Dissecting intramural haematoma of the coronary artery with intimal tears.

A dissecting intramural haematoma of the coronary artery is an infrequent cause of sudden and unexpected death. Most cases are women and in a significant number of these women, the haematoma occurred at term to 80 days postpartum. Because the intimal rupture and communication with the lumen were not found in most of the cases, the site of rupture has been considered to be a vasa vasorum. The authors report on a case of one woman who was at a later postpartum period (106 days). The microscopic finding of the dissected coronary artery revealed two intimal tears in a section. The case showed that the dissecting intramural haematoma of the coronary artery is caused not only by the rupture of the vasa vasorum but also by the rupture of the intima.     

THE MPA CAPSTONE EXPERIENCE: FHE ESSENCE OF ANALYSIS IS SURPRISE

A final course, or project is a standard requirement in Master of Public Administration (MPA) programs. This requirement is intended to permit the student to demonstrate advanced ability in the discipline. This article examines one such course at Florida State University. The course included readings, exercises, oral presentations, and a written report. This author assesses the merits and drawbacks of the course as well as notes the unintended consequences that resulted. In concluding the article, the author makes several recommendations for future courses based on the experiences gained in the Florida state model.     

A Formal Theory of the Rule of Law*

Abstract
The author presents a relatively formal theory of the rule of law which includes three basic components: conceptual, institutional and axiological. He then emphasizes the differences between a formal and a substantive theory of the rule of law and highlights the advantages and limits of the former. Finally, the author indicates the importance of this type of theory, namely the values it implies such as predictability, justified reliance, autonomous choice, minimization of disputes and legitimacy.**     

Institutional Arrangements and the Dynamics of Agenda Formation in the U.S. Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals

The manner in which agenda change occurs demonstrates how institutional arrangements influence agenda priorities in the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals. A neo-institutional theoretic perspective is employed to examine the dynamics of agenda formation in these courts. The article finds that the Supreme Court's agenda choices influence the decisions of litigants, interest groups, and lawyers to appeal certain cases to the Courts of Appeals. While the Supreme Court's agenda primarily is influenced by internal factors, it is constrained by agenda changes in the appeals courts. Critically, it is shown that these federal appellate courts exist within an endogenous system with respect to agenda formation, as both courts respond to agenda changes made in the other over time.     

Workplace justice and employee worth

Distributive and procedural justice gain new meaning in light of other distinctions about how organizations value employees (the employees' “worth”). Fair compensation gives employees worth as achieved status: how the employee is like some employees (similarly rewarded) and not like others (dissimilarly rewarded). But employees also want to be treated uniquely as individuals and in other ways to be treated like all other employees, both reflecting worth as ascribed status. Such worth need not involve the distribution of outcomes; it can be gained if procedures function as ends in themselves. Different types of worth thus become the source of different criteria for justice. Based on a paper entitled “Justice as Worth,” which was prepared for the Third International Conference on Social Justice research (held in the Netherlands during July 1991).     

Do Lawyers Cause Adversarial Legalism? A Preliminary Inquiry

Cross-national case studies have indicated that compared to other economically advanced democracies, American methods of policy implementation and dispute resolution are more adversarial and legalistic, shaped by costly court action or the prospect of it. To what extent are lawyers responsible for creating American-style adversarial legalism? This article argues that while adversarial legalism stems primarily from enduring features of American political culture and governmental structure, the legal profession plays a significant independent role in promoting and perpetuating this mode of governance.