Bouvia v. County of Riverside

The plaintiff, a quadriplegic with cerebral palsy, had admitted herself voluntarily to the psychiatric department of Riverside General Hospital in September 1983. She then revealed her intention of starving herself to death, requested that hospital personnel administer only pain medication and hygienic care, and sought preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent the hospital from either force feeding, transferring, or discharging her. The essence of her legal claim was that society was obliged to honor, and to assist her in carrying out, her privacy right to end her life. While the Superior Court recognized a patient's right to refuse life-sustaining care under some circumstances, it ruled that because Bouvia's condition was not terminal, her rights must yield to the interests of the state and other third parties in preserving life.     

契约对行政职权法定原则的影响及其正当规则

行政职权来源和范围法定,是行政法的原则。但行政实践表明,契约不同程度地改变着职权法定原则的要求。职权受制于契约权、法定权之外约定权的出现、契约调整法定权的范围,以及契约划分和界定了法定权事项等。行政机关使用契约的合法根据和正当空间,是行政机关的自由裁量权。从这一基理出发,约定权的合法性规则主要有:符合主管范围,是法定权的具体化,不超越法定权对象,不排斥法定权适用,不限制剥夺救济权,不违反立法禁止性规定,不排斥法定权条件等。     

"Lies,Lies, Lies": The Origins of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

New York Times v. Sullivan stands as a monument to the proposition that robust and open political discourse is the best guarantee of democratic self-governance. Some scholars have connected the case to the civil rights movement, of which it was surely a part. Others have noted the negative impact Sullivan had on the civility of public discourse. This essay approaches the case from the perspective of white moderates in Montgomery who believed that the law of libel should protect the so-called "best men" by upholding habits and manners of civility. The Sullivan case is notable, then, for the sectionally bound social assumptions of the white moderates that animated the litigation in the first place and whose exuberance in doing so ultimately undermined the values they sought to protect.     

South Glamorgan County Council v. W and B

A Family Division English court held that a minor can be admitted to a psychiatric care facility against her wishes if it is in the best interest of the minor. The affected minor had been previously assessed by various psychiatrists and social workers after she had refused to attend school and begun to lead a reclusive life. Their recommendation had been that she be removed from her present home with her father and be admitted into an adolescent unit where she could receive psychological therapy. Following the divorce of her parents, the minor's temperament and mental health had seriously deteriorated. Although her father opposed these proceedings, her mother and her court appointed guardian both thought that psychiatric care was most appropriate for the minor. The court agreed, stating that the best interests of the child override any other considerations.     

Recovering damages for occupational stress: Walker v. Northumberland County Council

Conclusion Given that occupational stress cases may hinge on the extent to which a plaintiff is willing to exhibit signs of breakdown, it is suggested that few cases are likely to succeed. Coupled with the fact that the variability inherent within the contractual and occupational context means that clear lines of liability are difficult to predict, it is, therefore, unlikely that litigation followingWalker will be able to take up the impetus generated by that case or act as a deterrent to overburdening employers. Importantly, though, it is submitted that the potential for extremeemployee participation in the sort of (particularly white collar) occupational stress scenarios could stretch mechanisms such asvolenti beyond their capacity. In turn, this may show tort to be too blunt an instrument for dealing with a social problem as subtle and multi-layered as occupational stress.     

Imperium in Imperio and the Political Origins of the American Labor Conspiracy Doctrine

Many political essayists and judges writing in the early republic sought to circumscribe actions deemed oppressive and otherwise interfering with civil liberty. Associations seeking to advance a set of narrow interests at the expense of the public posed a threat to civil liberty. The way that threat was interpreted in the specific case of labor associations is the subject of this article. It was not the economic power of such entities that gave rise to indictments. Rather the political significance of "private confederacies" acting as an "imperium in imperio" was cited as the key threat to the new political order. Thus, Judge Levy in granting legitimacy to the American labor conspiracy laws did not cite common law precedent but his concern that "a new legislature consisting of journeymen shoemakers" would usurp the legitimate power "of our state legislatures."     

从Madey诉杜克大学案谈实验使用抗辩原则的适用——兼论我国大学知识产权政策的调整

2002年美国巡回上诉法院对Madey诉杜克大学案的判决使得专利法中"实验使用抗辩原则"的适用缩小到一个十分"狭窄"的范围,以至于大学几乎难以再用"实验使用"对专利侵权请求进行抗辩.同美国一样,世界各国的专利法中都存在着实验使用抗辩原则,因而对于Madey一案的争辩可能会对世界范围内大学与产业之间的合作关系产生微妙的影响,同时将增加大学知识产权办公室的重要性.本文从Madey诉杜克大学一案的法院判决及其影响出发,通过实验使用抗辩原则的国际制度比较,解析了适用实验使用抗辩原则的动因与困境.文章最后指出了Madey一案对中国大学知识产权政策的启示我国专利法相关规定应作适当修改;大学必须重视技术转移工作;大学应制定灵活务实的知识产权政策.