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.     

Administrative "health courts" for medical injury claims: the federal constitutional issues

Our article analyzes whether the federal government may constitutionally supplant a traditional system of common-law trials before state judges and juries with new federal institutions designed by statute for compensating victims of medical injuries. Specifically, this article examines the federal constitutional issues raised by various proposals to replace traditional medical malpractice litigation in state courts with a federal system of administrative "health courts." In doing so, we address the following constitutional issues: 1. Is there federal authority to preempt state law (the commerce clause and spending clause issues)? 2. May jurisdiction be created in non-article 3 tribunals, and may claims be decided without trial by jury (the separation of powers and Seventh Amendment issues)? 3. Would pilot programs that require some claims to be pursued in a federal administrative forum while other claimants are left to pursue traditional state tort law remedies be constitutional (the equal protection issue)? The article concludes that a federal compensation system through administrative health courts should be constitutional provided the statute is appropriately drafted and that appropriate factual findings are made concerning the benefits to patients and the public as well as to doctors and their insurers.     

Physicians' confusion demonstrated by competency requests

A study was performed at a Veteran's Administration (VA) Hospital of the requests for competency evaluations made by medical and surgical services to a psychiatric consultant service. Since less than half the requests were found to be appropriate and specific, this study emphasizes the need for forensic psychiatrists to educate our nonpsychiatric colleagues about the problems engendered by confusion regarding competency. To do so, psychiatrists as well as other physicians and mental health professionals must be trained in discriminating between different types of competencies and the criteria appropriate for each. Because of continuing legal developments, it is becoming increasingly essential to be precise not only about the specific purpose for a competency request but also about the criteria necessary for evaluating different types of competencies. Forensic psychiatrists could play an important role in the education process to clarify the confusion. This study highlights the need for clarity and education concerning competency issues.     

Elder abuse and neglect cases reviewed by appellate courts

With increasing attention focused on abuse and neglect of the elderly in domestic and institutional settings, nearly every state has passed legislation to protect these vulnerable adults. While the legal system has become involved at the trial court level, the appellate courts have not yet been very active. Only ten reported cases in the United States during 1981–1993 were appealed to a higher court. This article documents these few cases and explores the reasons for their ultimate dispositions.     

论英国法院的止诉禁令

分析止诉禁令与仲裁的关系,归纳申请伦敦仲裁一方当事人面对另一方在其他国家法院起诉的对策,探讨《布鲁塞尔规则》对英国法院就欧盟法院诉讼作出止诉禁令的冲击后,提出保护伦敦仲裁与针对the"Front Com or"案可以考虑的6个对策及向英国法院申请止诉禁令的原则等。     

Enforcement of Community Designs by Alicante courts: a promising start

LEGAL CONTEXT: Within the context of the European Union legal framework ofdesigns, the Community Designs Regulation has been operatingsince March 2002. Since April 2003, the first Registered CommunityDesigns were published by the Alicante-based OHIM. From thespringtime of 2004, the first decisions issued by OHIM relatedto invalidity of designs were published. KEY POINTS: Enforcement of Community Designs is a matter for national courtsto deal with it, since no Community-wide judicial system wasset. National "Community Design Courts", as they are called,were set in each Member State with jurisdiction to hear infringementcases and make decisions with cross-border effect. PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE: For holders of Community designs, the first cases decided bythe Spanish Community Designs Courts are specially relevantsince holders have a legitimate expectation, on the basis ofthe first decisions adopted since September 2004, to see theirdesigns effectively enforced. The consolidation of the Communitydesign system will very much depend on the effectiveness ofenforcement by courts like the one in Alicante, which has shown,not only a clear readiness to protect CTM owners, but now also,Community design holders.     

An experimental evaluation of teen courts

Teen Court (TC) is a juvenile diversion program designed to prevent the formal processing of first-time juvenile offenders within the juvenile justice system. TC instead utilizes informal processing and sanctions in order to prevent future offending. Despite its widespread popularity throughout the United States of America, little rigorous research has been conducted on the effectiveness of the TC model for reducing recidivism. Using an experimental design, this study examined the effectiveness of TC in reducing recidivism and improving the attitudes and opinions of juvenile offenders in comparison with a control group of youth who were formally processed. Self-reported delinquency was higher for those youth who participated in TC. TC youth were also found to have significantly lower scores on a scale of belief in conventional rules than had youth who were processed in the Department of Juveniles Services. Implications of these findings are discussed.