IN THE AFTERMATH OF TROXEL V. GRANVILLE

While the Court in Troxel v. Granville opines about the problems litigation creates, that of both expense and intrusion into the lives of families in the midst of grandparent visitation disputes, the Court decision falls short of posing a solution. The focus of this note is to propose a standard for mediation as a viable alternative to traditional litigation in such cases. The hope is that mediation will serve the best interests of the child.     

THE DETERMINATION OF ANTITRUST LIABILITY IN UNITED STATES v. MICROSOFT: THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE USED TO PROVE ITS CASE

This paper considers the empirical evidence used by the Departmentof Justice in the U.S. v. Microsoft antitrust case to provethat Microsoft engaged in exclusionary (and anticompetitive)actions in the browser market as part of its efforts to maintainits dominance of the personal computer operating system market.This evidence deserves special consideration because the DistrictCourt made the unusual decision to rely on the empirical evidencepresented by the Department of Justice rather than the empiricalevidence presented by Microsoft. This decision was unusual becauseMicrosoft's evidence had a strong presumption of validity asit was based on data that Microsoft collected and used in theordinary course of its business. Furthermore, no market participantsused the Department of Justice-sponsored data in any meaningfulway. Although it is impossible to determine with any certaintywhy the District Court ruled the way it did, I conclude thatthere were two driving forces in the court's decision. The Departmentof Justice identified serious flaws in Microsoft's data, makingit unreliable for the purposes for which Microsoft was usingit in the trial. The Department of Justice was also able toshow that no such flaws affected the data it sponsored and indeed,on many points, that data was more consistent with the testimonyof Microsoft executives than the data sponsored by Microsoft.     

刑事犯罪与民事不法的分界 以美国法处理藐视法庭行为为范例的分析

<正>一、问题的提出藐视罪(contempt)是一个很古老的犯罪,源于古代习惯法,作为对蔑视国王或其政府的一种报复。在美国,藐视罪有两种情况:藐视立法机关和藐视法庭。所谓藐视法庭(contempt of court),就是将一切影响法官审判或执行判决的干扰行为(包括在诉讼程序进行中而实施的干扰     

民事诉讼“释明”概念的展开

<正>关于法院释明的问题在大陆法系国家民事诉讼理论界和实务界中早已为人们所关注,从德国民事诉讼法制定起,就一直没有停止过对释明问题的讨论。目前,在大陆法系体制下,法院释明的问题已经作为民事诉讼的基本问题之一,它比较典型地体现了民事诉讼对各种价值追求的矛盾与冲突。对于中国的民事诉讼理论界和实务界而言,"释明权"可以说是时下最为时髦的概念之     

民事诉讼中的测谎——基于证据法角度的分析

<正>引言2007年夏,笔者与同事在武汉某法院调研期间,一位法官主动跟我们述说其审理的一起民事案件,因为证据不充分,当事人申请使用了测谎,法院据此下判,引起很大的争议。此后,笔者到山东、江苏、河南等地的一些法院走访,发现测谎手段在民事审判中的使用屡见不鲜。     

民事行为能力的证明责任 对一个法律漏洞的分析

<正>一、问题的提出法律要件分类说是关于民事证明责任分配原则的一种有力学说。德国、日本及我国台湾地区的法院在审判实务中主要依据该学说分配证明责任。我国澳门地区的民法典中对证据的实体部分作了规定,其中第35条关于证明责任的规定就是按照法律要件分     

演进与启示:中国民间社会在刑事政策体系中的角色变迁

前言对世界各国而言,抗制犯罪都是一个“宏大的叙事结构”,也是一个几乎永恒的课题。现代社会中,反犯罪都是在政府或者官方的主导下进行的,应该说,这有其必然性。首先,国家或者官方承担抗制犯罪这种公共产品,符合国家作为“守夜人”的现代宪政理念;其次,抗制犯罪这一公共产品,其“原料”本身就来自于公共领域,如针对犯罪的法律,打击犯罪的专业力量,抗制犯罪所需的物质准备等等,通常都是国家能够提供,而若由社会组织或个人提供这一     

Ius和right的词义变迁 谈两大法系权利概念的历史演进

<正>一、问题的提出:罗马法上有权利概念吗?"权利"可谓一个老生常谈的话题,但是作为一个独立的概念,"权利"是否从来就有呢?我们的考察从古代法学的最完善形态——罗马法——开始。在罗马法上,"权利"概念出现了吗?现代学者一般认为,在罗马法上,ius被用来表示权     

内标监控反相HPLC测定生物材料中的氯敌鼠

经实验研究，建立了以甲敌鼠为内标监控检测生物材料中氯敌鼠的反相HPLC方法。实验证明，本法有令人满意的提取回收率和良好的重视性，生物材料中的内源性杂质和代谢物不干扰测定结果，适用于实验检验工作和分析毒理学研究。