Did appeals court find university was negligent?

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 15-15
Author(s):  
Eric Lyerly
Keyword(s):  
2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 181-184
Author(s):  
Amy Garrigues

On September 15, 2003, the US. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that agreements between pharmaceutical and generic companies not to compete are not per se unlawful if these agreements do not expand the existing exclusionary right of a patent. The Valley DrugCo.v.Geneva Pharmaceuticals decision emphasizes that the nature of a patent gives the patent holder exclusive rights, and if an agreement merely confirms that exclusivity, then it is not per se unlawful. With this holding, the appeals court reversed the decision of the trial court, which held that agreements under which competitors are paid to stay out of the market are per se violations of the antitrust laws. An examination of the Valley Drugtrial and appeals court decisions sheds light on the two sides of an emerging legal debate concerning the validity of pay-not-to-compete agreements, and more broadly, on the appropriate balance between the seemingly competing interests of patent and antitrust laws.


2017 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 183-193
Author(s):  
Laura Rodríguez Galán

Resumen: el presente artículo muestra una visión sobre la complejidad de la traducción en el ámbito judicial con respecto al uso de glosarios terminológicos. En el marco de la Justicia es habitual que los traductores e intérpretes judiciales tengan que enfrentarse a toda clase de retos profesionales, por lo que han de estar lo suficientemente preparados, y los glosarios de terminología específica son un recurso de enorme utilidad que facilita la tarea traductora al servir de puente de comunicación entre los intermediarios de la Justicia y los ciudadanos que solicitan sus servicios (demandas, procesos judiciales, apelaciones, etc.), ya sea por vía escrita (traducción de documentos) u oral (interpretación de discursos). La principal hipótesis de la que partimos es la urgente necesidad de crear estos recursos específicos para los traductores e intérpretes que trabajan en el seno de la Justicia, y cuya carencia no hace sino incrementar las dificultades que, sin duda, estos profesionales poseen a la hora de realizar sus tareas de traducción, dada la escasa disponibilidad de tiempo para que puedan elaborar sus propios glosarios terminológicos de consulta. Con este estudio lo que se pretende es mostrar tanto las ventajas como las dificultades de la elaboración de glosarios. Por último, los resultados obtenidos confirman nuestra hipótesis de las ventajas que tiene el hecho de disponer de glosarios terminológicos específicos para el área jurídico-judicial que, sin lugar a dudas, facilitan las tareas de traducción en este ámbito de la Traducción e Interpretación en los Servicios Públicos.Abstract: the present paper shows a vision about the complexity of translation in judicial field concerning the use of terminological glossaries. In the context of Justice, it is common for judicial translators and interpreters to deal with all kinds of professional challenges. So, they must be sufficiently prepared. Glossaries of specific terminology are a resource very useful that facilitates translator’s task, by serving as a bridge of communication between intermediaries of Justice and citizens who request their services (appeals, court proceedings, lawsuits, etc.), either written (translation of documents) or oral (interpreting of speeches). The main starting hypothesis is the urgent need to create these specific resources for interpreters and translators working within the Justice, and whose lack only increases the difficulties that these professionals have, undoubtedly, when the time to perform their translation tasks, given the poor availability of time to produce their own terminological glossaries of consultation. With this study, to show advantages and difficulties of developing glossaries, that is the intention. Finally, results confirm our hypothesis of advantages to have available specific terminological glossaries in Legal-Judicial area which, undoubtedly, facilitate translation tasks in this context of Public Services Interpreting and Translation. 


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (11) ◽  
pp. 9-9
Author(s):  
Eric Lyerly
Keyword(s):  

1981 ◽  
Vol 2 (5) ◽  
pp. 5-7
Author(s):  
Jane Greenlaw

What is the responsibility of a hospital to protect the general public from an employee who may cause harm? Until recently, the answer to this question was simply “none“; hospitals were not seen as having any direct responsibility for the actions of employees. But this has changed, and the current trend is to hold a hospital directly responsible for the level of care received by its patients — the hospital must provide an ongoing system to monitor performance of employees as well as staff physicians.But what about acts of employees outside the hospital? Does a hospital have any obligation to anticipate when one of its employees poses a threat not on the job? This was the question addressed in a recent case before a California appeals court.


2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-44
Author(s):  
Roderick T. Chen ◽  
Alexandra K. Glazier

As more same-sex couples enter into civil unions and domestic partnerships, the courts and other institutions are beginning to consider the implications of these partnerships in several areas of the law. A Georgia appeals court, for example, recently published the first opinion addressing this issue, ruling that a civil union of two women, obtained in Vermont, was not equivalent to a marriage for the purposes of interpreting a child custody agreement entered into in Georgia. As many observers predicted, the enactment of legislation recognizing same-sex partnerships has profound implications on the practice of family law, trust and estate law and healthcare law.This Article focuses on an area of healthcare law in which the legal status of a civil union or domestic partnership could have significant consequences—organ donations. In particular, it explores whether a civil union or domestic partner is an appropriate party to consent to an organ donation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document