Mass Digitization of Chinese Court Decisions

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-201
Author(s):  
Benjamin L. Liebman ◽  
Margaret E. Roberts ◽  
Rachel E. Stern ◽  
Alice Z. Wang
Keyword(s):  
Court Decisions ◽  
Mass Digitization ◽  
Chinese Court

scholarly journals Mass Digitization of Chinese Court Decisions: How to Use Text as Data in the Field of Chinese Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin L. Liebman ◽  
Margaret Roberts ◽  
Rachel E. Stern ◽  
Alice Z. Wang
Keyword(s):  
Court Decisions ◽  
Chinese Law ◽  
Mass Digitization ◽  
Chinese Court

Trust law in Chinese courts: judicial decisions as data (2001–2017)

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (7) ◽  
pp. 761-775 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jian Qu
Keyword(s):  
Court Decisions ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Citation Practice ◽  
Trust Law ◽  
Chinese Court

Abstract Trust law was transplanted into China nearly two decades ago, but how has it been applied by the Chinese courts? The answer may be found in relevant judgments. This study collected accessible Chinese court decisions related to trusts, and, relying on this, the citation practice of Trust Law in courts can be analyzed chronologically, and intensively applied articles can be singled out. Thus, this study intends to use these judicial documents, as data and as individual cases, to examine the role that the Chinese Trust Law has played in the judicial field since its enactment in 2001.

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

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.

The Sogdian envoy Maniach and his namesakes in China

2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-197
Author(s):  
Wang Ding
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Characters ◽  
Written Form ◽  
Chinese Court

AbstractChinese sources document foreign names with phonetic transcriptions and render them in Chinese characters with close, or at least approximate, sound value. Among the Sogdians who were active at the Chinese court of the 6th century there were two persons named He Zhuruo and An Weiruo respectively. The etymology of both names can now be tentatively identified with Maniach, the name which was recorded in a Byzantine source, being that of a Sogdian envoy to Constantinople. Hence the original written form of Zhuruo and Weiruo can be restored with the spelling Moruo. The reason for these misspellings goes back to the graphic similarity of the concerned characters. Some further emendations of similar kinds are also proposed.

MENIMBANG PRINSIP ”DUTY OF CARE”: ‘PEMBELI’ MELAWAN ‘PEMBELI’ DALAM SENGKETA JUAL BELI TANAH

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 99
Author(s):  
Widodo Dwi Putro ◽  
Ahmad Zuhairi
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
Legal Standing ◽  
Physical Data ◽  
Agrarian Law ◽  
Land Sale

ABSTRAKSengketa jual beli tanah dalam perkara ini menyeret pihak penjual yang telah menjual objek yang sama kepada dua pembeli dalam dua kali transaksi. Pembeli kedua (penggugat) melayangkan gugatannya terhadap pembeli pertama (tergugat II). Posisi hukumnya dilematis. Kedua pembeli sama-sama merasa mempunyai hak atas tanah sengketa karena telah membeli objek yang sama dari penjual. Untuk membuktikan siapa pembeli yang berhak, hakim perlu mempertimbangkan asas "iktikad baik" (good faith), sebagai dasar untuk menentukan pembeli yang patut mendapat perlindungan hukum. Permasalahannya, kedua pembeli sama-sama mengklaim dirinya adalah pembeli yang beriktikad baik. Sehingga, untuk menilai siapa pembeli yang patut mendapat perlindungan hukum, hakim berpegangan pada prinsip duty of care, dengan mempertimbangkan siapa pembeli yang berhati-hati dan cermat memeriksa data yuridis dan data fisik sebelum dan saat jual beli dilakukan. Prinsip duty of care ini bersifat abstrak, maka metode penulisan yang digunakan, menelusuri dan mengkaji pendapat para ahli hukum perdata dan agraria untuk didialogkan dengan putusan-putusan hakim. Perkembangan putusan-putusan pengadilan mengenai pembeli beriktikad baik yang mengadopsi prinsip duty of care, seharusnya menjadi 'pegangan' para hakim dalam menangani kasus yang serupa, untuk menilai kapan pembeli dikategorikan sebagai pembeli beriktikad baik.Kata kunci: iktikad baik, perlindungan hukum, duty of care, data yuridis dan fisik.ABSTRACTThe dispute of land sale and purchase in this case drag the seller who had sold the same object to two buyers in two transactions. The second buyer (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against the first buyer (defendant II). Its legal standing created a dilemma. Both buyers felt equally entitled to be the owner of the disputed land, which is the same object purchased from the seller. In providing evidence of the most eligible buyer, the judge should take into consideration the principle of "good faith" as the basis for determining the buyer deserving legal protection. The problem is that both buyers claimed that they were buyers of good faith. Therefore, to appraise which buyer deserving the legal protection, the judges adhered to principle of "duty of care" by taking into account which one of them was carefully and meticulously reading-through the juridical and physical data prior to and during the sale and purchase of the land was conducted. Given the abstract nature of the principle of "duty of care" the analysis method used in this discussion is exploring and studying the opinions of the experts of civil and agrarian law as to be juxtaposed with the decisions of the judges. The development of court decisions related to the issue of good faith buyers adopting the principle of "duty of care" should serve as a reference for the judges in handling similar cases to determine a good faith buyer.Keywords: good faith, legal protection, duty of care, juridical and physical data.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document