In the Michigan Court of Appeals: People vs. Jack Kevorkian

HELD: There is no right to euthanasia within the constitutional right of privacy. Recognition of such a right to euthanasia would impermissibly expand the right of privacy and thus place the issue outside the arenas of public debate and legislative action. Such a holding would also involve the judiciary in deciding questions that are simply beyond its capacity. There is no principled basis for the court to legalize euthanasia.     

In the Michigan Court of Appeals: In the Matter of AMB,a Minor

HOLDING: In the accelerating rush to judgment that occurred here, a series of legal errors and missteps following a preliminary hearing compounded what was already an excruciatingly difficult and complex situation. The record strongly suggests that no one involved in the protective proceeding had ever communicated directly with baby AMB's parents and only the testifying doctor had ever seen AMB, an infant with life-threatening disabilities. Thus, a duly enacted statutory process designed to protect individual rights, to allow the intelligent exercise of these rights, and to assure balanced and considered decision making became, instead, the opposite. There was such a relentless disregard for basic principles of law that in its opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals attempted to assure that this tragedy is never repeated in that state.     

The DC Court of Appeals resurrects Redskins dispute

Seven American Indians petitioned to cancel trade mark registrationsfor various REDSKINS trade marks; the district court's grantof summary judgment against them for laches (unreasonable delay)was remanded by the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit fora rehearing in respect of one of the petitioners on the basisthat the district court ‘started the laches clock’in 1967, when he was only 1 year old, thus contravening theequitable principle that laches runs only from the time a partyhas reached the age of majority.     

US Appeals Court invalidates retroactive assignments of copyrights

A unanimous panel of the US Court of Appeals for the SecondCircuit held that a ‘retroactive’ assignment ofownership from a co-author of a copyright to an alleged infringercannot defeat the other co-author's accrued infringement claims.The court also held that a written agreement could not ‘ratify’an earlier oral agreement to transfer ownership.     

美国联邦巡回上诉法院的演进及启示——兼谈我国知识产权审判体制改革的方向

虽然我国已在北京、上海、广州正式设立了知识产权法院,但知识产权审判体制改革仍需进一步深化.在国际层面上,美国联邦巡回上诉法院属于较有特点的一种知识产权法院模式.通过对其设立动因、组织架构、实际效用及引发的争议进行深入考察,结合美国的政治结构、经济形势、司法传统,可以较为客观地认识美国联邦巡回上诉法院发挥的作用.我国知识产权制度赖以发展的制度环境与美国不同,但美国联邦巡回上诉法院在美国专利保护中发挥的作用以及演进轨迹,能够为我国知识产权法院在知识产权保护中发挥的功效提供更为理性的认识,进而为知识产权审判体制的进一步变革提供有益的启示.     

The Incidence and Structure of Conflict on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

In 1982, Congress established the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a specialized court, with the objective of reducing judicial conflict and harmonizing circuit law in specific policy areas of special complexity. This article examines the incidence and determinants of judicial conflict on the U.S. courts of appeals, focusing specifically on the Federal Circuit. Using international trade and customs regulation cases decided during the 1982 to 1995 terms, the analysis reviews three possible explanations of judicial conflict: policy-oriented, sociolegal, and organizational. The analysis shows that conflict appears in 8.4 percent of the trade and customs regulation decisions rendered by the Federal Circuit during the period of study. The policy direction of Federal Circuit decisions and the court's hierarchical relationship with lower specialized courts provide the strongest explanation for the emergence of conflict on the court. Organizational factors such as panel composition evinced rather anemic explanatory capacity. The results raise an important functional similarity between the Federal Circuit and the generalist courts of appeals. Contrary to the laments of legal practitioners that conflict on the Federal Circuit is excessive relative to conflict on the generalist circuit courts, this analysis finds little support for that claim. Rather, the level of overt conflict on the court is actually low and corroborates conflict levels that have been reported for other U.S. courts of appeals.     

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.