The 2007 Interpretation of the Supreme Court of China on contractual choice of law: Comments and analysis

SummaryThe distinction between formal and essential validity in Anglo-Canadian choice of law regarding marriage is an illogical bifurcation that unnecessarily invalidates same-sex relationships contracted in foreign jurisdictions. The Supreme Court of Canada has recently reformulated certain rules of private international law, taking into account both the constitutional and sub-constitutional imperatives inherent in a federal setting and the need for order and fairness when co-ordinating diversity in the face of increasing globalization. Reform of the choice of law rules regarding the validity of foreign marriages should proceed accordingly with the result being that a marriage valid where celebrated is valid everywhere. No principled reason exists to deny recognition to same-sex relationships validly contracted in other jurisdictions, nor to differentiate between the rights and obligations arising from the legal status of same-sex and different-sex relationships.

Download Full-text

Legal Ground of Choice of Law Agreement Permissibility in International Commercial Arbitration

RUSSIAN JUSTICE ◽

10.37399/issn2072-909x.2020.7.23-30 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 ◽

pp. 23-30

Author(s):

T. V. Novikova ◽

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Russian Federation ◽

Ad Hoc ◽

Civil Code ◽

Commercial Arbitration ◽

Choice Of Law ◽

International Commercial Arbitration ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Research Goal ◽

The Russian Federation

Problem statement. Specific nature of international commercial arbitration raises an issue whether in this case lex fori is capable to be the ground of choice of law agreement permissibility. Topicality of the issue is determined by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation explanation of 09 July 2019 to courts referring issues of choice of law permissibility to lex fori. Goals and tasks of the research. Goal – research of legal ground of choice of law permissibility in international commercial arbitration. Tasks: to study the ICAC approaches to choice of law acknowledgement; to advance a hypothesis on the influence of explanation by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in respect of article 1210 of the Russian Federation Civil Code to the ICAC practice and to draw a conclusion on the international commercial arbitration «procedural documents» provisions as the ground for it to acknowledge choice of law agreement. Methods. Methods of formal logic play a key role: analysis of the ICAC practice permitted to distinguish three approaches to choice of law agreement permissibility grounding; induction of ratio decidendi of the ICAC separate decisions – to draw a conclusion on the article 1210 of the Russian Federation Civil Code influence to the ICAC practice in general and on this basis to advance a hypothesis on possible influence of explanations by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in this respect; comparison of the international commercial arbitration rules – to draw a conclusion that these provisions are the ground of choice of law acknowledgement by the tribunal. Results, brief conclusion. Firstly, three approaches of the ICAC to the choice of law agreement permissibility grounding have been revealed and in each them the ICAC relies on the article 1210 of the Russian Federation Civil Code. As far as the article 1210 has an impact on choice of law permissibility grounding within the ICAC, explanations by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in respect of this article are capable to have a possible impact on the ICAC practice. Secondly, within the international commercial arbitration the choice of law agreement permissibility grounding should be based on provisions of its «procedural documents», e. g. national law on international commercial arbitration, rules of institutional arbitration or ad hoc arbitral tribunal, – these rules (but not conflict of laws addressed to courts of the state of the arbitration seat) could be considered as its peculiar lex fori.

Download Full-text

Territoriality and Choice of Law in the Supreme Court of Canada: Applications in Products Liability Claims

SSRN Electronic Journal ◽

10.2139/ssrn.2732669 ◽

1998 ◽

Author(s):

Catherine Walsh

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Supreme Court Of Canada ◽

Products Liability ◽

Choice Of Law ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Liability Claims

Download Full-text

Territoriality and Choice of Law in the Supreme Court of Canada : Applications in Products Liability Claims

New Developments in International Commercial and Consumer Law : Proceedings of the 8th Biennial Conference of the International Academy of Commercial and Consumer Law ◽

10.5040/9781472558787.ch-012 ◽

2014 ◽

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Supreme Court Of Canada ◽

Products Liability ◽

Choice Of Law ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Liability Claims

Download Full-text

Choice of Law and Jurisdiction in the Supreme Court

Columbia Law Review ◽

10.2307/1122225 ◽

1981 ◽

Vol 81 (5) ◽

pp. 960 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Alfred Hill

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Choice Of Law ◽

The Supreme Court

Download Full-text

Identification by the Сourt of Choice of Law Agreement Permissibility and Validity (in the Light of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Plenum Explanation of 9 July 2019)

RUSSIAN JUSTICE ◽

10.37399/issn2072-909x.2020.3.5-13 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 3 ◽

pp. 5-13

Author(s):

T. V. Novikova ◽

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Russian Federation ◽

Civil Code ◽

Theoretical Research ◽

Choice Of Law ◽

Conflict Of Laws ◽

Applicable Law ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The Russian Federation ◽

General Provision

Problem statement. Standard of choice of law by the parties to international contractual relations is set by article 1210 of the Russian Federation Civil Code, which nevertheless does not cover issues of choice of law agreement permissibility and validity. Goals and tasks of the research. Goal – analysis of legal foundation for the court to identify choice of law agreement permissibility and validity – in the light of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation plenum explanation of 09 July 2019. Tasks: review of approaches to identify choice of law agreement validity and criticism towards some of them; substantiation of delimitation made by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation between issues of choice of law agreement permissibility and validity; substantial analysis of identification by Russian courts of choice of law agreement permissibility. Methods. Methods of theoretical research are tools of formal logic, which include: analysis of the court procedure to approve the choice of applicable law, enabling to distinguish in its frames issues of permissibility and validity of such choice; deduction of basic conflict of laws logic to the court acknowledgement of choice of law agreement permissibility – on the ground of national conflict of laws rule. Methods of empirical study are based on identification and comparison of judicial acts of arbitration and regular courts – in respect of legal ground to identify choice of law agreement permissibility. Results, brief conclusion. Three basic options of legal ground to identify choice of law agreement permissibility and validity have been elaborated by jurisprudence: law of the court (lex fori); law chosen by the agreement of parties (lex voluntatis); law applicable to the substance of relation due to the conflict of laws rule (lex voluntatis). The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation formed a combined approach making delimitation between issues of choice of law agreement permissibility and validity as well as referring the first to lex fori and the second – to lex voluntatis. Identification of choice of law agreement permissibility by Russian courts on the basis of national conflict of laws rule (article 1210 of the Russian Federation Civil Code in combination with the general provision of its article 1186) corresponds in full extent to the settled judicial practice, complies with the basic conflict of laws logic and seems to be effective.

Download Full-text

Malpractice & Negligence: Cal. Supreme Court Clarifies Negligence Provisions under State’s Elder Abuse Act

The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics ◽

10.1017/s1073110500012973 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 27 (2) ◽

pp. 203-203

Author(s):

Kendra Carlson

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Health Care Providers ◽

Elder Abuse ◽

Skilled Nursing Facility ◽

Pressure Sores ◽

Care Providers ◽

Nursing Facility ◽

Skilled Nursing ◽

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of California held, in Delaney v. Baker, 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 610 (1999), that the heightened remedies available under the Elder Abuse Act (Act), Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 15657,15657.2 (West 1998), apply to health care providers who engage in reckless neglect of an elder adult. The court interpreted two sections of the Act: (1) section 15657, which provides for enhanced remedies for reckless neglect; and (2) section 15657.2, which limits recovery for actions based on “professional negligence.” The court held that reckless neglect is distinct from professional negligence and therefore the restrictions on remedies against health care providers for professional negligence are inapplicable.Kay Delaney sued Meadowood, a skilled nursing facility (SNF), after a resident, her mother, died. Evidence at trial indicated that Rose Wallien, the decedent, was left lying in her own urine and feces for extended periods of time and had stage I11 and IV pressure sores on her ankles, feet, and buttocks at the time of her death.

Download Full-text

Medical and Legal Issues Raised by the Protz Decision Issued by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2017.julaug03 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 22 (4) ◽

pp. 12-13

Author(s):

LuAnn Haley ◽

Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

Workers Compensation ◽

Sixth Edition ◽

Complex Concept ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Compensation Claims ◽

Recent Edition ◽

Impairment Ratings ◽

Definition Of

Abstract Pennsylvania adopted the impairment rating provisions described in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) in 1996 as an exposure cap for employers seeking predictability and cost control in workers’ compensation claims. In 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down the Protz decision, which held that requiring physicians to apply the methodology set forth in the most recent edition of the AMA Guides reflected an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the American Medical Association. The decision eliminates the impairment-rating evaluation (IRE) mechanism under which claimants were assigned an impairment rating under the most recent edition of the AMA Guides. The AMA Guides periodically are revised to include the most recent scientific evidence regarding impairment ratings, and the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, acknowledges that impairment is a complex concept that is not yet defined in a way that readily permits an evidence-based definition of assessment. The AMA Guides should not be considered standards frozen in time simply to withstand future scrutiny by the courts; instead, workers’ compensation acts could state that when a new edition of the AMA Guides is published, the legislature shall review and consider adopting the new edition. It appears unlikely that the Protz decision will be followed in other jurisdictions: Challenges to using the AMA Guides in assessing workers’ compensation claims have been attempted in three states, and all attempts failed.

Download Full-text