LIABILITY OF JUDGES OF THE SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE EU LAW

European Justice Court in Kobler and Traghetti decision defined principles of EU Member State compensatory liability in relation to civil law subjects due to damages caused by judicial authorities＇ acts breaching EU regulations. Due to lack of proper EU procedural norms, claims against such acts, which in fact are serious errors of Member State＇s judicial authorities, follow on the base of Member State＇s rules,     

THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA

The aim of this article is to give an overview of the tasks and the function of the Supreme Court of Justice in interaction with the other two “Highest Courts” of the Republic of Austria on the one hand, and the European Court of Human Rights as well as the Court of Justice of the European Union on the other hand. For this purpose introductory remarks will examine the Austrian understanding of the judiciary as a state power and judicial independence. The closing part of the article will particularly look into the role of the Supreme Court as highest instance in criminal matters.     

SUPREME COURT OPINIONS: Getting the Message

The true significance of policy articulations by appellate courts lies in the behavioral responses of relevant parties below. Actions consistent with the intent of appellate sources is dependant on effective communication between message source and message recipient. Limiting focus to the U.S. Supreme Court as an appellate source, two measures of effective communications are developed. These measures incorporate two dimensions of comprehension difficulty: message structure and the familiarity of the reader with constitutional language. The article also suggests 13 hypotheses pertaining to relative communicative success or failure, several of which are tested briefly.     

RESEARCHING THE SUPREME COURT IN A DEMOCRATIC PLURALIST SYSTEM: Some Thoughts on New Directions

The political processes which invite research and the investment of associated resources are those identified as signiscant by the political theories to which we give credence. Though Democratic Pluralism is the most popular explanation of the political system in the United States, its ability to explain Supreme Court behavior cannot be evaluated, for observation of the processes by which Court agendas for national policy making purposes are constructed is not encouraged. The remedy lies in a new and broader perspective which directs attention to a number of institutional actions and incumbent behaviors until now slighted, if not ignored.     

TRIAL COURTS' RESPONSES TO SUPREME COURT POLICY CHANGES

This is an exploratory study focusing on the response of federal district courts to Supreme Court changes in three policy areas: economic regulation, civil liberties, and criminal justice. An analysis of federal district court opinions published in the Federal Supplement before and after the Supreme Court decisions announcing the policy changes indicated that opinion-writing patterns of federal district judges changed in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's new direction. Further study of the federal district courts' role in the policy process is recommended and suggestions for such research are made.     

南北分裂时期之广州大理院(1919-1925)

<正>作为清末法制变革的产物,大理院在近代中国存在22年(1906-1928)。随着近年来愈来愈多的学者开始关注中国法制近代化的历史进程,对大理院的研究也成为时下的一个热点,海峡两岸都取得了一些成果。然而对于民初(1912-1928)大理院的研究仍然存在一些问题,没有得以深化,例如,清末民初有没有设立大理分院?如果设立,何时何地设立?关于设立大理分院,曾经有过什么样的主张?结果如何?南方军政府是否单独设立了自己的最高司法     

KENT V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JUVENILE CASE

As we went to press the decision was issued. Because of its significance the Journal will treat the case in two phases. The article that follows concerns itself with the facts and issues presented; the next issue will interpret the decision. This is the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has passed on the legality of juvenile court procedures.     

THE SUPREME COURT AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: A Quest for Balance between Legal and Societal Morality

The interrelationships of legal and societal morality are examined through an analysis of judicial opinions in the Supreme Court's review of the constitutionality of the death penalty. Neither community standards nor considerations of utility provided the justices with a satisfactory basis for rejecting or regulating the death penalty. Resting their decisions instead on grounds of fairness, the justices endorsed a mode of jury guidance and monitoring that potentially facilitates citizen participation in the process of "evolving standards of decency." Legal morality thus is used as the justification for a decision that affects societal morality in a manner likely to limit rather than to expand the gap between the two moralities .