Identifying the Content Zones of German Court Decisions

This paper presents a study on the comprehensibility of rephrased syntactic structures in German court decisions. While there are a number of studies using psycholinguistic methods to investigate the comprehensibility of original legal texts, we are not aware of any study looking into the effect resolving complex structures has on the comprehensibility. Our study combines three methodological steps. First, we analyse an annotated corpus of court decisions, press releases and newspaper reports on these decisions in order to detect those complex structures in the decisions which distinguish them from the other text types. Secondly, these structures are rephrased into two increasingly simple versions. Finally, all versions are subjected to a self paced reading experiment. The ﬁndings suggest that rephrasing greatly enhances the comprehensibility for the lay reader.

Download Full-text

Whose World Heritage? Dresden’s Waldschlößchen Bridge and UNESCO’s Delisting of the Dresden Elbe Valley1

International Journal of Cultural Property ◽

10.1017/s094073911400006x ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 21 (2) ◽

pp. 199-223 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Douglas Schoch

Keyword(s):

Public Opinion ◽

Cultural Landscape ◽

World Heritage ◽

Court Decisions ◽

World Heritage List ◽

The World ◽

Public Opinion Polls ◽

Opinion Polls ◽

German Court

Abstract:This article examines the events leading up to, surrounding, and following UNESCO’s controversial removal of Germany’s Dresden Elbe Valley from the World Heritage List in 2009. At the heart of the controversy lay the construction of a new four-lane bridge, the Waldschlößchen Bridge, that would cut through scenic meadows, destroying long-protected vistas and changing the city’s cultural landscape. Although supported by German court decisions and local public opinion polls, the bridge has been denounced by many as an eyesore and an affront to the ideals of World Heritage. Yet despite the bridge, Dresden supposedly maintains World Heritage worthiness, even if it no longer enjoys that title. The author attempts to make sense of these contradictions in order to discover lessons applicable to the World Heritage program as a whole.

Download Full-text

The Eleventh Circuit Holds that Agreements in which Pharmaceutical Companies Pay Generic Companies Not to Compete May be Valid

The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics ◽

10.1017/s107311050000749x ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 32 (1) ◽

pp. 181-184

Author(s):

Amy Garrigues

Keyword(s):

Pharmaceutical Companies ◽

Court Decisions ◽

Patent Holder ◽

Trial Court ◽

Court Of Appeals ◽

The Us ◽

Antitrust Laws ◽

Per Se ◽

Appeals Court ◽

Two Sides

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.

Download Full-text