Taxi passenger accidentally stuck by syringe awarded $15,000

In January 2003, a British Columbia Supreme Court judge awarded $15,000 for mental anguish to a woman who was stuck by a syringe found in the back of a taxicab. In assessing the damages, the Court took into account the woman's possible exposure to HIV and the reasonableness of her belief that she was at risk of seroconverting.     

An evaluation of <Emphasis Type="Underline">Payton v. New York</Emphasis>

The Supreme Court decision in Payton v. New York (1980) is evaluated. In this cose, the. Court remanded to the trial level tribunal a case in which an arrest was made and evidence was seized without a warrant. The author discusses the case thoroughly and compares the decision to other cases which dealt with the warrantless arrest and seizure of evidence. The author questions if the Court is becoming “too technical” in its interpretation of the 4th Amendment and poses once again the perennial question; “Where is the line drawn between protecting the nights of society from criminals and protecting the rights of criminals from judicial interpretation?”     

"Pro-life" absolutes, feminist challenges: the fundamentalist narrative of Irish abortion law 1986-1992

This article asks how Irish abortion law developed to the point of stopping a young pregnant rape victim from travelling abroad to have an abortion in 1992 (Attorney General v.X). The author argues that this case, which ultimately saw the Irish Supreme Court overturn that decision and recognize the young woman's right to abortion, was the last chapter of the fundamentalist narrative of Irish abortion law. The feminist critique of that law needs to consider its particular fundamentalist aspects in order to clarify the obstacles posed to the struggle for Irish women's reproductive freedom. The author argues that a fundamentalist narrative ordered the post-colonial and patriarchal conditions of Irish society so as to call for the legal recognition of an absolute right to life of the "unborn." The Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitutional right to life of the fetus in three cases during the 1980s is evidence that Irish abortion law was constructed through a fundamentalist narrative until that narrative was rejected in the Supreme Court decision in Attorney General v. X.     

Discrimination in same-sex survivor amendments to the Canada Pension Plan

On 31 July 2002, the British Columbia Supreme Court granted certification of a class proceeding involving same-sex surviving spouses who were denied survivor's benefits under the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) due to their sexual orientation. On 10 July 2002, a similar proceeding in Ontario survived a motion to strike by the government and is headed to trial. If successful, thousands of gay men and women whose same-sex partners died between 17 April 1985 and 1 January 1998 may finally be eligible for monthly survivor's benefits.     

法律解释如何统一——关于司法解释权的法律统一解释功能的思考

目前我国宪法解释权以及法律统一解释权处于一种权力真空状态,人们希望最高人民法院能填补这一权力空白.然而根据我国宪法所规范的国家权力结构,最高人民法院是无力承担起这一重任的.最高人民法院的法律统一解释功能是有限的,只能统一各级法院的审判解释.我国的司法改革应着眼于通过构建合理的审判制度、判例制度以及合理划分最高人民法院与各级法院解释范围,完善最高人民法院的司法统一解释功能.     

民事诉讼法典修改后的“新证据”——《审监解释》对“新证据”界定的可能意义

有足以推翻原裁判的新证据是我国《民事诉讼法》规定的启动再审程序的事由之一。最高人民法院在《审监解释》中对新证据作出了新的界定,根据新确立的标准,只要是原审中提出的能够推翻原裁判的证据,就可以进入新证据的行列,即便当事人在原审中因逾期举证且存在过错已被失权。新的标准实际上已悄悄地改变了《证据规定》确立的新证据的构成要件。鉴于再审是最后的审判,再审中新证据的标准会对法官在一审和二审程序中如何把握新证据产生重大的影响,实行这一标准将会使对新证据的解读回到民事诉讼法。《举证期限通知》对新证据做了不同的界定,相比之下,《审监解释》中的界定是一种更优的选择。     

U.S. Industries v. Director: "claim" versus "condition" in the analysis of workers' compensation cases

Under most workers' compensation statutes, an injury must "arise out of " and "in the course of" employment in order to qualify as a compensable disability. In U.S. Industries v. Director, the Supreme Court held that the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act must be strictly construed to avoid transforming the compensation system into a form of social insurance. In U.S. Industries, the Court denied a disability claim based on an arthritic condition which was manifested while the worker was at home in bed. This Note contends that the Supreme Court neglected to consider pertinent medical realities when analyzing the causation question. Thus, the decision undermines the overall rationale behind workers' compensation legislation. Nonetheless, the Note argues that the case does not relax the requirement of adequately scrutinizing the causative elements underlying any reasonable claim for disability benefits. An analysis adequately accommodating both medical and legal facts, instead of relying upon the vagaries of statutory interpretation, is necessary to improve the efficiency and fairness of workers' compensation disability determinations.     

US: Supreme Court adopts narrow definition of "disability" under anti-discrimination law

In January 2002, the US Supreme Court issued the latest in a series of court judgments adopting a narrow interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The unanimous decision is fundamentally flawed in several important respects. It does not bode well for people with disabilities seeking protection from discrimination in employment.     

Naming Names: The Impact of Supreme Court Opinion Attribution on Citizen Assessment of Policy Outcomes

The manner in which political institutions convey their policy outcomes can have important implications for how the public views institutions' policy decisions. This paper explores whether the way in which the U.S. Supreme Court communicates its policy decrees affects how favorably members of the public assess its decisions. Specifically, we investigate whether attributing a decision to the nation's High Court or to an individual justice influences the public's agreement with the Court's rulings. Using an experimental design, we find that when a Supreme Court outcome is ascribed to the institution as a whole, rather than to a particular justice, people are more apt to agree with the policy decision. We also find that identifying the gender of the opinion author affects public agreement under certain conditions. Our findings have important implications for how public support for institutional policymaking operates, as well as the dynamics of how the Supreme Court manages to accumulate and maintain public goodwill.     

Lord Cooke of Thorndon (1926–2006): 51 Years in the Law

This article provides an in‐depth analysis of the landmark ‘cash for query’ judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India. The scope of parliamentary privileges in India, as well as in England and America, is examined, particularly with respect to the jurisdiction of the courts. The present position in the law of parliamentary privileges in India was laid down in the case of Raja Ram Pal v The Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, &; Ors. The Supreme Court of India has extensively dwelled on the matter and has delivered a judgment, which is by far the most comprehensive decision in this field of law. The author notes in the analysis that the difference between the English and Indian constitutional systems is of crucial significance. The conflicts between the judiciary and parliament in England arose because of the sovereignty of parliament, and the judiciary had to fight for every inch of its jurisdiction in England. The judiciary had to contend with Parliament not only as a legislative body, but also by virtue of being the ‘High Court of Parliament’, as a superior court. Because of these reasons, the case law from British constitutional history does not have strict applicability in India. The decision of the Supreme Court of India in Raja Ram Pal v The Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, &; Ors, is a clear expression of a very basic feature of the Indian constitutional mechanism: where the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all governmental organs, which owe their origin to the Constitution and derive their powers from its provisions, must function within its framework.     

我国司法解释规则的新发展及其再完善——《07规定》与《97规定》的比较分析

与最高人民法院1997年出台的《关于司法解释工作的若干规定》相比,于2007年4月1日起施行的新规则无论在形式体例上还是在具体内容方面均有新的发展:新规则的制定依据有所扩充,从而凸显了依法行使司法解释权的应有宗旨;突出强调了协商一致,为"两高"共同制定司法解释的工作提供了制度雏形;扩大了司法解释的立项来源,拓展了司法解释正当化的社会基础;但新规则也仍然存在一些问题:最高人民法院自己规定其司法解释"具有法律效力"显然是一种"过于自大"的失当宣示;对于司法解释工作的监督机制似乎仅具形式意义。     

Brief for bioethicists for privacy as amicus curiae supporting appellees

Amicus, an ad hoc group of philosophers, theologians, attorneys, and physicians, believe that adults should consult their doctor when making personal decisions. The doctor-patient relationship would be protected under the Constitution. In "Griswold v. Connecticut," the Supreme Court said that a state law which forbid married couples from using contraceptives was unconstitutional; that the couples should have a right to privacy. In "Roe," the Supreme Court recognized that a patient and her doctor should have privacy. In "Doe v. Bolton," the Supreme Court found that the State of Georgia was violating the patients' and physician's freedom. In "Planned Parenthood of Missouri v. Danforth," the Supreme Court said that a general informed consent provision was alright because it did not take away the abortion decision. The post- Roe state laws were ways to control doctors and patients so that a particular philosophical view could be imposed. The major question in Webster is whether personal decisions should be made by doctors and patients or the state. Both parties must agree to the decision. Section 188.205 of the Missouri law was before the Court in Webster. This section makes it illegal for public funds to be used to encourage a woman to have an abortion that wasn't necessary to save her life. There are medical conditions for which abortion is reasonable - Tay-Sachs disease, for instance. The child usually dies by 3 years of age. Without genetic screening, many at-risk couples would abort all pregnancies. 95% of all prenatal screenings are negative. State medical treatment decisions are arbitrary and impersonal. Having control over important personal decisions is necessary for freedom.     

Privacy rights in the classroom: Peer grading Supreme Court judgment 2002

The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the case of Owasso Independent School District v. Falvo that the practice of students grading each other's work and then calling out the marks does not violate the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 1974. The Court reversed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals (10th Circuit). The judgment came in the case of a mother, Kristja Falvo, who objected to the practice of peer grading and recording in elementary schools. She felt that the practice was a violation of FERPA. Student grades, she argued, were an education record and should not be released to others in the class without a parent's permission. However, the Supreme Court ruled that such grades did not satisfy the definition of an 'education record' under FERPA. The judgment is significant. Teachers' organisations and bodies representing administrators welcomed the decision.     

Copyright Infringement in a Borderless World - Does Territoriality Matter? Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v Canadian Association of Internet Providers [2004] 2 SCR 427

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Societyof Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v CanadianAssociation of Internet Providers [2004] 2 SCR 427 is significantfor two reasons: (a) the Canadian Supreme Court held that InternetService Providers should be exempted from copyright liabilityas long as they provide only a conduit service in transmittingcopyright materials between Internet users (a point which isconsistent with many national copyright laws); (b) the majorityof the Canadian Supreme Court arrived at the conclusion thatthe appropriate test to determine whether an infringement forthe unauthorized transmission of online copyright material hasoccurred within the Canadian jurisdiction is the ‘realand substantial connection’ test (LeBel J, however, dissentedand was of the view that the correct test to apply is the ‘hostserver’ test). This paper studies these two tests as propoundedby the Canadian Supreme Court and assesses their strengths andweaknesses, especially in light of the territoriality principlein copyright law.     

Hate Speech and International Criminal Law: The Mugesera Decision by the Supreme Court of Canada

On 28 June 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decisionin Mugesera, bringing to an end the decade-long legal saga involvinga speech made by Leon Mugesera in November 1992 in Rwanda. Whilethe decision of the Supreme Court was handed down in the contextof an immigration case, its impact will be mostly felt in therealm of criminal law, as the court embraced international jurisprudencefor the international elements of crimes against humanity. Inaddition, the decision is important for three reasons: it (i)clarified the interrelationship between international and domesticcriminal law; (ii) examined the notion of hate crime; and (iii)analysed the concept of inchoate crimes.     

Argumentation and Legal Interpretation in the Criminal Decisions of the Polish Supreme Court and the German Federal Court of Justice: A Comparative View

The subject of this study are the argumentation strategies applied by the Polish and German apex courts competent in criminal matters, namely the Supreme Court and the Federal Court of Justice, respectively. The investigation encompasses a total of 200 rulings issued by the criminal panels of these bodies. Particular focus was put on examining which arguments both courts apply to solve interpretation problems, and secondly, how these courts systematize the interpretation process. Methodologically, the examination utilizes, inter alia, the principles of qualitative research, without neglecting the legal dogmatic perspective. A crucial theoretical foundation underlying this study is the distinction between formalistic and substantive legal cultures. The examination reveals that neither the Polish nor the German legal culture is purely formalistic or value-oriented. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of Poland shows greater affinity for formalistic arguments, whereas the substantive interpretation methods are more widespread in the judicature of the German Federal Court of Justice. In particular, the Polish Court prefers the linguistic interpretation, whereas the German Court favours the purposive approach.

     

Closing the Floodgates on Privacy Class Actions: Lloyd v Google LLC

In Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50, the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal's decision, which had allowed a claim under the Data Protection Act 1998 to proceed as a representative action under CPR 19.6. This is significant because the Court of Appeal's decision arguably paved the way for further data protection/privacy claims to be brought as opt-out ‘class actions’ using this procedure. This case note summarises the Supreme Court decision and assesses its implications for both the procedural law of collective redress and the substantive law of privacy in England. It argues that the Supreme Court's reasoning in relation to both of these areas is sound as a matter of precedent and statutory construction. As a matter of public policy, the decision is likely to re-enliven debate about the availability of collective redress in English law and whether the existing collective proceedings regime should be broadened.     

Advocacy in Constitutional Choice: The Cramer Treason Case, 1942–1945

How did advocacy at each level of the federal judiciary help shape the leading decision in American law of treason? This article, adapted from a forthcoming biography of Judge Harold R. Medina, is a case study based on Justice Department archives and the personal papers of Medina, Charles Fahy, and seven Supreme Court Justices. It analyzes the whole case, from the lawyers’standpoint, to illuminate the role of counsel in transforming a minor wartime incident into the first treason case decided on the merits by the Supreme Court and the tribunal's only decision during World War II to limit constitutional war powers. Accenting litigation strategy and the use of history in constitutional interpretation, it is a story also of the struggle by counsel on both sides of the case to uphold high professional standards amid the passions of total war.     

The Italian torpedo is dead: long live the Italian torpedo

A recently published decision of the Milan Court of First Instancenot only confirms that a cross-border claim for a declarationof non-infringement of a European patent is unlikely to succeedbefore an Italian court unless it is brought against an Italiandomiciled party, but also shows that the longstanding traditionof Italian torpedoes is not yet defunct, contrary to predictionsafter a landmark decision of the Italian Supreme Court in 2003.     

社会司法鉴定人和职能司法鉴定人比较评介

全国人大常委会《关于司法鉴定管理问题的决定》旨在建立统一司法鉴定管理体制,然而,实践中出现的鉴定机构和鉴定人管理双轨制使《决定》的立法初衷未能实现。＂两高＂、＂三部＂《通知》试图对此予以校正,将侦查机关所属＂职能鉴定人＂一并纳入司法行政部门的登记管理体系。由此出现的社会司法鉴定人和职能司法鉴定人仍然在管理上存在差异,从统一司法鉴定管理体制的角度看,职能司法鉴定人依旧具有不合理性。