Search

Law Number 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management regulates the government has the right to file claims for compensation and certain actions. Minister of the Environment Regulation Number 7 of 2014 concerning Compensation for Environmental Pollution and/ or Damage regulates that environmental compensation costs that have been paid are entered into the Treasury Fund as Non-Tax State Revenue (PNBP). This research identifies the mechanism for using environmental compensation costs, the implementation of Court Decitions containing environmental compensation before Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2023 concerning Guidelines for Adjudicating Environmental Cases, and how this can be a solution to the problem of environmental compensation costs in Indonesia. This research applies a normative juridical approach method using several approaches. The research results show that the environmental compensation costs that have been paid are included in the PNBP, making it difficult to disburse these funds because the long process and the absence of a recovery plan means that the compensation costs charged to the defendant do not have a detailed calculation basis. Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2023 regulates environmental compensation costs are managed in the court clerk's account and lawsuits are required to include a recovery plan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In February 2022, the International Court of Justice handed down its decision in Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda) which determined claims against Uganda for its unlawful military activities in the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The decision is significant for the law of reparations, with the Court adopting a controversial 'global sum' methodology in fixing compensation which was guided by equitable considerations. Also at issue (which the Court did not decide) was whether claims for high‐level 'macroeconomic' loss are recoverable in principle under international law. This note argues that the Court's global sum methodology is a permissible (and welcome) use of equity to determine compensation where there are evidential difficulties. It also takes the view that macroeconomic loss should be recoverable in principle: a position which is consistent with the teleological design of compensation, and with the more flexible approach to economic loss which some international tribunals have taken. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During a poignant saga of American history, Henrietta Lacks stands as an emblem of both scientific triumph and ethical controversy. In 1951, Mrs. Lacks, a tobacco farmer and mother of five, visited Johns Hopkins Hospital for treatment of what was later discovered to be advanced stage cervical cancer. Her doctors treated her with radium, which was standard practice at the time. However, Mrs. Lacks's cancer rapidly metastasized and she ultimately passed away just months later on October 4, 1951, at the age of 31. During the course of her treatment, Mrs. Lacks's cells were non-consensually removed for purposes of scientific research. The cell line, coined "HeLa cells," have in many ways immortalized Mrs. Lacks, playing an instrumental role in numerous medical breakthroughs, including the development of Covid vaccines. Despite the immense contributions her cell line made to scientific research, Mrs. Lacks and her family never received acknowledgement or compensation for the non-consensual taking and continued usage of HeLa cells. Decades later, her family filed a lawsuit against Thermo Fisher Scientific, seeking damages in profits gained from the commercialization of her cell line. This article explores the legal precedent governing the ownership of human biological materials and compares them to cases involving entrusted goods and stolen art. It scrutinizes the hurdles encountered by the Lacks family in their quest for accountability and compensation. Ultimately, the Lacks family settled with the biotech giant, sparking discussions about the ethical implications of using human biological materials in research and the need for greater protections of patient rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter 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.)

International human rights law and international courts have finally begun to recognize a new type of victim: local and indigenous communities. In key decisions over the past two decades, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights recognized the violations of indigenous communities' rights by national governments. At the same time, less attention has been paid to the nature of damages available for these violations. This Note highlights the underdevelopment of damages jurisprudence in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which has mostly relied on non-pecuniary damages to compensate collective victims. It argues that the Court's approach fails to recognize the evidentiary challenges faced by collective victims, who often cannot prove the harm they suffered due to their traditional way of living or the destruction of evidence caused by the violation itself. At the same time, the approach also fails to utilize the power of equity to compensate for clearly monetary harms, especially when a lack of quantitative proof is inevitable. This Note critiques the use of the non-pecuniary approach in the context of group victims and argues (1) that violators, not victims, should assume the risks associated with the uncertain value of harms; and (2) that non-pecuniary compensation is a misguided approach because it implies that harms suffered by group victims are non-monetary in nature. Drawing on the jurisprudence of other international tribunals, this Note shows that group cases are amenable to the use of equity in calculating monetary damages based on approaches to both collective and complex individual cases. This Note concludes by suggesting that monetary damages should be approximated, perhaps with the help of experts, in human rights cases when the only barrier to proof is the lack of a concrete value for a given harm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Negotiating war reparations is traditionally the province of the political branches, yet in recent decades, domestic courts have presided over hundreds of compensation lawsuits stemming from World War II. In the West, governments responded to these lawsuits with elaborate compensation mechanisms. In East Asia, by contrast, civil litigation continues apace. This Article analyzes eighty-three lawsuits filed in Japan, the epicenter of Asia's World War II reparations movement. While many scholars criticize the passivity of Japanese courts on war-related issues, this Article detects a meaningful role for Japanese courts in the reparations process: awarding compensation, verifying facts, and allocating legal liability. By classifying the various types of lawsuits brought in recent decades and examining all relevant cases, not just the ones that attract significant media attention, this Article delimits the breadth and depth of the war reparations movement. It also posits a more active role for the Japanese judiciary in the war reparations debate than scholars have observed. In consistently awarding compensation to victims of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japanese judges not only play a key role in providing compensation, they also countervail the policy prerogatives of Japan's ruling conservative party. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Class actions are legal proceedings brought on behalf of numerous persons, known as group members. When a class action settles for a monetary payment to compensate the group members, the payment needs to be divided among the group members. The division and distribution takes place pursuant to a court-approved settlement distribution scheme ('SDS'). Although the SDS is central to the determination of the actual amount that an individual group member receives from a class action settlement, the design and operation of SDSs have attracted little critical attention. This article seeks to start the process of elucidating the operation of SDSs by explaining three main types of class action SDS: (1) global sum with formula; (2) global sum with individualised assessment; and (3) process approach. The article then draws on those SDS models and class action settlement decisions to develop guiding principles or steps for the design of an SDS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Litigation concerning hepatitis B vaccination provides a good illustration of the difficulties courts encounter when deciding on compensation claims in which scientific uncertainty, whether real or perceived, is present. Despite the difference in approach to vaccination - an obligation in France and a recommendation in Germany -, their vaccine coverage is comparable, as are their regimes of compensation for damage attributed to vaccination, whether on the basis of producer liability or national solidarity. Confronted with scientific uncertainty, German and French courts choose to make use of presumptions to establish legal causality that is not contingent on scientific causality. German and French case law diverge however, with regard to their relationship to scientific criteria of causality, the volume of court cases, and consideration of claims, highlighting what seems to be a distinctive situation in France. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Blockbuster punitive damages awards, i.e., those awards exceeding $100 million, attract attention based on their sheer size. While there have been fewer such awards in the last decade, they remain an important presence in the legal landscape. Taking notice of these and other large punitive damages awards, courts and state policymakers have taken steps to both constrain them and render them more predictable. States have enacted punitive damages caps to limit the amount of punitive damages courts can award, but these caps often contain a number of exceptions and apply only to damages under a specific state's law. At a broader level, the Supreme Court has announced a general limitation on punitive damages under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which applies to all cases and contains few exceptions. Under State Farm v. Campbell, punitive damages awards that exceed the accompanying compensatory award by more than a factor of ten will generally violate due process. This limit, however, is substantially higher than the punitive damages caps that some states have put in place. This Article provides the first empirical analysis of the effect of state punitive damages caps on blockbuster awards and offers the first comparison of the effect of these reforms with the effect of the Supreme Court's current constitutional doctrine on punitive damages. Understanding the roles of these legal regimes in how the largest punitive damages awards are imposed provides unique insight into how different factors affect courts' decisions to award punitive damages. Relying on this insight, as well as previously developed empirical evidence, we argue that it is time for a new constitutional doctrine on punitive damages. In particular, we argue that the Supreme Court should incorporate the lessons learned from the different effects of state punitive damages caps to lower the limit placed on punitive damages under the Due Process Clause. For cases involving financial loss, punitive awards that are more than three times thesize of the accompanying compensatory award will generally violate due process. For cases involving severe injuries, such as wrongful deaths, the total value of punitive damages and compensatory damages should not exceed economic estimates of the value of a statistical life, which is an economic deterrence measure. This proposed structure would better achieve the Court's goal of returning predictability to punitive damages awards, blockbuster and otherwise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on a litigation in Germany that lays the distinction between non-taxable damages and taxable services against the provision of a "compensation payment." Article 2(1)(c) of the VAT Directive must be interpreted as the amount fixed in advance by an economic operator in the case of the premature termination of a service contract with a minimum commitment period by its customer.

The article reports on a litigation related to compensation payments to minority shareholders in Germany. The agreement of compensation payments of the controlling company to an outside shareholder of the controlled company is contrary to the corporation tax recognition of a profit transfer agreement. This provision stands if in addition to a certain fixed amount, an additional compensation is granted.

The article looks at the first award of compensation for international environmental damage issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) when it awarded monetary compensation to Costa Rica for impairment or loss of environmental goods and services. A brief overview of the issues decided under the judgment is given, along with general observations related to the order. Also discussed are legal approach, methodology of calculating the award, and quantifiable environmental damage.

The article discusses the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) judgment in the joined cases K. Ruijssenaars and Others v. Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu which deals on the rights of air passengers to compensation if their flights are cancelled at short notice or delayed. It states that the ECJ held that a passenger is not required to take enforcement action against an airline company to compel it to pay compensation.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 2017 case BNSF Railway Co. (BNSF) v. Tyrrell which deals with American civil procedure rules and a personal jurisdiction doctrine, and it mentions how the U.S. Supreme Court denied Montana's courts general jurisdiction over BNSF which had continuous contacts with the state but was not considered to be at home in Montana. The U.S. Federal Employers’ Liability Act of 1908 and compensation for workplace injuries are assessed.

Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code allows financially distressed businesses to reorganize and emerge from bankruptcy free of their pre-bankruptcy debts and obligations. In general, a business can achieve this kind of "fresh start" by confirming a plan of reorganization or pursuing a going-concern sale that typically facilitates a change in ownership, a reduction in leverage, and the elimination of most claims against the company's assets. Through these kinds of transactions, a business can emerge from bankruptcy with a stronger balance sheet and often a new ownership structure. It also can streamline operations by, for example, assuming valuable contracts and rejecting burdensome ones under the relevant provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. Although creditors' claims may lose value through the bankruptcy process, all similarly situated creditors are treated fairly and in a nondiscriminatory manner. Distressed companies and their creditors should not have to worry about variances in state law insolvency schemes that might facilitate similar going-concern sales, but treat creditors differently or allow a process without the same kind of court or creditor oversight. Yet, states are increasingly adopting debtor-creditor laws that mimic key provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and permit the kind of fresh start for business debtors historically available only under federal bankruptcy law. These state laws may also provide rights or distributions to creditors that differ from, and conflict with, the provisions and purposes of the Bankruptcy Code. These new, sweeping state law insolvency schemes raise serious constitutional questions under both the Bankruptcy Clause and the Contract Clause. Policymakers and courts need to rethink and rebalance the allocation of powers between Congress and the states with respect to bankruptcy laws. More specifically, they need to define more clearly the parameters of federal preemption and preserve Congress's exclusive authority over laws affecting the rights of creditors and other stakeholders in the context of a fresh start for business debtors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, the United States Supreme Court established the premier categorical regulatory takings standard with certain limited exceptions. The Lucas rule establishes that private property owners are entitled to compensation for a taking under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause when a government regulation "denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land." Today, Lucas remains the controlling law on categorical regulatory takings. But in application, how much does Lucas still matter? In reviewing more than 1,700 cases in state and federal courts, we identified that Lucas claims were successful in just 1.6% of the cases. This does not mean Lucas is unimportant, however. The small Lucas claim success rate suggests the importance of being strategic in pleading takings claims. The problem of defining the denominator in the regulatory takings equation is essential to understand for litigants pursuing the Lucas categorical regulatory takings analysis. Based upon our research, we argue that Lucas's holding incentivizes the private contractual agreements entered into by property owners to shrink the takings denominator and tilt the scales slightly in favor of the plaintiff. The ability of a property owner to reduce the denominator remains the loadstar for a Lucas case-winning strategy. This is important for not only theorists but also for practitioners to know as they litigate and conduct transactions in Lucas's shadow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the Netherlands, the Dutch criminal court in The Hague (hereinafter: 'Netherlands International Crimes Court' or 'NIC court') is assigned to try international crimes, and to provide compensation to victims of such crimes. Whereas it has specific criminal laws at its disposal to try international crimes, it applies 'regular' Dutch civil law to assess claims for compensation. Yet compensation for international crimes entails challenges that are quite different from domestic crimes: international crimes are normally committed against a large number of victims, and frequently result in bodily harm. This article argues that the NIC court will most likely rule a large number of claims for compensation inadmissible, as a consequence of which victims cannot benefit from the advantages inherent in the award of compensation within the criminal process. It then explores the adjudicative and reparatory standards that the International Criminal Court and mass claim programmes have applied to simplify both the adjudication of a large number of claims, and the calculation of a large number of instances of bodily damage. It is submitted that adoption by the NIC court of international reparatory standards could facilitate the assessment of a large number of civil claims within the criminal process, without prejudice to the legitimate interests of the defendant for an adequate procedure. However, these standards require the NIC court to strike a new balance between tailor-made compensation and symbolic compensation, and thereby between corrective justice and restorative justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the case regarding the personal data kept in companies registers. Topics discussed include order of the court of Lecce for the payment of the compensation for the harm done to applicant's image and reputation; recognition of the case handled by court of Lecce as right to be forgotten as by court of Cassation; and legal context of keeping information in company register regarding personal data.

The article focuses on the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York wherein Solid Oak Sketches filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the makers of NBA 2K16. It mentions complaint alleges that six tattoos on the five players unlawfully reproduced in the game featured in advertisements and cover art. It also mentions Solid Oak Sketches, who is represented by Heitner Legal, owns the copyright to these tattoo designs and seeks compensation for their use.

On November 24, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Babcock v. Butler County, formally adopted the application of the predominant benefit test when determining if the Fair Labor Standards Act requires an hourly employee's meal period to be compensated. In so doing, the court implicitly concluded that each circuit that previously addressed the issue adopted the predominant benefit test. This Comment argues that the Third Circuit mischaracterized the status of the law on which test the circuit courts apply by overlooking the Eleventh Circuit's application of the relieved from all duties test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Alien Tort Statute (ATS) is one of the greatest enigmas of American legal history. Enacted in 1789, it was little used until the late 1970s, when foreigners notably began seeking compensation under its terms for human rights abuses committed around the world. Recently, the us Supreme Court seemed to put an end to this practice - but the ATS is still of interest to historians. After the American War of Independence, Great Britain and the United States maintained a robust trade and close economic relationship. Many Americans saw the perpetuation of these ties as essential to the new republic's prosperity. The ATS helped frame the United States' mercantile associations in terms of customary maritime and trade law; in particular, evidence suggests it aimed to provide a mechanism in us courts for the remedy of commercial disputes, especially with Americans' former imperial overlord, in accordance with the contemporary law of nations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Today the individual frequently consumes products and services that are mass-produced and mass-marketed, so that when a product or service causes harm, it does so on a large scale. Yet, those harmed individuals may be unable to seek redress due to the high cost of taking legal action. This includes harm to consumers of financial services. Consequently, alternatives to traditional litigation for seeking compensation have developed. However, the effectiveness of these alternatives in achieving compensation needs to be evaluated. This article compares regulatory responses, class actions and alternative dispute resolution ('ADR') in the compensation of financial consumers through the lens of a case study - the collapse of Storm Financial Limited. The employment of multiple avenues for mass redress in relation to the same event provides a unique opportunity for an in-depth, contextual comparison. The article goes beyond the debate around litigation compared to ADR and analyses the interface between government and private mechanisms for compensating mass harm that implicates regulatory settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Wellesley v Withers, the Court of Appeal held that where a defendant is concurrently liable in tort and contract, the contractual rules for the remoteness of loss must apply. Two principal reasons emerge from the judgments. The first, that each party has had the chance to alert the other to unusual risks, is valid but often unconvincing. The second is more original and compelling: that the nature of any responsibility assumed in tort is distinct from, but wholly defined by, the valid contract. This note seeks to develop that argument. It then addresses the uncertain issue of concurrent liability in equity. It suggests that in a case in which any fiduciary duties arise out of, and are defined by, a valid contract, it may now be appropriate to apply the contractual remoteness rules to a concurrent claim for breach of contract and equitable compensation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the legal aspects of public enforcement compensation (PEC) and private rights in America, and it mentions private claims for monetary relief, a preclusion legal doctrine, and class action litigation in America. PEC legal cases are addressed, along with law reform proposals in the U.S., procedural constraints in the country, and market regulation. Statutory injunctive authority is examined, along with American civil law remedies and antitrust lawsuits.

The article discusses the legal aspects of epigenetics in relation to the author's recommendation that American courts should submit epidemiological evidence to the fact-finders without arbitrary legal limitations for scientific rigor, and it mentions how epigenetics can inform the causation inquiry in toxic torts-related litigation matters. The state of epigenetics research is examined as of 2016, along with gene expression, legal compensation, and a water supply crisis in Flint, Michigan.

This article examines the current approach to the quantification of damages for non-pecuniary loss, and the issues that have arisen therein. Notwithstanding the acceptance by English contract law that certain forms of non-pecuniary loss are compensable, substantial difficulties still arise when attempting to quantify such loss. In particular, the courts have struggled to justify damages in cases that require some measurement of the value of the 'subjective' loss to the claimant. One method of measurement is the concept of consumer surplus, as demonstrated in the oft-cited cases of Ruxley v Forsyth and Farley v Skinner. This article discusses various inconsistencies with the courts' application of the term consumer surplus, and posits a solution for quantification of loss in such situations, using tools already available to economists (viz equivalent and compensatory valuation deployed in the course of cost-benefit analyses). In so doing, the article seeks to promote the utility of the consumer surplus as a remedial tool, and advance the underlying goals of contract law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Información sobre la legislación relacionados con la protección de datos que se ejecutaron en España y la Unión Europea incluyendo reglamento de protección de datos, petición presentada por el miembro de la familia de personas con discapacidad y la calidad de los datos. Los problemas incluyen brecha en la gestión de la calidad de los datos de las telecomunicaciones y la petición presentada ante el Tribunal General de la Unión Europea para la compensación que debe darse a la familia de las personas con discapacidad.

The article focuses on the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in the case O'Bannon v. NCAA regarding the violation of the section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCCA) for the players' compensation. It mentions that the need for improving education quality for student-athletes and mentions how U.S. Supreme Court has applied analysis to procompetitive claims to improve product quality.

This Article reconstructs Lewis F. Powell Jr.'s thoughts on the civil rights movement by focusing on a series of littleknown speeches that he delivered in the 1960s lamenting the practice of civil disobedience endorsed by Martin Luther King Jr. Convinced that the law had done all it could for blacks, Powell took issue with King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail," impugning its invocation of civil disobedience and rejecting its calls for compensatory justice to make up for slavery and Jim Crow. Dismissive of reparations, Powell developed a separate basis for supporting diversity that hinged on distinguishing American pluralism from Soviet totalitarianism. Powell's reasons for defending diversity are worth recovering today, not least because courts continue to misinterpret his landmark opinion in Regents v. Bakke, confusing the use of diversity in higher education with the compensatory goals of affirmative action, a project that Powell rejected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Congress often uses its power to preempt state laws when a uniform nationwide regulatory environment is desirable. Unfortunately, preemption may have unintended, far-reaching effects. When Congress enacted the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 ("MDA"), it included an express preemption clause to ensure that only the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") could establish ex ante, premarket requirements for medical devices, thus allowing the Agency to establish a uniform regulatory floor. Just four years later, Congress enacted the Medicare Secondary Payer Act ("MSP"), part of a series of amendments to the Medicare program designed to improve the program's finances. The MSP included provisions that allow the United States to recover payments Medicare had made on behalf of its beneficiaries, by standing in the place of those beneficiaries in state tort actions against tortfeasors. These provisions gave Medicare broad authority to seek recovery from the manufacturers of defective medical devices when the program had paid for the devices. However, in many cases the express preemption clause of the MDA and the Supreme Court's overly broad implied preemption jurisprudence preempt Medicare beneficiaries' state law claims. Since Medicare's ability to recover under the MSP is based on its beneficiaries' rights, the MDA may also prevent Medicare from recovering under the MSP. This collision between two statutes drafted within four years of one another illustrates the unintended effects that a broad preemption doctrine may have. This Comment argues that both Congress and the Supreme Court need to review and narrow the reach of preemption under the MDA--without completely abandoning preemption--so that both the MDA and the MSP may serve the purposes Congress intended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In his influential piece, Galanter (1974) argues that repeat players in the judicial system can be expected to succeed at trial in part because of the advantages repeat players enjoy compared to the one-shotters. This article explores the effect of a number of the benefits Galanter identifies on litigation outcomes for civil jury trials in four states with particular attention to the size of the law firms representing the litigants. We find possessing an advantage in relative firm size, without considering other factors, appears to produce no significant advantage in terms of achieving plaintiff compensation. On the other hand, a local presence in the county where the trial occurs increases plaintiff attorney success rates when challenging out-of-town defense firms, especially when the plaintiff's law firm is the larger of the two. Additionally, devoting more resources in terms of human capital to a particular case increases the probability of favorable outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses the decisions of the several court cases in the Utah. Topics discussed include decision of the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in case Ortiz v. United States ex ret. Evans Army Cmty. Hosp. related to compensation for injuries, decision of the district court in case Barneck v. Utah Dep't of Transp. related to negligence and wrongful death and decision of the Utah Court of Appeals in case State v. Ludlow related to theft.

Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was enacted to encourage settlement and avoid litigation. Rule 68 works in the following way: defendant makes a "Rule 68 offer" to plaintiff for a settlement, plaintiff rejects this offer, wins the case, but is awarded less monetary compensation than was offered in the settlement. In this scenario, plaintiff must pay both his and defendant's post-offer litigation costs. Although Rule 68 was designed to facilitate settlements, defendants have attempted to use Rule 68 offers to moot individuals ' claims. These defendants argue that by offering their understanding of complete relief to a plaintiff, the claim should be mooted. In the past four decades, a circuit split has arisen over whether Rule 68 offers can moot claims and whether judgment should be entered for the plaintiff or the defendant. This Comment advocates for the adoption of the Ninth Circuit's holding in Diaz v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corp.-referred to in this Comment as the Diaz approach-which states that a Ride 68 offer never moots an individual's claim. This Comment explores relevant historical jurisprudence that has led to the various legal theories involving mootness in Ride 68 offers. Recent decisions highlight the rise in use of the Diaz approach, and this Comment describes the benefits of the Ninth Circuit's holding. The four primary benefits of the Diaz approach are that it (1) satisfies both textualist and purposivist ideologies regarding Rule 68, (2) upholds fundamental aspects of contract theory, (3) resolves the mootness jurisdictional issue by creating a bright-line test, and (4) deters negative behavior. Although this approach has two potential drawbacks-namely, excessive litigation and non-mutual offensive issue preclusion-the alternative approaches suffer from flaws that Diaz solves. Ultimately, this Comment concludes that by applying the Diaz approach to Rule 68 offers, courts will return Rule 68 to its intended goal: incentivizing settlements without burdening the courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses what the author refers to as Indiana's failure to fully compensate and indemnify individuals who are victims of wrongful incarceration as of 2015, and it mentions Indiana's liability for unjust imprisonments, as well as compensation legislation and statutes in the state. Ex-Indiana State Police officer David Camm's trial and wrongful imprisonment are examined, along with false convictions, exonerations, legal remedies, and the integrity of the U.S. criminal justice system.

The decision of the Supreme Court in AIB Group ( UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co confirms the approach taken by Lord Browne- Wilkinson in Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns: where a trustee misapplies trust assets, a beneficiary is limited to a claim for equitable compensation for losses caused by the trustee's breach of duty. This seems to be a departure from traditional equitable doctrine, which held that the beneficiary could falsify the trustee's unauthorised disbursement and bring a claim for an 'equitable debt'. This note considers the impact of the decision of the Supreme Court, and how the law regarding 'equitable compensation' might continue to develop. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports the decision of a British Court of Appeal in the case of John Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in which the court dismissed the FCO's fundamental challenge to a Judge's finding that Mr. Yapp was treated unfairly and in breach of contract. Topics discussed include procedural fairness in employment contract; the laws related to damages for Claimant's psychiatric injury; and decision of a court in 'Gogay v Hertfordshire County Council.'