Search

This article analyses the rationality of the principle of proportionality as a justificatory method for solving cases involving conflicts of constitutional principles. It addresses the "problem of comparability": a set of arguments claiming that proportionalists fail to understand what happens when constitutional principles collide. The problem of comparability suggests that balancing cannot be done if some conflicts of constitutional principles are, in reality, cases of noncomparability, incommensurability, incomparability, or vagueness. In this article, I challenge the views of both proportionalists and their skeptics. Against the skeptics, I argue that proportionality can survive the challenge posed by the problem of comparability. Against the proportionalists, I submit that proportionality cannot be understood as a system of tradeoffs between degrees of satisfaction of principles. If comparison among constitutional principles is to be rational, we need a different approach to normativity—one that allows for the possibility of parity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the requirements for a good-faith meet and confer solution to address a dispute without court action in Utah. Among the components of the rules are the statement of discovery, request for relief, the meet and confer certification, and proportionality. Also cited are the court decisions in some cases like Nunes v. Rushton, Shuffle Master, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., and Compass Bank v. Shamgochian.

The "proportionality" amendment to the federal discovery rules, which went into effect on December 1, 2015, was greeted with panic by the plaintiffs' bar (and the academy) and euphoria by the defense bar. Both sides predicted that the impact would be profound and immediate. Some predicted that the impact would be especially great in class actions. To examine whether the predictions have been correct, I have reviewed every published judicial opinion (approximately 135) between December 1, 2015 and April 30, 2018 that applied the new proportionality rule in the class action context. The analysis is necessarily anecdotal rather than empirical. Nonetheless, the results are striking. At bottom, the proportionality amendment has had little impact, at least in the class action context. Courts have generally indicated that the new rule does not fundamentally change the governing principles. In ruling on discovery disputes in class actions, courts continue to conduct nuanced, highly fact-specific analyses with results that differ little from pre-amendment case law. The courts are especially liberal in allowing discovery that is relevant to class certification. In short, the class action discovery decisions thus far do not support the predictions that the proportionality rule would lead to a sea change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the discovery of proportionality under rules made under federal rules of civil procedure in the U.S. Topics discussed include role of federal judges in acknowledging the requirement of proportionality discovery; analysis of the amendments of 1993 and 2000 made to the rules of civil procedure; and Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co. court case which deals with violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The article discusses the views of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia regarding a proportionality principle in the Eighth Amendment to America's Constitution and prisoners' rights claims, and it mentions Scalia's jurisprudence and attitudes towards criminal sanctions. Various criminal law cases are examined, including Trop v. Dulles, Weems v. United States, and Robinson v. California. Litigation involving cruel and unusual punishment claims is assessed.

A correction is presented to an article "Unreliable Protection: An Experimental Study of Experts' In Bello Proportionality Decisions " which was published in Volume 31 No. 2, 429–453 issue of the periodical.

The article focuses on the pros n corns of proportionality review in the Israel High Court of Justice (HCJ). Topics discussed include judicial opinion of the HCJ on the case Beit Sourik Village Council v. the Government of Israel, rules of the HCJ on balancing right to life and integrity, and the rules for management and protection of human rights.

The article discusses whether Washington State's Growth Management Act can be used to used to cure Florida's local government exposure in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the takings-related case Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District. Florida courts, developer fee exactions, and proportionality in the law are mentioned. The amending of Florida's wetlands mitigation and impact standards is also examined.

The article discusses the concept of proportionality in relation to the scope of discovery in America, focusing on issues related to pretrial confidentiality and protective orders which prevent litigants in similar legal cases from sharing information. The U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the costs associated with pretrial confidentiality are addressed, along with plaintiffs' discovery requests and legal proceedings involving the General Motors Co. and a defective-ignition crisis.

The article discusses the application of proportionality as a standard of review in public health cases, focusing on the threat to the traditional principles of proportionality and the European Union (EU) policy presented by Sinclair Collis and decisions of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). It argues that the CJEU should not purport to apply proportionality principles if Sinclair Collis had correctly identify a trend in EU cases of proportionality review while paying lip service.

El artículo analiza diversos decretos y sentencias en el área de Derecho de la Competencia emitidos en la Unión Europea (UE) y España entre junio y septiembre de 2014. Entre los temas tratados se encuentran la legislación sobre acuerdos que no restringen la competencia en la UE, sentencia del Tribunal Supremo de España en un caso relativo a comercialización de electricidad con sanción a la empresas Endesa Distribución Eléctrica S.L. y sentencia sobre la base del principio de proporcionalidad.

An essay is presented which reflects on the creation of the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Federal Rules) in 1938, focusing on litigation in America involving civil rights and corporate laws, as well as information about the legal discovery process and proportionality in the law. Edward Bellamy's book "Looking Backward" is mentioned, along with the alleged attitudes of the framers of America's Federal Rules. The U.S. Rules Enabling Act and American evidence laws are also examined.

The fair and equitable treatment standard, established in state law, customary law, and bilateral investment treaties, requires that states treat investors in a consistent and transparent manner. With its decision in Occidental Petroleum Corp., Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador, the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) interpreted the ever-expanding fair and equitable treatment standard to include the principle of proportionality. After concluding that Ecuador's termination of the investor's contract was a disproportionate response to the investor's breach of that contract, the ICSID Tribunal awarded an incredible $1.77 billion in damages. The potential for crushing liability for host countries and the overprotection of investors has resulted in the recent withdrawal of a number of host countries from the ICSID and from Bilateral Investment Treaties. This retreat will continue until the Tribunal recalibrates the fair and equitable treatment standard to provide balanced protection for both the investor and the host country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As new technologies emerge and difficulties in the discovery process of electronically stored information rise, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure fail to provide an ineffective solution. This Article discusses the proposed amendments to the rules of discovery and analyzes whether those amendments will be effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses criminal defendants, credit for time served, and punishment in America as of May 2013, focusing on the reported opposition to the concept of proportional punishment. Proportionality is addressed, along with pretrial detention, the alleged harsh treatment that some inmates experience, and the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 1987 case United States v. Salerno. Legal philosopher H.L.A. Hart and retributivism are also examined.

The article discusses purpose of the U.S. Sentencing Reform Act for the treatment of white collar offences as seriously as street crimes. It provides information on the issues in the area of sentencing like disparity, proportionality, and recidivism that are addressed by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. It focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker and informs about the recommendations made by the Commission to the U.S. Congress regarding mandatory minimum penalties.

The article focuses on the increase trend wherein English courts use European Union (EU) Law. It states that cases brought up by English Courts that use EU law produces recurrent themes which include the purposive interpretation of powers of secondary legislation, tensions between EU and domestic administrative law, and disputes on proportionality and regulatory review. It says that litigation that uses EU law is cause by lack of or exhausted domestic legal redress, it offers much advantageous legal approach, and produced aggregate value.

Commentators analyzing the Supreme Court's watershed decision in Graham v. Florida, which prohibited sentences of life without parole for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide crimes, have generally done so in substantive proportionality terms, ignoring or downplaying parole in the process. This Article challenges that approach, focusing on the intersection of proportionality and parole as a jumping-off point. Taking parole seriously makes clear that Graham is difficult to understand solely in terms of substantive proportionality concepts like individual culpability and punishment severity. Instead, the decision can be seen as establishing a rule of constitutional criminal procedure, one that links the validity of punishment to the institutional structure of sentencing. By requiring the State to revisit its first-order sentencing judgments at a later point in time, Graham mandates a procedural space for granular, individualized, and ultimately more reliable sentencing determinations. I expose this procedural and institutional side of parole's constitutional significance, situate it within the constitutional landscape of sentencing, and sketch some of its implications for the future of sentencing regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the federal sentencing guidelines for illegal reentry in the U.S. It informs about the process by which the statutory maximum term of imprisonment for illegal reentry was raised from two to twenty years. It describes the structur of the guidelines and the provisions applicable to illegal reentry. It explores the Solem Test as applied to illegal reentry which results in sentences that violate the U.S. Eighth Amendment-s proportionality principle.

The article discusses the decision of Great Britain's Supreme Court in Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hounslow v Powell in which actions were brought by public authorities who sought claims to recover possession of their properties from tenants. The defendant's argument for possession orders was held disproportionate by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) under the article 8 of ECHR. It focuses on the Court's treatment of threshold criteria for proportionality challenges.

The article focuses on the concept of implied freedom and the effective operation of constitutional system and states that the freedom to communicate on political matters must be protected by the constitution. It further discusses the judicial challenges in the application of implied freedom. It also focuses on the judgments of Justice Brennan in Australian Capital Television and Nationwide News and his conception of proportionality and notions of deference in the implied freedom.

The article focuses on application of the "narrow proportionality principle" to juvenile offenders in the U.S. Supreme Court case Graham v. Florida where the offender's life sentence without parole was denied as per the Eighth Amendment. It discusses cases where the proportionality between sentence and offence was established including Roper v. Simmons and Harmelin v. Michigan. It analyses the methodology used in the Graham case and says that applicability should be left to the judges.

The article discusses the connection between proportionality and traditional judicial review standards in the context of domestic law of Great Britain's Human Rights Act 1998 citing two Supreme Court decisions, Manchester City Council v. Pinnock and London Borough of Hounslow v. Powell, Leeds City Council v. Hall, Birmingham City Council v. Frisby. The Court upheld the rights to claim for possession regardless of the fact that the public authority has an unqualified right to claim as part of domestic law. Proportionality adds to conventional judicial review where there was no relevant issue and was proportionate to grant the claim for possession.

The article presents the dissenting opinion of Justice Volodymyr M. Kampo on the Constitutional Court of Ukraine's (CCU) decision on May 22, 2008 at the petitions about the conformity of state budgets and legislative acts. Kampo says that the CCU has disregarded some fundamental principles of the citizen's social rights under the Article 64 of Ukraine's constitution. He then asserts that CCU has neglected the requirements of the principle of proportionality at the decision.

The article discusses the court case, R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, wherein the Divisional Court held that indefinite notification was disproportionate. The case involved an 11-year-old teenager who was convicted of two counts of the rape of a child under 13, three counts of causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity and one count of the sexual assault of a child under 13. Complaints were filed by a single six-year-old boy who claimed that the accused forced him to perform fellatio and had anally raped him.

Cases are won and lost in discovery, yet discovery draws little academic attention. Most scholarship focuses on how much discovery to allow, not on how courts decide discovery disputes—which, unlike trials, occur in most cases. The growth of computer data—e-mails, lingering deleted files, and so forth—increased discovery cost, but the new e-discovery rules just reiterate existing cost-benefit proportionality limits that draw broad consensus among litigation scholars and economists. But proportionality rules are impossible to apply effectively; they fail to curb discovery excess yet disallow discovery that meritorious cases need. This Article notes proportionality's flaws but rejects the consensus blaming bad rulemaking or judging. Rather, proportionality requires impossible comparisons between discovery value and cost before parties gather the evidence. Like other arguments that procedural rulings should depend on case merits, this Article notes how discovery has more probative value in close cases—yet a case's merits are unclear during discovery because the court cannot yet examine all the evidence. In game theory terms, parties with discovery disputes cannot convey case merit credibly; courts have too little information, so lowmerit parties can claim high merit, and courts are compelled to act as if all cases of a similar type warrant similar discovery. In this "pooling equilibrium," ruling the same on all cases in the "pool," regardless of merit, is courts' best strategy but a suboptimal one, yielding too much discovery in low-merit cases, too little in higher-merit ones. Thus, the quest for better discovery has disappointed not because of bad rules or decisions, but because courts and parties are stuck in a pooling equilibrium with information-timing circularity: optimal evidence gathering requires merits analysis, which in turn requires evidence gathering. As a solution, courts could defer close decisions on possibly useful but costly evidence until meritorious cases separate from the pool, turning pooling into separating equilibria. Summary judgment can be this separation: cases going to trial after summary judgment not only have higher average merit than the pool of all filed cases, but are disproportionately likely to be the sort of close calls in which juries struggle to reach verdicts. No one yet has proposed post-summary judgment discovery to redress the costly discovery dilemma because summary judgment typically occurs only after all discovery, but highcost evidence can be an exception to that usual sequence: cases surviving summary judgment are close calls warranting more fact gathering, so some costly discovery regularly denied should be allowed after summary judgment. Thus, the existing debate is too focused on limiting the amount of discovery; it should instead focus more on timing costly discovery optimally, to try to limit discovery to cases in which it is truly needed. Existing rules give courts discretion to use this proposal, but a new rule could minimize the risk of misusing the proposal to deny more discovery. This Article concludes by briefly noting how economic analyses must consider the details and information timing of the litigation process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a court case wherein the British Court of Appeal held that the slaughter of a temple bullock of a Hindu monastery was justified on public health grounds. The bullock, which represents the belief of the Hindu community about the existence of a spark of divinity in every living creature, tested positive for infection with bovine tuberculosis (bTB). The court held that the Surveillance and Slaughter policy was a proportionate approach to eradicating or controlling the spread of the disease in Wales.

This article critically examines the recent decision of the Grand Chamber of the EctHR in Saadi v UK 2008. The decision endorses short-term detention of asylum seekers on the basis of administrative convenience, specifically ruling out a requirement of necessity. The decision is examined in the light of international law on the detention of asylum seekers and the requirements of proportionality and lack of arbitrariness. It is anticipated that the use of routine detention will increase across Europe and that asylum seekers will be lumped together with other migrants in policies aimed at further restricting access to the European club. This presents a serious threat to the international right to seek and enjoy asylum provided in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the inadequacy of fiscal constraints as a substitute for proportionality review. According to the ruling in the case Harmelin v. Michigan, the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit disproportionately long prison sentences. Part I of the article sets forth the relevant portion of case argument in Harmelin. Part II discusses the Connecticut Act, a representative example of states' attempts to reduce prison costs. Part III debunks justice's reasoning in Harmelin and concludes that fiscal checks are not a substitute for proportionality review.