Networks in the Legislative Arena: How Group Dynamics Affect Cosponsorship

In this study, we explore the determinants of cosponsorship activity within state legislatures. Utilizing a social dynamic framework, we develop and test a model of the interplay of the activities of sponsorship and cosponsorship that includes both individual‐level and social network characteristics as determinants of agenda‐setting behavior; the latter demonstrating how collaboration and mutual interests shape the agenda‐setting process. We find several consistent factors that influence the frequency of cosponsorship activity: (1) ideological distance, (2) proximity of legislators' districts, (3) homophily (similar characteristics such as race, gender, and ethnicity), and (4) transitivity (the idea that friends of my friends are also my friends).     

诉讼事件非讼化之浅析

诉讼事件非讼化,发挥非讼程序简易、迅速、灵活的特点,可以节省劳力、时间及费用,且法官职权介入较深,有助于公益之维护,能满足人们对解决现代类型纠纷的程序要求。诉讼事件非讼化的研究在德国、日本及我国台湾地区,已越来越受到关注。     

Equity in Toxic Tort Litigation: Unjust Enrichment and the Poor*

This paper proposes to explore the current and prospective role of equitable theories and remedies in toxic tort litigation. The argument is for an unjust enrichment remedy in certain property pollution cases. The idea is to remove the monetary incentive for polluting economically depressed areas. Two specific areas of investigation come immediately to mind. First, courts have already embraced equitable remedies to address pollution damages. Under Ayers and its progeny, many states have allowed the equitable remedy medical monitoring. What is important to understand is how legal relief for increased risk claims would have been inadequate and also the propriety of finding an equitable approach. Second, moving from personal injury to real property damage claims, we see a similar opportunity for use of equitable relief under an unjust enrichment theory. Currently, there is much debate about the propriety of restoration damages as opposed to fair market value (FMV) damages for the landowners whose property is damaged by the pollution of another. Each approach has various strengths and weaknesses. A better approach might be to use unjust enrichment on a law and economics basis as a remedy to force polluters to internalize the cost of pollution. For instance, take a polluter who pollutes the neighboring environs in lieu of paying one million dollars in disposal and storage costs. Assume the neighboring properties are only worth three hundred thousand dollars on a FMV approach. Assume further that restoration costs are ten million dollars, but that the relevant government agency would accept a natural attenuation clean‐up approach. How should the remedy be set, and should one consider allowing a de facto pollution easement?     

行政诉讼受案范围的重新解读——以法律适用为视角看《行政诉讼法》相关制度的修改

《行政诉讼法》第11条规定的受案范围包括了具体行政行为和其他行政案件,因而将行政诉讼受案范围等同于具体行政行为是对法律规定的错误解读。《国家赔偿法》中规定的行政赔偿范围包含了非具体行政行为,是对行政诉讼受案范围中其他行政案件的具体补充和体现。无论从行政诉讼设立本意层面还是实证层面来讲,应当以行政案件而非行政行为确立行政诉讼受案范围的标准。行政赔偿案件本身也应属于受案范围并直接适用行政诉讼程序,故不存在行政诉讼以外的所谓行政赔偿诉讼。     

Socio-Legal Research and Policy Studies: A Review of the Issues

This symposium is based upon a workshop at the 1985 World Congress of the International Research Council for the Sociology of Law in Aix-en-Provence, France. Special thanks are due to the participants in the workshop for their contributions to a stimulating and useful discussion of the complex issues in socio-legal research and the public policy process.     

政府采购法关于行政诉讼受案范围规定之缺失

《政府采购法》将行政诉讼受案范围仅限于政府采购监督管理部门关于投诉的处理决定或不作为,既排斥了权益受到潜在损害的当事人成为原告,也排斥了对政府采购实体不作为的司法审查;同时,先经投诉才能起诉,既拖延了纠纷的解决时间,也不利于通过行政诉讼有效救济有关当事人的权利。政府采购合同在合同授予、合同内容和合同所实现的功能等方面都有别于民事合同,实属行政合同,应纳入行政诉讼的受案范围。     

组织法的诉讼构造:公司决议纠纷诉讼规则重构

公司决议只具有约束股东及董监事的内部效力而不具有外部效力,债权人等外部主体对决议效力不存在法律上的利益,无权主张确认决议无效或不存在。股东会决议撤销之诉中对股东资格的要求不应剥夺股权转让自由,董监事仅在决议损害公司利益时才享有撤销权。董事会决议瑕疵之诉中,董监事只可在董事会无法自我纠正时提起诉讼,同时应比照代表诉讼要求限制股东诉权。股东及董监事可作为无独立请求权第三人参加诉讼,有权进行与所参加方相抵触的诉讼行为。应按瑕疵而非决议区分诉讼标的,但针对同一瑕疵提起的后诉不构成重复诉讼而属共同诉讼,针对同一决议的诉讼应当合并审理。判决不存在对世效力,既判力只在原告胜诉时发生扩张。     

行政诉讼受案范围与原告资格关系之辨

在我国,行政法学理论与实务对行政诉讼受案范围与原告资格关系的认识存在混淆。就受案范围来说,从行为作出结果出发判断是否“实际影响权利义务”,从而界定行为属性的做法,既是循环论证,也是受案范围容易与原告资格混淆的根本原因。正确的逻辑应当是从构成要件出发判断行为属性,“实际影响权利义务”是一个行为属于行政行为之后的当然结果。就原告资格来说,相对人受到行政行为法律效果侵害,遵从行为不法的逻辑,受案范围满足即意味着原告资格的满足。其他利害关系人受到行政行为事实效果侵害,遵从结果不法的逻辑,原告资格判断需要另行从损害结果出发归责行为违法性。受案范围与原告资格纠缠形成的牵连性阶段体系表明,应当探索在终局行为前阶段构建定分止争制度。     

Situating Exclusion of Evidence Analysis in its Socio-Legal Place: A Tale of Judicial Populism

In the 2009 case of R. v. Grant, the Supreme Court of Canada reformulated the exclusion of evidence framework in the context of Charter breaches. The case was something of a revolution for those who study evidence law and the Charter. Thus far, the case has been the subject of much debate and even empirical study. Few academic papers have explored the philosophical predilections of the Court in the decision. In this paper, the authors briefly review the history of the exclusion of evidence test, explain the new framework and discuss the academic and legal responses to the case. The authors place the reasoning of the Court in a broader socio-legal context arguing that the test articulated by the Court is informed by a type of populism that combined with recent Charter cases in the police powers context allows for flexible potentials, ones that could, on occasion, encroach on due process protections. The authors call for scholars and activists to keep a close eye on the emerging jurisprudence in this critical area of Charter adjudication.     

Mandatory Arbitration and Civil Litigation: An Empirical Study of Medical Malpractice Litigation in the West

This article looks at the effect that pretrial, statutorilyrequired screening panels in Nevada have had on medical malpracticelitigation. I use two unique data sets on litigation in Nevadaand neighboring states from 1983–88, during which theNevada legislature enacted screening panels. Applying time-seriesand difference-in-difference analyses, I show that observeddecreases in Nevada with respect to damage awards, attorney'sfees, and duration in litigation reflected a broader seculartrend. The panels did, however, reduce the relative probabilityof claims requiring resolution by the Nevada courts.     

Damage Caps and Civil Litigation: An Empirical Study of Medical Malpractice Litigation in the South

This article looks at the effect that damage caps have on plaintiffs'recovery in medical malpractice litigation, using a unique dataset of litigation in the South, from 1987 to 1999. During thistime, Alabama underwent both the implementation and nullificationof damage-cap laws; neighboring states did not undergo any significantlegal changes. The product of a difference-in-difference approach,the results reveal that the average relative recovery by Alabamaplaintiffs decreased by roughly $20,000 after the Alabama legislatureenacted damage caps and increased by roughly double that amountafter the Alabama Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional.     

论我国行政诉讼中民事诉讼规则之准用——兼评《行政诉讼法》第101条

大陆法系主要国家和地区出于立法技术上的考虑,普遍允许在行政诉讼中准用民事诉讼规则,并在准用方式上逐渐由概括准用向具体准用过渡。尽管我国《行政诉讼法》对此最初并未规定,但司法实践中一直通过前后两个司法解释的规定参照民事诉讼规则,直到新法第101条正式确立这一制度。但该条的问题在于:一是对可准用范围的不完全列举仍属于概括准用,需要法官、检察官耗费精力找法;二是适用的表述使得他们只能被动地援引法条,无法真正结合具体案情决定准用问题;三是旧法司法解释的准用性规则并未废止,在一定程度上制约了本条的适用。这有待未来出台专门司法解释对相关条款作明确列举,对相关表述作扩大解释,并确定各种规则的先后援引顺序。     

擎制与突围:法院受理环境公益诉讼案件动力机制的缺陷与重塑

理论界和实务界对环境公益诉讼的研究普遍忽视了法院/法官对于环境公益诉讼案件的认知与态度,当前法院与法官普遍对于环境公益诉讼持有保守与拒绝的态度,其原因在于法院受理环境公益诉讼案件的动力机制存在缺陷:法律依据不足、专门环境诉讼机制缺位,法院排斥群体性诉讼,环保法庭的制度突破难以获得法官群体的广泛认同.因此,必须从完善环境公益诉讼的法律依据、构建系统的环境诉讼机制体系、进行专业培训和环境问题的社会建构等几个方面开发与重塑法院受理环境公益诉讼案件的动力机制.     

Point and Counterpoint: A Discussion of Jury Research in the Civil Arena

Law and Human Behavior -     

Two Fatal Cases of Hidden Pneumonia in Young People*

Abstract: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a severe lung disease characterized by inflammation of the lung parenchyma leading to impaired gas exchange. This condition is often lethal, usually requiring mechanical ventilation and admission to an intensive care unit. We present two fatal cases of hidden pneumonia in young people and discuss the pathophysiological mechanism of ARDS with reference to the histological pattern. A complete forensic approach by means of autopsy and histological, immunohistochemical, and microbiological, examination was carried out. In both cases the cause of death was cardio‐respiratory failure following an acute bilateral pneumonia with diffuse alveolar damage and ARDS associated with sepsis and disseminated intravascular coagulation. Our cases suggest on one side the importance of an early diagnosis to avoid unexpected death while on the other that the diagnosis of ARDS has to be confirmed on the basis of a careful postmortem examination and a complete microscopy and microbiological study.     

诉判一致案件抗诉的可行性之探析

对诉判一致的案件能否提起抗诉有各自的理论依据,各诉讼主体在实践中都有自己的立场冲突和困惑。在处理这类案件时,应当注意有错必纠和抗诉必要的综合把握,注意有利于被告人原则的运用,起诉错误的案件不能抗诉,原审判决出现新证据不宜一律抗诉。     

诉讼行为界定标准重述——兼论与私法行为的区别

对诉讼行为的界定学界历来存有争议,传统的＂要件效果说＂和＂效果说＂已经不能适应民事诉讼法学的发展要求,＂主要效果说＂应运而生,在当事人行为的效果同时规定于诉讼法和实体法时,应当视当事人行为的主要效果属于何种法域来界定其行为的性质。但＂主要效果说＂并非完美,并没有具体解释何为主要效果？何为次要效果？应当对其进行修正,即将当事人行为的效力分为基础效力和附随效力,其判断的标准就是该行为是否对诉讼程序具有依赖性。如果该项当事人行为对诉讼程序具有依赖性,即离开诉讼程序就不会产生任何预期的效果,则其基础效力就归属于诉讼法领域,该当事人行为就属于诉讼行为。     

环境公益诉讼激励机制的法律构造——以传统民事诉讼与环境公益诉讼的当事人结构差异为视角

当事人结构对诉讼激励的法律构造有着决定性影响。诉讼当事人结构有表层结构和深层结构之分。在民事诉讼中,表层结构以当事人之间的对抗为其基本特征,决定着诉讼收益的有无;深层结构则表现为当事人在功能上的"三位一体",决定着诉讼收益的归属。二者共同作用,使得民事诉讼的激励机制内嵌于诉讼制度本身,激励着当事人的全部诉讼行为。环境公益诉讼当事人结构的差异,不仅表现在表层结构上从对抗走向协作,而且表现在深层结构上"三位一体"的破裂,从而形成社会公众、环境公益诉讼原告以及原告律师三者之间的双层委托代理关系,环境公益诉讼的激励困境由此产生。双层委托代理关系中高昂代理成本的存在决定了原告律师应成为环境公益诉讼的激励对象,而"败诉方负担规则"因同时具备正诉激励、滥诉预防与行为矫正三重功能而成为激励律师的最佳举措。     

Thirty Years of Social Science in Supreme Court Criminal Cases*

The Supreme Court early took note of extralegal, “social science” materials in Muller v. Oregon (1908), and a half-century later made specific reference to social science authorities in the famous footnote 11 of Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Since Brown, much has been written about the Supreme Court's use of social science research evidence, but there has been little systematic study of that use. Those writing on the subject commonly focus on areas of law such as jury size, where social science has been used, and have generally assumed that social science information has been utilized in Supreme Court decisions with increasing regularity. Surprisingly little is known, however, about either the justices' baseline use of social science authorities, or many other aspects of their uses of social science information. The focus here is on the citation of social science research evidence in a sample of 240 criminal cases decided during the 30 years between the Supreme Court's 1958 and 1987 Terms. The resulting portrait contributes to a fuller understanding of the justices' use of social science materials, and may ultimately help promote more effective utilization of social science research evidence in Supreme Court decisions.