Search

Rapidly improving artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have created opportunities for human–machine cooperation in legal practice. We provide evidence from an experiment with law students (N = 206) on the causal impact of machine assistance on the efficiency of legal task completion in a private law setting with natural language inputs and multidimensional AI outputs. We tested two forms of machine assistance: AI‐generated summaries of legal complaints and AI‐generated text highlighting within those complaints. AI‐generated highlighting reduced task completion time by 30% without any reduction in measured quality indicators compared to no AI assistance. AI‐generated summaries produced no change in performance metrics. AI summaries and AI highlighting together improved efficiency but not as much as AI highlighting alone. Our results show that AI support can dramatically increase the efficiency of legal task completion, but finding the optimal form of AI assistance is a fine‐tuning exercise. Currently, AI‐generated highlighting is not readily available from state‐of‐the‐art, consumer‐facing large language models, but our work suggests that this capability should be prioritized in the development of legal AI products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Treaties are concluded by States but often impose rights and obligations directly upon private parties. Can private parties contract out of a treaty including States' oppositions without explicit permissions granted by the treaty? The complexity between party autonomy and State sovereignty is reflected in recent cases and unsettled debates regarding the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters of November 15, 1965 ("HSC"). The HSC contains a large number of oppositions made by 65 Contracting States including China, Germany, India, and Singapore. Combining public and private international law, this paper aims to explore the correlative relationship between party autonomy and State sovereignty in applying the HSC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article "Medical Liability: Consequences of an Insufficient Appeal Statement" deals with a legal dispute in the field of medical liability. A patient has sued her dentist and an oral and maxillofacial surgeon for allegedly faulty treatment. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, and the appellate court partially rejected the patient's appeal as inadmissible. The patient now files a legal complaint, as she believes that the subject matter of the dispute is indivisible. However, the legal complaint is dismissed as unfounded. The appeal statement must challenge the entire judgment and extend to all parts of the judgment for which an amendment is requested. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Computer und Recht 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.)

The doctrine of undue influence has long been the problem child of inheritance law. Undue influence, a hazy combination of fraud and duress, supposedly invalidates bequests that a beneficiary obtained by overriding the volition of a vulnerable testator or settlor. But because relationships are complex, concepts like free will are slippery, and challenges to donative transfers are litigated after the owner dies, courts struggle to apply the rule. Making matters worse, factfinders exploit the principle's vagueness to protect a decedent's family at the expense of non-traditional relationships. As a result, scholars have criticized undue influence for decades, with some even calling for its abolition. Yet this Article examines a little-noticed trend that is cutting in the opposite direction. Responding to the epidemic of elder abuse, several jurisdictions have started to experiment with a supercharged version of the undue influence doctrine. These states have realized that because the cost of pursuing undue influence allegations often dwarfs the contestant's potential recovery, the traditional rule does not do enough to deter pernicious misconduct. Thus, as Congress often creates bounties to encourage plaintiffs to enforce statutes, these lawmakers have incentivized "probate attorneys general" to file undue influence claims. They have done so by recognizing novel presumptions of undue influence, a civil claim for undue influence as a form of elder abuse, and enhanced remedies for undue influence committed in bad faith. We call these updates of the ancient rule the "new undue influence." The Article then offers a ground-level assessment of this phenomenon by analyzing a dataset of nearly 7,000 recent probate and trust cases from California, which has been a pioneer in the new undue influence movement. The Article reaches three main conclusions. First, policymakers have successfully changed the economics of undue influence litigation. Indeed, the Article finds that heirs and beneficiaries who invoke the new undue influence achieve a higher "success rate"--the amount of damages or settlement proceeds divided by the maximum possible recovery--than those who only seek relief under traditional law. Second, contrary to scholars' assumptions, judges and juries no longer seem to manipulate the undue influence doctrine to protect a decedent's family. In fact, there appears to be no meaningful link between case results and the parties' relationship to the testator or settlor. Third, permitting contestants to repackage probate cases as civil claims for elder abuse creates anomalies. Challengers often file probate petitions and civil complaints, opening the door for duplicative litigation, doctrinal inconsistency, and procedural gamesmanship. The Article therefore suggests ways for courts and policymakers to harness the benefits of the new undue influence while minimizing these costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article systematically compares how. federal, state, and local civil rights agencies in the ten standard regions of the United States enforce fair housing law complaints filed by Blacks and Latinos. Specifically, it explores the extent to which regional outcomes at all three levels of government are decided favorably where, between 1989 and 2010, a racial or ethnic violation of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 or the Fair Housing Amendments Act Of 1988 is alleged. The results reveal significant variations in outcomes between these groups across the country. Most importantly, the probability of an outcome favorable to the complainant depends on the region in which the complaint is filed, the race or ethnicity of the complainant, and the racial or ethnic composition and the number of complaints filed per capita in the state in which a complaint originates. In general, while complaints.fled by Latinos are more likely to receive a, favorable outcome than those filed by Blacks, thvorability rates for Latinos are more dependent on the region where the complaint is processed than they are for Blacks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The analysed matter concerns the examination of a constitutional complaint of a person who died after filing it. This issue has not yet been the subject of wide interest in the Constitutional Tribunal and the science of constitutional law. However, there is no doubt that it is a significant issue, requiring in-depth analysis - particularly in view of the two contradictory opinions expressed in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal. On the one hand, the Constitutional Tribunal recognises that the applicant's death in the course of the proceedings does not constitute a reason for suspension or discontinuance of the proceedings initiated by a constitutional complaint, as it is crucial to examine the constitutionality of the challenged legal norm. On the other hand, in other rulings, the Constitutional Tribunal (CT) states that the basis for the effective filing of a constitutional complaint is the applicant's legal interest, which ceases upon their death. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the issue related to the examination of a constitutional complaint in the situation of the subsequent death of the person who brought the complaint from the perspective of the general legal interest related to its examination and the objectives associated with the examination of the complaint by the Constitutional Tribunal (CT). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Computer und Recht 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.)

The article calls for courts in the U.S. to adopt a uniform pleading standard for disparate treatment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 given the perils of requiring plaintiffs to identify a comparator. Topics discussed are court requirement for a plaintiff to allege a prima facie case of employment discrimination at the pleading state, development of judicial approaches used to assess Title VII complaints, and problems imposed by current pleading framework on plaintiffs.

The article presents the discussion on ongoing attempts at interference, the organization and support of anti-state conspiracies. Topics include attached French translation of the statement abounds with linguistic and spelling mistakes; and sending to all local representations over the course of Saturday with the request transmitting the declaration to their governments.

Deforestation and unsustainable practices are posing a severe threat to the invaluable natural treasure represented by the Amazon rain forest. Among other anthropogenic factors, illegal activities driven by organized crime, such as illegal logging, poaching, land grabbing, and coca cultivation significantly impact deforestation. In Colombia, aerial fumigation with glyphosate was a key policy for curbing coca cultivation from 1994 until 2015. This measure was eventually banned after years of opposition and debates over its effectiveness, coupled with concerns about its adverse impacts on local communities and the environment. Many studies, environmental groups, and individual legal complaints argue that health issues and environmental degradation are direct consequences of glyphosate use, although there is no universal agreement about the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate in humans among international institutions, and its environmental impact is also debated. Discussions about reinstating the use of glyphosate are still ongoing, driven in part by advocacy from the United States and certain political factions, despite significant opposition from environmental groups, local communities, and human rights organizations. In this context, this study aims to investigate the effectiveness of using fumigation with glyphosate to reduce the spread of coca plantations. We use a 15-year panel (2000-2015) of Colombian municipalities, including two-way fixed effects. To address endogeneity issues, we instrument aspersion with the number of days in which wind strength was below a certain threshold and aerial fumigation could take place. Estimates suggest that, contrary to its intended purpose, fumigation may actually lead to an increase in coca crop extension in most model specifications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reviews how Florida courts navigate the amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, which regulates summary judgment motion. Topics discussed include effects of the amended rule on non-moving parties, reduction of multi-count complaints to single-count complaints, jurors' use of practical judgment when deciding a verdict in civil disputes, and increase in settlements after a court rules on summary judgment motions.

The article "Exemption from professional confidentiality in favor of relatives" in the Journal of Medical and Health Law addresses the problem that doctors and other healthcare professionals often violate their duty of confidentiality when disclosing information to relatives, risking legal consequences. One solution could be a prior declaration of exemption by the patients. It is pointed out that the duty of confidentiality continues to exist even after the patient's death and that relatives have no right to information about the patient's health condition without the patient's consent. Various relevant laws and norms are mentioned. The article discusses the question of exemption from professional confidentiality in favor of relatives. It is stated that the presumed will of the patient should only be considered as a last resort and that there is no legal presumption that non-communicative patients desire the disclosure of information. It is emphasized that in emergencies, information regarding the treatment of the patient can be disclosed and that the patient's interest in information should take precedence over data protection. However, the justification for disclosing information to relatives is more limited and requires a balancing of the interests of the patient and the relatives. It is recommended to proceed restrictively and to make the balancing on a case-by-case basis. It is also noted that the presumed will of the patient should be determined and that even in cases where there is no actual interest in confidentiality, the duty of confidentiality and data protection must be upheld. The patient's right to visitation is also mentioned. The article addresses various aspects of data protection in relation to patient rights and patient safety. It is pointed out that a patient's right to visitation in hospitals does not automatically imply consent to the disclosure of information to third parties. The disclosure of information to relatives or trusted individuals usually occurs on a voluntary basis and requires the patient's consent. Minors also have the right to data protection and informational self-determination, with their decision-making capacity being assessed based on their age and cognitive abilities. In certain cases, parents can be informed about important medical facts, especially if the child is at risk of suicide. In Germany, the obligation of doctors to provide information to parents regarding incapacitated minors is attributed to the state's duty of care. The article discusses confidentiality in healthcare and the possibility of exempting certain individuals from this obligation. In Austria, in addition to the state's duty of care, family autonomy also plays an important role. Adult individuals can have a legal representative who can also decide on the disclosure of health information to relatives. It is recommended to provide a written declaration to exempt doctors, nursing staff, and institutions from the duty of confidentiality. This exemption can only be made when the person is capable of making decisions and should be handed to the authorized person. [Extracted from the article]

In the 1970s, three Canadian jurisdictions (federal, Quebec, Nova Scotia) introduced statutory unjust dismissal legislation. The objective was to extend 'just cause' protections long enjoyed by unionized workers to eligible non-union employees by permitting employees to file a complaint with a labour tribunal. The presumptive remedy for unjustly terminated employees was to be reinstatement. However, in practice the majority of successful complainants are not reinstated. This paper examines the history and rationale for the introduction of unjust dismissal legislation in Canada, the meaning and scope of 'unjust' as developed by adjudicators, and the approach of tribunals in the three jurisdictions to crafting remedies to compensate unjustly dismissed employees who are not reinstated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior research documents a negative stock price reaction to initial securities lawsuit filings, on average. Prior research provides no evidence, however, regarding whether and how the market prices information subsequently generated by the litigation process. We examine the market response to a large sample of initial plaintiff complaints and subsequent docket events. Our results are consistent with the market pricing information about issues both systemic to the firm and specific to the pending lawsuit from federal court filings. First, we find the market response to the initial lawsuit filing varies significantly with information about governance and control problems signaled by details of the plaintiff's complaint. Second, we find a significant market response to subsequent court filings that increases with measures of litigation severity and decreases as the litigation progresses over time. Overall, our results highlight the role of federally accessible court filings in facilitating the market's pricing of defendant firms. JEL Classifications: K41; M40; M41; M48. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents insight into the complaint review and sanction analysis of the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC) Missouri. Topics include an overview of the complaint review process, sanction analysis in non-admonition cases or where the lawyer rejects an admonition, and American Bar Association (ABA) standards for imposing lawyer sanctions. Also mentioned are the factors which may be considered in aggravation and factors which may be considered in mitigation.

Constitutions empower people to ask judges for binding orders directing state agents to remedy rights violations, but state agents do not always comply. Scholars propose that by making it easier to observe noncompliance, courts can leverage public pressure for compliance when it exists. Yet, exposure to information about noncompliance might lead individuals to accept high levels of noncompliance and reduce support for judicial remedies. We estimate the rate of noncompliance with judges' orders via a rigorous tracking study of the Colombian tutela. We then embed this rate in three survey experiments fielded with online national quota samples. We show that people find the noncompliance rate in the tutela highly unacceptable regardless of a variety of mitigating factors. We also show that public reactions to this information depend on prior expectations, a finding that stresses the importance of scholarship in cognitive psychology for studies of compliance in law and politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

States increasingly look to incarcerated individuals as a source of revenue to alleviate the fiscal burden of incarceration, which results in suing prisoners for these costs. Through lawsuit complaints, states claim they have suffered damages and seek reimbursement from incarcerated individuals through pay-to-stay fees. Drawing from an original dataset consisting of 102 civil complaints from Illinois, we examine how the state constructs damage, harm, and willfulness through pay-to-stay lawsuits. We find that the state achieves this beneficial outcome by labeling incarcerated individuals as willful nonpayers and thereby morally responsible for what it terms damages suffered. Our empirical and theoretical contributions position civil lawsuits as part of imagining incarcerated individuals as fiscally responsible for their incarceration within a rent-seeking society, contextualizing the social linkages between willfulness, legal moralism, and perpetual indebtedness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article looks into the question of whether the successful complaint of a violation of the fundamental right to the legal judge according to Article 101. It mentions European Court of Justice requires that the complainant first file an action for annulment before filing the constitutional complaint must make an effort to competent court order to comply with principle of subsidiarity; and also mentions Bundesverfassungsgericht did not accept the constitutional complaint a decision.

Neoliberal governance has become a defining feature of our social world, fast‐tracking the commodification of human interaction, particularly within capitalist economies. Neoliberalism's intensification of capitalist social relations shifted social institutions such as education, healthcare, and criminal justice to resemble profit‐oriented enterprises. A preeminent consequence of this shift for the administration of criminal justice is the rapid expansion of monetary sanctions in the form of pay‐to‐stay fees. Our article contributes to scholarship on neoliberal governance and social institutions by exploring how lawmakers justify and frame the imposition and recoupment of pay‐to‐stay fees. We draw from a novel dataset compiled by the authors on pay‐to stay in the state of Illinois, which consists of state‐level pay‐to‐stay statutes, transcripts of legislative debates on the ratification of pay‐to‐stay statutes, and 102 civil complaints from 1997 to 2015 initiated on behalf of the Illinois Department of Corrections against currently and formerly incarcerated people to compel the payment of pay‐to‐stay fees. Our analysis suggests that in the era of neoliberal governance, consumerism is an institutional logic that lawmakers draw from to adopt pay‐to‐stay as a legal template in an effort to foster a producer–consumer relationship between incarcerated people and the state, thereby producing incarceration as a public commodity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In over a decade since the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) ('Victorian Charter') fully commenced operation in 2008, there has yet to be a validly made declaration of inconsistent interpretation. A declaration of inconsistent interpretation is a statement made by the Victorian superior courts that a statutory provision is incompatible with human rights protected by the Victorian Charter. Considered to be an integral feature of the Victorian Charter, little has been said about the likely reasons for this 'quiet demise' of the declaration power. This article undertakes that examination, in light of the High Court case of Momcilovic v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 1, ensuing treatment of the declaration power by the Victorian courts, and other issues associated with the Victorian Charter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]