with an extremely small condition, the detection accuracy is high, and the detection time is short, indicating that the method is suitable for application in actual detection projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Situational judgments tests have been increasingly used to help training programs for the health professions incorporate professionalism attributes into their admissions process. While such tests have strong psychometric properties for testing professional attributes and are feasible to implement in high-volume, high-stakes selection, little is known about constructed-response situational judgment tests and their validity. Methods: We will conduct a systematic review of primary published or unpublished studies reporting on the association between scores on constructed-response situational judgment tests and scores on other tests that measure personal, interpersonal, or professional attributes in training programs for the health professions. In addition to searching electronic databases, we will contact academics and researchers and undertake backward and forward searching. Two reviewers will independently screen the papers and decide on their inclusion, first based on the titles and abstracts of all citations, and then according to the full texts. Data extraction will be done independently by two reviewers using a data extraction form to chart study details and key findings. Studies will be assessed for the risk of bias and quality by two reviewers using the "Quality In Prognosis Studies" tool. To synthesize evidence, we will test the statistical heterogeneity and conduct a psychometric meta-analysis using a random-effects model. If adequate data are available, we will explore whether the meta-analytic correlation varies across different subgroups (e.g., race, gender). Discussion: The findings of this study will inform best practices for admission and selection of applicants for training programs for the health professions and encourage further research on constructed-response situational judgment tests, in particular their validity. Trial registration: The protocol for this systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO [CRD42022314561]. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022314561. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article aims to determine the specificity of spatial conflicts related to spatial plans concerning wind power plants. To achieve the aim of the article, all spatial plans in force in Poland were analysed, distinguishing those which determine the possibility of realisation of wind power plants. The research concerns the whole country. The literature review carried out for this article verifies approaches to spatial conflicts and identifies how planning barriers to the implementation of wind power investments are defined. The results identified Polish municipalities where spatial plans containing provisions for implementing wind power plants have been enacted. Then, through survey research, an attempt was made to identify critical spatial conflicts occurring in these municipalities. The last part of the research involved identifying and analysing Polish court decisions concerning spatial plans permitting wind power plants. These were recognised as a particular stage of spatial conflicts. The article's novelty is the attempt to isolate regional spatial conflicts concerning wind power plants comprehensively. This applies to a broader scientific discussion (also applicable to other countries). In addition, the treatment of court cases as the final stage of spatial conflicts related to the location of wind power plants should be considered innovative. An important contribution to the international discussion is the proposal for broader (quantitative) research on the role of courts in spatial planning. Possible classifications in court settlements of parties to spatial conflicts, reasons for spatial conflicts, and ways of ending conflicts have been proposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Precedent 7 of the Superior Court of Justice should not serve as an illegitimate obstacle to the non-appreciation of special appeals due to the prohibition of “evidence review”. The superior court, in particular the STJ, in the exercise of its constitutionally assigned functions, analyzes (or re-examines) the convincing argument that focuses on the evidence in the judgment of the special appeal. But it restricts its assessment when the claim collides with the need to re-analyze the facts established in the judgment. This, then, is the utopian premise of the court's action. Faced with the insecurity that the summary entry brings to the order that does not confer predictability in acceptance or rejection even in the analysis of the admissibility requirements of exceptional appeals, the present work tries to demonstrate the weak distinction between a question of fact and a question of law, but, above all, it seeks to establish the revaluation as a method of convincing the decision, possible of the appellate appreciation. For this, we adopted premises referring to the judgment of merit of exceptional appeals, we detailed the functions of the superior courts and the complexity in the distinction between a question of fact and of law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a court case wherein the U.S. Supreme Court in Estelle v. Gamble guaranteed that those in custody were entitled to necessary medical care as a Constitutional right. Topics include leading cases for deliberate indifference claims, the difference of medical detoxification from jail detoxification for substance abuse, law surrounding an individual's rights and standards in correctional facilities and the effect of the Supreme Court denying certiorari.

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 question is posed in this paper of what repercussions Brexit will have on maritime law and on the maritime industry of the European Union. This is because the Commercial Court in London has been dealing with disputes arising from the international carriage of goods by sea for centuries. Approximately 80% of all disputes before that Court and the Admiralty Court are maritime, shipping and shipbuilding disputes. Approximately 70% of such disputes are international. The majority of judges of the Commercial Court and of the Admiralty Court, as well as a substantial number of solicitors and barristers and court expert witnesses are specialised or have experience in shipping law. All this means that London has been and remains the dominant jurisdiction for resolving international shipping disputes. The pragmatic approach to the question of liability and allocation of risk in shipping ventures, and the detailed analysis of the specific circumstances of every case, among other things, make English court decisions unique. At the end of the UK exit negotiations on 31 December 2020, the Brussels I Recast, the Lugano Convention 2007, and Rome I and Rome II ceased to apply. These regulations and conventions deal with jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters among EU Member States and the law chosen by the parties. This means that the automatic recognition and enforcement of the English Commercial Court judgments by the courts in the European Union (and vice versa) has ended. In these circumstances, the question is whether shipping companies, marine insurance companies, shipyards and other marine industries in the European Union will continue to choose with confidence English law as the governing law of their contracts and English court jurisdiction for settling their shipping disputes. We believe that they will, especially because of the uniquely high level of certainty, clearness and predictability of English shipping law and English court decisions. Furthermore, because of the high level of understanding of the specifics of the maritime industry which has been provided by London to the maritime industries of the European Union and the world for centuries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

THE EUROPEAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE IS AN INDEPENDENT AND DECENTRALISED PROSECUTION OFFICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, WITH THE COMPETENCE TO INVESTIGATE, PROSECUTE AND BRING TO JUDGMENT CRIMES AGAINST THE EU BUDGET, SUCH AS FRAUD, CORRUPTION OR SERIOUS CROSS-BORDER VAT FRAUD. THE EUROPEAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE OPERATES AS A SINGLE OFFICE ACROSS ALL PARTICIPATING EU COUNTRIES AND COMBINES EUROPEAN AND NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS IN A UNIFIED, SEAMLESS AND EFFICIENT APPROACH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Beliefs like the Gambler's Fallacy and the Hot Hand have interested cognitive scientists, economists, and philosophers for centuries. We propose that these judgment patterns arise from the observer's mental models of the sequence‐generating mechanism, moderated by the strength of belief in an a priori base rate. In six behavioral experiments, participants observed one of three mechanisms generating sequences of eight binary events: a random mechanical device, an intentional goal‐directed actor, and a financial market. We systematically manipulated participants' beliefs about the base rate probabilities at which different outcomes were generated by each mechanism. Participants judged 18 sequences of outcomes produced by a mechanism with either an unknown base rate, a specified distribution of three equiprobable base rates, or a precise, fixed base rate. Six target sequences ended in streaks of between two and seven identical outcomes. The most common predictions for subsequent events were best described as pragmatic belief updating, expressed as an increasingly strong expectation that a streak of identical signals would repeat as the length of that streak increased. The exception to this pattern was for sequences generated by a random mechanical device with a fixed base rate of.50. Under this specific condition, participants exhibited a bias toward reversal of streaks, and this bias was larger when participants were asked to make a dichotomous choice versus a numerical probability rating. We review alternate accounts for the anomalous judgments of sequences and conclude with our favored interpretation that is based on Rabin's version of Tversky & Kahneman's Law of Small Numbers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent years have seen a resurgence of the view that the role of the federal courts is to declare what the law is, not what the law should be. Scholars and judges, including a majority of the current U.S. Supreme Court justices, have expressed this view that the law is fixed at its creation and the function of courts is to declare its meaning. But this view is inaccurate. Descriptively, federal courts often say what the law should be. Judges fashion common law, inject their views into interpretations, and issue opinions that do not merely describe the law but have independent legal authority. Moreover, various legal doctrines—such as Chevron deference and rational basis review—operate on the assumption that the law is not fixed but can be changed by courts and others. The saying is also normatively inaccurate. Federal courts often should make law. For example, the primary role assigned to the Supreme Court is to settle the meaning of unclear law, and often that settlement depends on evaluations of what the law should be rather than merely what it “is.” Persisting with the fiction that the role of the courts is “to say what the law is”—instead of actually acknowledging the lawmaking role of the judiciary— undermines judiciary legitimacy, encumbers the judicial lawmaking process, and unduly shifts accountability to others for judicial decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The doctrine of the judgment, specifically the pre-advent judgment, is undoubtedly a key doctrine of Adventism. However, some Adventist scholars have pointed out that this doctrine has not remained invariable through time (Rolf J. Pohler, Friz Guy). An important aspect in which the understanding of that doctrine has varied is in connection with the purpose of the judgment. For the Adventist pioneers the so-called investigative judgment implied a decision-making process regarding the salvation of those who are judged. This implied an evaluation of the lives of believers, of their growth in a life of holiness. On the other hand, for several recent Adventist scholars, the judgment seems to be basically focused on the vindication of God's character. This paper explores the connection between this change and the (implicit) growing influence in Adventist theology of a monergistic interpretation of justification by faith, more in harmony with Protestant theology, which understands justification as a punctiliar fact, once and forever. In the Adventist context, this implies that the understanding of the pre-advent judgment focuses on the exhibition of evidence that vindicates God's character while minimizing or eliminating the need for a decision-making process during the judgment itself. The paper briefly assesses this shift in the understanding of the judgment in Adventism in terms of its consistency with the rest of the Adventist theological system and suggests some implications regarding the importance of holiness in the context of Adventist soteriology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explains how bankruptcy judges overrule health experts on Medicare decisions. Topics discussed are purpose of Medicare Act, role of Medicare Provider Agreements, Medicare appeals system and its interplay with bankruptcy jurisdiction, legislative history supporting barring of bankruptcy jurisdiction, Congressional policy promoting agency adjudication over bankruptcy court adjudication for Medicare claims, and initiatives to deal with appeal backlogs.

Although from a scientific and epistemological perspective, criminal investigation is an interdisciplinary activity governed by operational principles and legal norms (rules and principles), the operational principles are governed (or limited) by legal norms. Consequently, the best dogmatic construction places them as guiding criteria of the constitutional principle of efficiency. The operational principles of immediacy, timeliness and secrecy characterize criminal investigation and are limited by legal norms to protect fundamental rights and guarantees. Current paper defines these operational principles and their relationships with legal norms. Theoretical research through an analysis of laws, STF judgments, research and articles on the subject of criminal investigation and underlying principles concludes that (a) the principle of immediacy is not restricted by legal norms; (b) the principle of opportunity is largely restricted by legal norms to protect fundamental rights and guarantees, particularly the right to privacy and intimacy; (c) the principle of secrecy, restricted within the investigative line, is not limited by legal norms. Current paper concludes that operational principles have a core of their own and that legal norms restrict these principles on the basis of fundamental rights and guarantees, but not to such an extent that they violate the constitutional principle of efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses court cases which qualified as organised crime in Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H). The final judgments were analysed according to the following criteria: the number of defendants; the continuity of membership within the crime organisation; the existence of criminal structure; the existence of a developed plan of activities; the type and number of the offences committed; influence on public authorities, the judiciary, and citizens; and sentences imposed on the defendants. This paper seeks to identify the extent to which court judgments are based on these criteria. A secondary analysis of the data related to the organised crime cases heard in the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the period between 2015 and 2018 was conducted. This analysis encompassed 21 organised crime cases in which 27 judgments were pronounced. In the observed period (2015-2018), we identified two organised criminal groups that meet the criteria analysed. The identified number of organised criminal groups is minimal in relation to the total number of organised crime cases processed. Our findings contradict the prevailing view in public discourse that organised crime is a widespread security threat in B&H. The findings of our research demonstrated the existence of legal gaps, reflected in the lack of clear criteria on the basis of which OCGs can be distinguish from other forms of criminal activity. Legal and institutional weaknesses create opportunities for OCGs to operate and create a sense of insecurity among citizens in the already complex security environment in B&H. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The digitization of social interactions has created means and opportunities for data and evidence collections, representing challenges to due process, reversing the burden of proof and fundamental rights. As money laundering is associated with digital information and compliance becomes ubiquitous, the Supreme Federal Court's judgments regarding the obtaining of evidence by state agencies, as well as their sharing, will be analyzed. The results show that such mechanisms fall short of protecting individual rights and to avoid unnecessary nullities. This article uses the deductive and exploratory research method, based on articles, decisions and bibliographic studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The law is often engaged in prediction. In the calculation of tort damages, for example, a judge will consider what the tort victim's likely future earnings would have been, but for their particular injury. Similarly, when considering injunctive relief, a judge will assess whether the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is not granted. And for the purposes of a child custody evaluation, a judge will consider which parent will provide an environment that is in the best interests of the child. Relative to other areas of law, criminal law is oversaturated with prediction. Almost every decision node in the criminal justice system demands a prediction of individual behavior: does the accused present a flight risk, or a danger to the public (pre-trial detention); is the defendant likely to recidivate (sentencing); and will the defendant successfully reenter society (parole) Increasingly, these predictions are made by algorithms, many of which display racial bias, and are hidden from public view. Existing scholarship has focused on de-biasing and disclosing algorithmic models, but this Article argues that even a transparent and unbiased algorithm may undermine the epistemic legitimacy of a judicial decision. Law has historically generated truth claims through discursive and dialogic practices, using shared linguistic tools, in an environment characterized by proximity and reciprocity. In contrast, the truth claims of data science are generated from data processing of such scale and complexity that it is not commensurable with, or reversible to, human reasoning. Data science excludes the individual from the production of knowledge about themselves on the basis that "unmediated" behavioral data (not self-reported or otherwise subject to conscious manipulation by the data subject) offers unrivaled predictive accuracy. Accordingly, data science discounts the first-person view of reality that has traditionally underwritten legal processes of truth-making, such as individual testimony. As judges turn to algorithms to guide their decision making, knowledge about the legal subject is increasingly algorithmically produced. Statistical predictions about the legal subject displace qualitative knowledge about their intentions, motivations, and moral capabilities. The reasons why a particular defendant might refrain from recidivism, for example, become less important than the statistical features they share with historical recidivists. This displacement of individual knowledge with algorithmic predictions diminishes the participation of the legal subject in the epistemic processes that determine their fundamental liberties. This produces the death of the legal subject, or the emergence of new, algorithmic practices of signification that no longer require the input of the underlying individual. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The investigation addresses the incorrect assessment and motivation of judicial decisions, violating the principle of presumption of innocence. Posing as a scientific problem, that the improper motivation of the evidence would lead to conviction, limits the protection of the principle of presumption of innocence in the Peruvian criminal process and as an objective, a modification to Law No. 29277 of the judicial career to protect presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings. Scientific legal methods and studies of doctrinal and jurisprudential documents were used, as well as a survey with a questionnaire. From the analysis carried out, the defects in the motivation of the circumstantial evidence by the judge in the sentence are corroborated, affecting the presumption of innocence of the accused, for which it is of interest to incorporate as a disciplinary fault of the Judge who fails to comply with this requirement in the criminal process. in the Regulations, Law N°. 29277 of the Judicial Career. l, Chapter V: Disciplinary Regime, article 47: Serious Offenses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article examines how the metaphors in judicial opinions reveal judicial theories of lawmaking and judicial philosophies. It does so through a close reading of Justice Ginsburg’s majority opinion and Justice Gorsuch’s dissenting opinion in Artis v. District of Columbia, 138 S. Ct. 594 (2018). Artis was about what the phrase “shall be tolled” means in the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. §1367. Does it pause the statute of limitations while a state-law claim is in federal court or keep it running? In holding that Congress used “stop the clock” tolling, an “off-the-shelf” legal device that pauses the statute of limitations, Justice Ginsburg’s majority opinion uses conventional, mechanistic metaphors. Justice Gorsuch’s dissent uses more elaborate, agrarian metaphors to argue that Congress used a stricter “grace period” version of tolling because “[w]hen Congress replants the roots of preexisting law in the federal code, this Court assumes it brings with it the surrounding soil.” This Article shows that Justice Ginsburg’s mechanistic metaphors describe lawmaking like engineering and bespeak a mode of judicial interpretation based on purpose and precedent—while Justice Gorsuch’s agrarian metaphors hark back to a pastoral conception of lawmaking and interpretation “rooted” in a mythical common-law history and tradition. It then compares Justice Ginsburg’s more understated use of conventional metaphors to Justice Gorsuch’s more performative metaphorical technique, arguing that their different rhetorical strategies reflect their different visions of lawmaking and interpretive philosophies. And it closes by showing how close attention to the metaphors they use can reveal the flaws in each approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta defied much current precedent and practice, as four dissenters protested. But neither side grappled with the Constitution’s original meaning. Both text and early practice confirm that the federal power to regulate “commerce with the Indian tribes” was a different, more constrained power than the power to regulate “commerce among the states.” But as nineteenth century courts recognized, federal Indian lawcould also drawon powers inherent in nationalsovereignty—a wider, but not unbounded,source of authority and one which necessarily excluded interference fromstates.Even if tribalreservations are nowseen as no more independent than states, they have good claims to protection under constitutional safeguards for the free flow of commerce—rather than being treated as colonial dependents of state governments. In contrast to the conformist and assimilationist policies imposed by federal authority in the decades after the Civil War, today’s America should be more receptive to theConstitution’s original viewon Indian tribes—as separate nations within the larger American nation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a tribute to U.S. Federal Judge David Frank Hamilton, who is retiring from his position. Also cited are the decisions of Hamilton on legal issues like the constitutional rights of detainees, the Fourth Amendment protection for detainees from unreasonable force, and his position on consumer class action viability in cases like Pearson v. Target Corp.

Classic decision theory requires that rational agents show description invariance: which description is chosen should not matter for judgments, preferences, or choices given the descriptions are co-extensive. Framing research has amply demonstrated a failure of description invariance by showing that the choice of the description has a systematic effect on judgments, preferences, and choices. Specifically, framing research has shown that linguistically different descriptions of seemingly equivalent options frequently lead to preference reversals. I summarize the research on framing in situations entailing risk. This includes the characterization of different research designs used, the size and robustness of the framing effects reported for those designs, and the theoretical accounts put forward to explain framing effects. The theoretical accounts are evaluated with respect to their merits, empirically and theoretically. I end by providing the implications of framing research. My central point is that the existence of framing effects points to the adaptiveness of the processes underlying human judgment and choice rather than simply showing human irrationality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The approach of international courts and tribunals to mass criminality is to examine blameworthiness in isolation of commonly-held beliefs and aspirations of victims and perpetrators, as well as their associated communities. This has allowed political elites to use pertinent legal judgments to exorcise the communities of which a convicted person is a member. This Article argues that anthropological analyses should inform all aspects of the international criminal justice process. Such analyses could be particularly helpful in determining how protagonists' underlying assumptions and external factors affect their beliefs about the types of actions that conflict-ridden societies should take. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the era of Industry 4.0, the Internet-of-Things (IoT) performs the driving position analogous to the initial industrial metamorphosis. IoT affords the potential to couple machine-to-machine intercommunication and real-time information-gathering within the industry domain. Hence, the enactment of IoT in the industry magnifies effective optimization, authority, and data-driven judgment. However, this field undergoes several interoperable issues, including large numbers of heterogeneous IoT gadgets, tools, software, sensing, and processing components, joining through the Internet, despite the deficiency of communication protocols and standards. Recently, various interoperable protocols, platforms, standards, and technologies are enhanced and altered according to the specifications of the applicability in industrial applications. However, there are no recent survey papers that primarily examine various interoperability issues that Industrial IoT (IIoT) faces. In this review, we investigate the conventional and recent developments of relevant state-of-the-art IIoT technologies, frameworks, and solutions for facilitating interoperability between different IIoT components. We also discuss several interoperable IIoT standards, protocols, and models for digitizing the industrial revolution. Finally, we conclude this survey with an inherent discussion of open challenges and directions for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The highlight assigned to the Brazilian Supreme Court in trials of political opponents is observed in the Vargas State. In the intersection of the Vargas government, the historical judgment of Habeas Corpus n. ° 26.155/1936 in favor of Maria Prestes - codename of Olga Benário. Is evident the singularities of the case and its intertwining with the political and historical context enhance the object. This study aims to analyze the political reflexes in the Brazilian Supreme Court during the interstitium between 1930 and 1936 and how they impacted the induction and outcome of Habeas Corpus n. ° 26.155/1936. Under the epistem of qualitative research, historical research in Law and the case study are associated, examining the political scenario in which Habeas Corpus n. ° 26.155/1936 was inserted; it enunciates actions of the Executive Power that had repercussions in the Supreme Court; the founding elements of Olga Benário's defense thesis and the outcome of the trial are presented; it is maked an analysis of the state of the art of the correlation between Justice and Politics from the perspective of the use of law for political ends. Finally, it is understood, from the conceptual framework of Political Justice, its applicability in the context of Habeas Corpus 26.155/1936. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 paper contains an analysis of judgments based on agreement of the parties, a Croatian model of plea bargaining, drawing on the experiences of three groups of practitioners: judges, state attorneys, and defence counsels. Previously conducted comparative legal analysis, as well as analysis of the Croatian normative framework and jurisprudence, was not able to provide answers to a number of questions about the motivation of the parties to negotiate, on the negotiation procedure which is not recorded in the protocol, about the real and the ideal role of the court, and about the real position of the parties and the victim. Hence, these issues were researched through semi-structured interviews with 60 practitioners and then further discussed in four focus groups. Some of the findings uncovered systemic inconsistencies in everyday legal practice in a number of areas. For instance, judgment based on agreement of the parties is more readily used in cases of serious offences, while other consensual forms of proceedings tend to be used for less serious offences. Informal negotiations at all stages of the criminal procedure have proven to be very popular with practitioners and sometimes even encouraged by judges. Yet, the issue of judicial control of the plea agreement divided the respondents, even though the right to judicial review of criminal prosecution is a fundamental principle of Croatian criminal procedure, which covers not only the fundamental issues of legality and voluntariness of the concluded agreement, but also the purposefulness of the proposed sanction. The victim's position in the plea-bargaining procedure is considered to be adequate, at least as long as the victim is involved, and there is a tendency to consult the victim even in cases when his or her consent is not required by law. Finally, although it is generally considered that defence rights are well protected, there are problematic issues, namely tariffs or the 'take it or leave it' offer, as well as the wide discretion of the state attorney when deciding to enter into negotiations and reach agreement. The qualitative analysis of the findings, which is presented in this paper, should contribute to drafting specific proposals for improvements in the legislation and practice of the judgment based on agreement of the parties in Croatian law. Many of these findings may also be relevant for other legal systems, especially those of the continental European legal tradition, since they may face the same problems and questions related to plea bargaining as a global phenomenon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On 17 January 2023, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the Spain v Commission (Kosovo) case, ruling that despite the EU's non-recognition of Kosovo as a State, Kosovo may participate as a third country in an EU agency under the obligations laid down in Article 35(2) of the BEREC Regulation. The judgment is significant because it clarifies Kosovo's relations with the EU and, more specifically, the ability of Kosovo as a third country to participate in EU agencies. This article analyses the Court of Justice of the European Union judgments in Spain v Commission (Kosovo) and discusses the impact on the future accession of Kosovo to the EU. The paper argues that while these judgments have a positive effect on the consideration of Kosovo as a 'third country' in joining EU bodies and agencies, non-recognition of Kosovo as an independent State by five EU Member States is an obstacle to advancing further its prospects of European integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European instrument for judicial cooperation in criminal matters, the European Supervision Order, represents an unexploited potential of application that could provide an alternative to the leading cooperation instrument, the European arrest warrant. The use of non-custodial measures may not only strengthen cooperation between Member States, but also increase the dynamics of the whole procedure. Current judicial cooperation is assessed in this Article in the light of the principle of proportionality of the use of preventive measures in general. An important interpretative guide in this respect is the rule tightening the criteria for recognising the possibility of enforcing a custodial measure developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Aranyosi & Căldăraru case. This judgment is of great importance for the principle of mutual recognition, the application of which seems to be strengthened in the judgments of the Tribunal issued in the dispute over the reform of the Polish judiciary system. Therefore, non-custodial measures that form the core of the European Supervision Order, according to the authors, can be a remedy for the challenges that have arisen. The instrument will also be discussed from the point of view of the criterion of efficiency, interpreted, inter alia, as ensuring equal implementation of the objectives of the procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article provides a comparative analysis of Judge Benjamin Cardozo's tort decisions in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.,³ one of his most famous tort decisions, contrasted with a lesser-known tort opinion in Hynes v. New York Central Railroad Co.4 The Author attempts to address Cardozo's humanistic and intellectual dichotomies which are exemplified by these two real-life tort precedents--one of which, Palsgraf, most practitioners may only have a distant recall. A historical overview of Cardozo's life is also discussed. These two decisions portray Cardozo as an emotive human being exercising hit-or-miss judging. This theme provides a different viewpoint from Cardozo's historical image as a rigid, cold, and detached Jurist. It was this latter image that Cardozo sought to publicly display during his lifetime. These internal enigmatic personality conflicts are what memorialize Benjamin Cardozo in the Law almost a century later. Cardozo remains perceived in legal historicism as some distant Moses-like, true to his Jewish faith "Lawgiver."5 In the larger sense, however, at least Biblically, Cardozo did not view himself that way since despite an Orthodox family he was not religious.6 Any judgment the Reader reaches after analyzing this hypothesis will provide, at a minimum, an updated, more modern vision of Benjamin Cardozo. If this occurs, then my efforts have not been in vain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Delegating legislation to the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) refers to God giving the power to set religious laws to the Prophet. Some exegetes among the Shiites and Sunnis oppose this view under some verses such as verses that explain remembrance (dhikr), attribute laws only to God, and verse four of the al-Najm Chapter. The present research studies the views of this group of exegetes using a descriptive and content analysis method and has replied to the question of where the role of the Prophet is in the legislation of religious law. Findings show that the arguments of the abovementioned exegetes in this opposition are incomplete because according to the logical rule that states “to affirm a truth does not mean to deny other (as yet) unaffirmed truths,” that the Prophet is one who explains and clarifies matters (mubayyin) does not refute his possession of the right to legislate religious laws. Both religious and existential legislation is essentially specific to God, the Exalted, but this does not contradict the delegation of legislation with the permission of God and secondarily to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his household). Moreover, legislative authority has been stipulated and can be proven for him in limited instances through arguments such as the verses of fayʾ (spoils of war), the judgment of God and the Prophet, the obligation of obedience to God and the Prophet, and attributing prohibitions to God and the Prophet as well as authentic narrations regarding delegation of legislation to the Prophet, reliable narrations (in terms of narrators) that consider the source of legislation as the Quran and conduct of the Infallibles, and instances of the Prophet’s legislation in historical narrative sources, and the absoluteness of the verse, “it is just a revelation that is revealed [to him],” [53: 4] (Qarai translation) – if one accepts it absoluteness and generality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study discusses the issues of the legal status of administrative fines. The authors deemed it desirable to apply various investigation methods in this area of research, such as a review and analysis of the established line of judicial decisions (legislative acts, court decisions, official documents) and a comparative analysis. For this reason, the second part of the study discusses the issues in question (synthetically) while taking into consideration the French, German and Danish legal orders. The majority of the research was also devoted to an analysis of the legal status of the Bank Guarantee Fund (hereinafter: BGF or Fund) and to a discussion of types of administrative fines imposed by the Fund. An analysis and review of the law in force was used as a primary tool in this research area. The underlying goal of this research was to establish the legal status of administrative fines imposed by the BGF and their types, assuming that these penalties mainly play a preventive and repressive function. These issues have a practical and theoretical importance, since they may be used at the stage of law-giving and law-application, and also in scholarly investigations. The study takes into account the legal status as of 23 April 2023. [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]

Although the individual has been the focus of most research into judgment and decision-making (JDM), important decisions in the real world are often made collectively rather than individually, a tendency that has increased in recent times with the opportunities for easy information exchange through the Internet. From this perspective, JDM research that factors in this social context has increased generalizability and mundane realism relative to that which ignores it. We delineate a problem-space for research within which we locate protocols that are used to study or support collective JDM, identify a common research question posed by all of these protocols--'What are the factors leading to opinion change for the better ('virtuous opinion change') in individual JDM agents?'--and propose a modeling approach and research paradigm using structured groups (i.e., groups with some constraints on their interaction), for answering this question. This paradigm, based on that used in studies of judge-adviser systems, avoids the need for real interacting groups and their attendant logistical problems, lack of power, and poor experimental control. We report an experiment using our paradigm on the effects of group size and opinion diversity on judgmental forecasting performance to illustrate our approach. The study found a U-shaped effect of group size on the probability of opinion change, but no effect on the amount of virtuous opinion change. Implications of our approach for development of more externally valid empirical studies and theories of JDM, and for the design of structured-group techniques to support collective JDM, are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Continuous risky decisions refer to decisions that involve trade-offs among options with persistent risks. People can use the probability of occurrence per unit time (e.g., 'the probability of occurrence is 1% per month') or the average time of risk occurrence (e.g., 'the average occurrence time is 100 months') to represent continuous risky options. In this study, we examined the effect of the presentation format (i.e., the probability of occurrence per unit time vs. the average time of risk occurrence) on continuous risky decisions in the gain domain and further explored the underlying mechanism. In Study 1 (N = 122), we demonstrated the effect of presentation format on continuous risky decisions and the moderating effect of the magnitude of probabilities. Specifically, when the probabilities were relatively low, compared with the probability of occurrence per unit time, using the average time of risk occurrence to present the continuous risky options led to more risk-averse decisions. However, when the probabilities were relatively high, compared with the probability of occurrence per unit time, the presentation format of the average time occurrence led to more risk-seeking decisions. In Study 2 (N = 136), we found that the moderating effect of the option probabilities on continuous risky decisions wasmediated by the subjective attributewise difference judgment. In Study 3 (N = 221), we replicated the effect of presentation format on continuous risky decisions in more natural scenarios. The study offered a deep understanding of the mechanism of continuous risky decision-making, and the results were conducive to further developing theories in relevant fields. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]