论民事诉讼法的控权法属性

民事诉讼是由法院、当事人及其他诉讼参与人参加的一种活动,以国家审判权为中心是民事诉讼法律关系的特点,以当事人诉讼权利为本位是民事诉讼法律关系的基本价值取向。民事诉讼法是典型的公法,控制和规范审判权依法行使应是民事诉讼法最基本的功能。民事诉讼法要严格控制法院的审判权,不断激活当事人的诉讼权利,充分肯定和发挥律师在监督和制约审判权行使中所起的重要作用,才能使民事诉讼最大限度地接近正义。     

Precedent, Parity, and Racial Discrimination: A Federal/State Comparison of the Impact of Brown v. Board of Education

Questions regarding Brown v. Board of Education 's short-term effect remain unanswered, particularly its comparative impact on federal district courts and state supreme courts. We test this through an analysis of racial discrimination cases in those venues in the twenty-year period bifurcated by the decision in May 1954. Our findings suggest that while federal district courts and state courts were similarly unresponsive to discrimination claims before that date, Brown exerted a significant impact on district court decisions but had little influence at the state level. Furthermore, a third pattern was found in federal appellate courts, where discrimination claims had a high likelihood of pro-minority decisions even before the Supreme Court directive.     

A case of mistaken identity: The wrongful classification of Islamic marriage contracts as premarital agreements in New York

New York precedent has mischaracterized Islamic marriage contracts, or nikah agreements, as premarital agreements. Nikah agreements are not premarital agreements; they are contracts. This mischaracterization has subjected nikah agreements to the acknowledgement requirement codified in N.Y. DRL § 236(B)(3) which has incorrectly been used to strike down valid contracts which Islamic litigants rely on. To prevent the effects of this mischaracterization, this Note suggests to New York appellate courts that a recharacterization of these agreements as contracts would prevent further confusion amongst the lower courts and allow for clearer, more uniform decisions.     

Institutional Arrangements and the Dynamics of Agenda Formation in the U.S. Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals

The manner in which agenda change occurs demonstrates how institutional arrangements influence agenda priorities in the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals. A neo-institutional theoretic perspective is employed to examine the dynamics of agenda formation in these courts. The article finds that the Supreme Court's agenda choices influence the decisions of litigants, interest groups, and lawyers to appeal certain cases to the Courts of Appeals. While the Supreme Court's agenda primarily is influenced by internal factors, it is constrained by agenda changes in the appeals courts. Critically, it is shown that these federal appellate courts exist within an endogenous system with respect to agenda formation, as both courts respond to agenda changes made in the other over time.     

可估量性:经由传统而实现的"神话"——评卡尔·卢埃林的《普通法传统》

<普通法传统>是卢埃林三十多年学术生涯的凝结.它围绕着美国州上诉法院的审理结果是否具有可估量性这个核心问题展开.卢埃林认为当时的美国州上诉法院正处于一种复苏普通法传统,即宏大风格之中.宏大风格实现的是真正的可估量性.但是,真正的可估量性需要存在一种统一的公正标准.     

Litigant Status and Trial Court Appeal Mobilization

The advantages held by haves over have nots in litigation have long fascinated scholars, with a long line of research revealing that litigant status often affects litigant resources, experience, and chances of overall success from trial courts to appellate courts. What has received considerably less attention, however, is how this status affects the decision to appeal. Bringing a new perspective to this important area holding implications for the shape and content of the judicial hierarchy, this study analyzes the decision of the losing federal district court litigant to appeal to the US courts of appeals. Utilizing an original database containing a sample of federal district court civil cases decided between 2000 and 2004, the results indicate, as predicted, that litigant status differentials affect whether there will be an appeal. This influence is further magnified when conditioned upon the relative costs of the appeal. These findings provide one of the first detailed examinations of litigant status and appeals coming from US trial courts and, simultaneously, offer the first empirical evidence to date that business litigants, like previously known government parties, are advantaged over individuals when deciding whether to appeal.     

Appellate and trial court caseload growth: A pooled time-series-cross-section analysis

This is an econometric study of factors behind filing growth since 1970 in state trial courts and, especially, appellate courts. The model posits two categories of variables: those affecting the supply of disputes and those affecting the costbenefit considerations of potential litigants. The study uses a pooled time-seriescross-section design and a fixed-effects regression procedure. The overall conclusion is that factors determining the supply of disputes overwhelm other factors entered in the model. At the trial level, economic conditions 2 years earlier strongly affect civil filings, and crime rates for the current and prior year have moderate impacts on criminal filings. The output capacity of trial courts, measured by the number of judges, has a strong impact on appeals. Economic conditions and trial court filings influence civil appeals in later years, and prison commitments influence criminal appeals. The great majority of cost-benefit factors, such as simplification of appellate procedure and interest-rate differentials, showed little or no impact on appeals.In view of the rising emphasis on replicability (Dewaldet al., 1986; Campbell, 1986; Cook and Zarkin, 1986), we stress that the data for this research are available from the Inter-Univarsity consortium for Political and Social Research, and we will provide copies of the computer printouts giving the programs (that apply SAS) and the results. In addition, Court Studies periodically updates the data set, and it will supply current data upon request.     

The Influence of Administrative Law Judge and Political Appointee Decisions on Appellate Courts in National Labor Relations Board Cases

Scholars have long been simultaneously concerned with the factors that influence appellate court decision making and the level of deference that the courts allow for agencies. However, scholars have treated administrative agencies as unitary actors with a single level of decision making, but in reality agency decisions involve input from multiple actors within the agency. I argue that appellate courts rely more heavily on decisions made by actors in the bureaucracy with greater levels of expertise and who are less politically motivated as cues in their decision making. This theory is bolstered by legal precedent in the area of administrative law that suggests courts should more heavily rely on the expert judgment of administrative judges. Thus, as a result of their increased expertise, appearance of political neutrality, and institutional support, courts will be more reliant on decisions issued by administrative law judges (ALJs) than those issued by the political appointees as cues in their decision making. Using over 300 unfair labor practice decisions issued by the federal appeals courts on review of cases from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board), I develop a model of appeals court decision making in unfair labor practice cases as a function of the initial decision of the ALJ, the final order of the political appointees of the NLRB, case characteristics, the ideology of the deciding appeals court panel, Supreme Court influence, and economic factors. Though the ideology of the court plays a role in its decision making, cues from ALJ decision making and that of the Board weigh more heavily in appellate court outcomes. However, cues from ALJ decisions play the most consistent role in appellate court decision making, even in more difficult cases. This has important implications for agency strategy in courts and suggests that future research should consider the influence of lower‐level decision making over appellate court decision making in the area of administrative law.     

Stone v. Powell: The impact on state appellate court judges' perceptions

This study addresses the question of whether the United States Supreme Court decision of Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), has had a significant impact on the highest level state appellate courts. The study centered around a survey sent to every member of the highest appellate court hearing criminal appeals in each of the fifty states. The major finding of the research was that Stone v. Powell can be viewed along two dimensions: a narrow, substantive dimension applying the case as a Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule decision, or a broader, policy dimension of judicial federalism. It appears that, for the most part, state supreme courts have chosen to apply Stone v. Powell along the narrow, substantive dimension. Thus, state supreme courts have not assumed the position of equal partners with the federal courts in assuring adequate and appropriate disposition of federal claims.     

Nursing home quality-of-care cases after Mikes v. Straus

The quality of care rendered to residents of nursing facilities continues to gain attention from legislators, regulators, and the courts. Advocates for improvements in the quality of care by government-funded healthcare providers have identified the False Claims Act (FCA) as a potent tool. The Second Circuit decision in Mikes v. Straus might be viewed as a barrier to FCA claims against nursing facilities. Any impediment imposed by this decision, however, is limited by the facts of the case; the authors believe that carefully-crafted pleadings can enable litigants to rely upon the FCA in pursuing quality-of-care claims against nursing facilities.     

The impact of litigants' baby-facedness and attractiveness on adjudications in small claims courts

The effects of litigants' facial appearance on judicial decisions were investigated in 506 cases heard in small claims courts. Replicating previous laboratory studies, both baby-facedness and attractiveness exerted a significant impact on adjudications. As plaintiffs increased in attractiveness, defendants were more likely to lose the case. Also, as defendants increased in baby-facedness, they were more likely to win cases involving intentional actions and less likely to win cases involving negligent actions, although the latter simple effect was not significant. Finally, as defendants increased in facial maturity, they were required to pay larger monetary awards to baby-faced plaintiffs, albeit not to average or mature-faced plaintiffs. This pattern of decisions was interpreted as reflecting assumptions about the psychological attributes of baby-faced versus mature-faced individuals. The effects of the extralegal variables of litigant attractiveness and baby-facedness were sufficiently large to have practical as well as statistical significance, and they were independent of each other and the age of the litigants as well as of legal variables predicting adjudications.This research was supported by NIMH grant No. BSR 5 R01 MH42684 to the first author. Thanks are extended to Philip Shapiro for his help with legal terminology, to Steven Samuels for his help in the data collecton, and to Michael Berbaum and Avron Spiro III for their statistical assistance in the data analysis.     

Using Rule 11 Sanctions to Punish Accusers Who Make False Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse in Custody and Divorce Cases

False claims of child sexual abuse negatively affect the accused parent and the child. Such false claims can be used to sway custody determinations and cause frivolous applications to the court. This Note proposes that courts impose sanctions, comparable to those set forth in Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on litigants who make false claims of child sexual abuse.     

Aboriginal oral testimony,hearsay rule and the reception theory of admissibility

Aboriginal peoples title claims are presumed upon spatial and time connections to the lands of their ancestors. In making their submissions, litigants have to circumvent the rule against hearsay and rely upon oral narratives to substantiate their claims of customary ties to land. The obstacles they face is that evidence based on informal anecdotes can cause problems in common law courts, which have long been dependent on textual evidence for probative value. In many Native cultures the idea of time is cyclical, while in the Judeo-Christian calendar time is linear. There is also the fact that oral narratives cannot be viewed in the abstract and the histories are closely linked to inter-generational continuity. The perspective of a narrator is relevant as the sources are often repositories of observation, knowledge and personal belief rather than clear factual understanding of the issue involved. This paper argues for the receptive theory of oral evidence to be adopted in common law courts, which would lead to a fair hearing of Aboriginal claims to land title in Australian and Canadian courts. The paper will distinguish the courts’ current approach to oral testimony submitted by aboriginal people and raise the possibility of an integrated approach based on the recourse to ‘episteme’, which is the appreciation derived from synthesis that accepts that several methodologies may exist and interact at the same time by being parts of various knowledge systems.     

Affirmed: A Study of Criminal Appeals and Decision-Making Norms in a California Court of Appeal

The work of state intermediate appellate courts is often described as “correcting legal errors” and “supervising” trial courts. But what do these labels mean in practice? This article explores the intermediate appellate process through a study of criminal appeals in a California Court of Appeal. Part I describes the characteristics and dispositions of criminal appeals. Contrary to popular impression, a conviction was reversed in only about 5 percent of these appeals. To explain the low reversal rate, part II draws upon interviews with justices of the Court of Appeal to examine the institutional norms and perspectives guiding the court's decisions. The basic decision norms described by the justices are norms of affirmance: for example, the harmless error rule and the substantial evidence rule incline the court to affirm despite certain legal errors or factual questions. Moreover, the particularistic approach the court typically takes in its decision making apparently sensitizes it to the substantive characteristics prevailing in criminal appeals: the crimes are serious and there is little doubt about factual guilt. The low reversal rate and the analysis of the court's norms suggest that intermediate appellate review of criminal convictions is narrower and more constrained than the “error correction” and “supervision” labels imply. Part III explores the implications of the case study for appellate policy.     

Modelling appellate courts’ responses in motor injury disputes

Motor third-liability insurance is compulsory in the European Union. We examine the behaviour of Spanish appellate courts in the context of motor liability insurance and pay particular attention to four characterising features. Specifically, we investigate (1) how the appellate court interprets the rules for updating the financial compensation when the courts’ ruling is made in a different year to that in which the motor accident occurred; (2) the response of the appellate court when its legal medical evaluation differs from the court’s decision; (3) whether the appellate court modifies the criteria when the insurance company was not charged with interest for delaying payment in the first instance; (4) whether the fault allocated by trial courts is revised by the appellate court. We apply a multi-categorical selection mechanism to deal with samples that are potentially non-random. This allows us to separately consider the characteristics of victim’s and the insurer’s decisions to appeal. The results indicate that disputing agents have significantly different appeal functions, where insurers show a more effective and consistent behaviour than victims.     

Picking up the Pieces: Cases Presented to the London Sheriffs' Courts between Michaelmas 1461 and Michaelmas 1462

Almost no records of proceedings in the medieval London sheriffs' courts are extant. I will demonstrate in this feasibility study of one shrieval year to what extent the reconstruction of the lost archives of the London sheriffs is possible and what can be learned from a systematic collection of all available evidence. By going beyond the Chancery corpus cum causa files our knowledge of cases heard in the sheriffs' courts is not only nearly doubled. We also get a more representative picture of proceedings. In addition, we are provided with detailed information about the sheriffs' courts and their personnel. Moreover, by following our litigants into other courts, we learn about their litigation tactics.     

法律论证中的融贯论——转型时期和谐理念的司法体现

在市场经济和全球化背景下,转型时期凸显利益多元化特征,而和谐社会的司法建构,应当在保证争讼主体机会平等的基础上,以整体性观念衡量利益纷争.对话的法律论证模式从程序上保证了多元主体参与法律决定、表达自身利益诉求的权利.但是,只有平等的对话与协商难以有效解决纠纷,法律决定是在对话式法律论证的基础上,依据融贯的司法信念进行整体衡量的结果.     

Canadian "medical necessity" and the right to health

In this article, Kathryn Garforth examines legal claims to health care in South Africa and Canada. Both countries face rising costs of health care that put a great strain on publicly funded systems, albeit in radically different contexts. Kathryn argues that despite these differences there are similarities in how litigants in South Africa and Canada have framed their claims to healthcare services, in how governments have responded, and in the factors courts have analyzed in reaching decisions. In South Africa, the leading case is Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) et al v Minister of Health et al, a constitutional challenge, while in Canada the relevant jurisprudence concerns the interpretation of the concept of medical necessity, articulated for the most part in non-constitutional cases.     

An introduction to the law and economics of class action litigation

The consolidation of similar claims for compensation into a single large class of plaintiffs is referred to as “class action litigation.” This practice can have both social costs and social benefits. For an example of the social benefits of consolidating separate claims, if the facts giving rise to the claims are substantially similar, then there may be significant savings in litigation and court administrative costs from presenting those facts once rather a multitude of times. There may, however, be significant social costs to creating a class of litigants and consolidating their claims. For example, this practice may empower those with frivolous negative expected-value claims to wring an unwarranted settlement from the defendant or defendants. The article surveys other sources of social cost and benefit from class-action litigation, reviews the empirical literature on these actions, and examines recent U.S. policy debates about reforming class-action litigation. The article concludes that class-action litigation can have substantial net social benefits but only if courts assiduously oversee the class certification process so as to identify and forestall the social-cost-generating aspects of class-action litigation.     

From impartial expert to adversary in the wake of Ake

In deciding Ake v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court held that, when defendants demonstrate that their sanity is likely to be a significant factor at trial, the State must assure them access to a competent psychiatrist who will not only examine them but also render other assistance to the defense. There have been 28 known subsequent decisions in which appellate courts have ruled on the validity of Ake-based claims; in only four did the defendant prevail. The case nonetheless raises issues relative to the proper role of the psychiatric expert. The Supreme Court's decisions, although not introducing a new ethical topic, appear to be favoring a more adversarial posture, at least within certain parameters. I suggest that impartiality, independence, and advocacy need not be mutually exclusive concepts and that some of our traditional beliefs about what part we should play in criminal law may have to be modified and expanded.