Court Order No, 4, USSR Supreme Court Plenum,March 18, 1963

A review of the practice in recovering court expenditures [raskhody] in civil cases and court costs [izderzhki] in criminal cases has demonstrated that courts do not always observe the laws in effect with regard to this matter, that they commit significant errors. Frequently, in accepting the filing of suits and appeals in civil cases, courts do not exact payment of the state fee provided by law, or else they determine it inaccurately. They do not always take into consideration the fact that expenditures caused the court in connection with the trial and the state fee, from which a plaintiff has been exempted, are to be recovered from the respondent for the state in proportion to the satisfied portion of the claim in the suit. In violation of Article 45 of the RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure and the corresponding articles of the civil procedural codes of the other union republics, many courts do not demand that the parties make advance payment of the sums needed to meet the costs of calling witnesses and experts, as well as the expenditures involved in on-site examinations.     

The Impact of Supreme Court Activity on the Judicial Agenda

When the Supreme Court takes action, it establishes national policy within an issue area. A traditional, legal view holds that the decisions of the Court settle questions of law and thereby close the door on future litigation, reducing the need for future attention to that issue. Alternatively, an emerging interest group perspective suggests the Court, in deciding cases, provides signals that encourage additional attention to particular issues. I examine these competing perspectives of what happens in the federal courts after Supreme Court decisions. My results indicate that while Supreme Court decisions generally settle areas of law in terms of overall litigation rates, they also introduce new information that leads to increases in the attention of judges and interest groups to those particular issues.     

The US Supreme Court Affirms the Filartiga Paradigm

In 2004, for the first time in history, the United States SupremeCourt addressed the meaning and scope of the Alien Tort Statute(ATS) of 1789. Originally intended to provide redress for actsof piracy or offences against ambassadors, the Statute has beenused since the 1980 watershed case of Filartiga v. Peña-Iralato award damages in civil trials in the United States to foreignvictims of, inter alia, torture, summary execution and forceddisappearance. Opponents have claimed, among other things, thatuse of the ATS shows disregard for principles of internationalcomity; is inconsistent with principles governing the use ofuniversal jurisdiction; and results in an imperialist Americanprivatization of human rights. The author argues that the SupremeCourt's decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain limits the ATS toa tool of complementary justice consistent with prevailing principlesof global accountability.     

Court Order No. 3, USSR Supreme Court Plenum,March 18, 1963

Having heard and discussed the reports of the Chairman of the RSFSR Supreme Court, Comrade L. N. Smirnov, the Chairman of the Lithuanian Supreme Court, Comrade A. L. Likas, and the Chairman of the Criminal College of the USSR Supreme Court, Comrade G. Z. Anashkin, on the fulfillment by the judiciary of the USSR Supreme Court Plenum's Order No. 6 of September 12, 1961, and having examined materials summarizing the practice of the courts in cases involving antisocial parasitic elements, the Plenum of the USSR Supreme Court takes note that the judiciary of the RSFSR, Lithuania and other union republics have recently somewhat improved their consideration of such cases, and have begun to apply more correctly the legislation on intensifying the struggle against persons refraining from socially useful labor and engaging in an antisocial and parasitic way of life.     

Court Order No. 7, USSR Supreme Court Plenum,July 3, 1963

A decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet of February 15, 1962, "On Increasing Responsibility for Attacks on the Life, Health, and Dignity of Militia and Volunteer Public-Order Personnel," established responsibility for malicious failure to obey a legal order or demand of militia and volunteer public-order personnel, for insulting them, for resistance to them, and for the use of force and threats against such persons. The decree also increased the criminal responsibility for attacks on the lives of militia and volunteer public-order personnel in conjunction with their official or volunteer duties in the maintenance of public order.     

The Supreme Court and Police Practices: The Last Two Terms

The 2003–2004 term of the Supreme Court was noteworthy because it decided a relatively large number of cases dealing with police practices, many of which were of special significance. The next two terms (2004–2005 and 2005–2006 terms) were not quite as noteworthy, but still the Court decided eight police practices cases, dealing with such important issues as the detention of the residents of a home while executing a search warrant, the use of canine sniffs during a traffic stop, the validity of anticipatory search warrants, and the validity of third party consent to search when another person with authority to consent is present and objects to the search. These two terms do not provide enough cases to permit a confident prediction about the approach that the two new members of the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, are likely to take in police practices cases. However, their positions in the cases discussed in this article suggest that both will take positions in support of the police in these cases.     

Canadian Supreme Court upholds,but limits,AZT patent

On 5 December 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada ended a long-running dispute when it unanimously upheld the validity of the Canadian patent on the antiretroviral drug zidovudine (AZT) held by Glaxo Wellcome (now GlaxoSmithKline).