Emerging judicial autonomy and procedural due process in the PRC? An empirical study of China’s exclusionary rule

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-32
Author(s):  
Mark D Kielsgard
1981 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 451-493
Author(s):  
Nancy Elizabeth Jones

AbstractWhen a state Medicaid agency terminates its provider agreement with a skilled nursing facility, federal regulations give the state the option of providing a pretermination evidentiary hearing; they do not, however, require that a state provide such a hearing. If a state chooses not to grant a pretermination hearing, as a number of states have done, federal regulations require: (1) an informal written reconsideration made by the state and submitted to the skilled nursing facility before the effective date of the termination, and (2) a posttermination evidentiary hearing.This Article argues that a skilled nursing facility has a right under the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the U. S. Constitution to an evidentiary hearing before termination of its Medicaid provider agreement. The author claims that a skilled nursing facility's interest in continued receipt of Medicaid reimbursement under its provider agreement is a property interest entitled to constitutional due process protections, and not merely an expectation of economic benefit that does not implicate constitutional due process considerations.The Article concludes that, except in emergency situations, state Medicaid agencies are constitutionally required to grant a provider a pretermination, rather than a posttermination, evidentiary hearing. This procedure would protect the provider and its patients from the severe effects of an erroneous termination, while furthering the governmental interest in ensuring the health and safety of skilled nursing facility patients. The format for such a hearing should allow for the participation, with the assistance of counsel, of both the skilled nursing facility and its patients.


2005 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 457-475
Author(s):  
Henri Brun

Those who like to pay tax are few. Accordingly, income tax is often described as a shame. Of course, the right to enjoyment of property is at stake in the matters of taxation. And the collection of taxation involves also other aspects of the right to substantive and procedural due process of law : right to privacy, to be heard, to unbiassed decision, to professional secrecy... This article contrasts these rights, as they are expressed in sections 5 to 9 and 23 of the Charte des droits et libertés de la personne of Québec and section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, with sections 13 to 16 and 38 and following of the Loi sur le ministère du revenu of Québec and sections 159, 231 and 232 of the Canadian Income Tax Act. It finds that it is the application of the income tax law, more than the law itself, that threatens human rights. It concludes that the main benefit of both Charters of rights is to provide a shelter from such unreasonnable application


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document