Judicial Impact and Factual Allegations: How the Supreme Court Changed Civil Procedure through the Plausibility Standard

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morgan L.W. Hazelton
1967 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 210-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernst Livneh

The new Israel Civil Procedure Rules, 1963 re-enact in rr. 269–82, with certain amendments, rr. 241–50 of the Palestinian Civil Procedure Rules, 1938 dealing with “Summary Procedure on Specially Endorsed Statement of Claim”, which in their turn were a colonial version of Order XIV of the English Rules of the Supreme Court. A glance at some recent judgments in Israel shows a surprising number of cases in which doubts have arisen as to the application and scope of the Summary Procedure in general and the defendant's right to be heard in particular. One may wonder whether litigants and lower courts quite understand the rules of the game or whether the game is after all not as easy as might be expected of a summary procedure. And indeed, compared with institutions in continental Europe, where scores of thousands of claims are disposed of without discussion and complaint, our Summary Procedure seems inelegant and burdensome on plaintiff and defendant alike. It is the object of this study to compare it, and the procedure under the English Order XIV, with those European institutions. In view of the gap between Anglo-Israel and Continental notions of civil procedure it may be useful also to sketch the history of the various forms of action, viz. the (summary) trial by documents, the non-litigious executory instruments and the conditional command to pay.


2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 348
Author(s):  
Mohammad Amir Hamzah

AbstractThe frst court and the appellate-level court serve as the judex facti, but there are different regulations about procedural law in HIR, RBG, and Law No. 20 of 1947. It causes high fling of cassation appeals. As a result, the Supreme Court is impaired in fostering and developing the (civil) law due to it being hectic from examining cases. Through reform of civil procedure law of the appellate­level court (PT), the court will be placed in the appropriate position as the means of fltering proceedings, so that not all cases can be fled for a cassation appeal. It is also the time to revoke Law No. 20 of 1947.IntisariPada dasarnya Pengadilan Negeri dan Pengadilan Tinggi diposisikan sebagai judex facti. Namun demikian, terdapat beberapa pengaturan mengenai hukum acara perdata mulai dari HIR, RBG hingga UU No.20 Tahun 1947 yang mengatur hal tersebut secara berbeda. Akibatnya, pengajuan kasasi meningkat sehinggamengganggu fokus Mahkamah Agung melaksanakan fungsi pembinaan hukum. Seharunya pengadilan banding diposisikan sebagai penyaring sehingga tidak semua kasus dapat diajukan ke banding dan kasasi. Selain itu, melalui pembaharuan hukum ini juga UU Nomor 20 Tahun 1947.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Billingsley

Alberta’s law of civil procedure, and summary judgment in particular, has experienced a culture shift since the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling in Hryniak v. Mauldin. This article asks whether litigation directed toward a conventional trial is now, or is soon to be, a thing of the past. Although intended to revive traditional trials as a realistic and timely resolution option, it is impossible to say yet if this will be Hryniak’s legacy in Alberta. Three things are clear in post-Hryniak Albertan jurisprudence, however: first, the Hryniak test governs the determination of summary judgment applications in Alberta; second, Alberta courts have embraced the call for proportionality in litigation procedure; and third, the Hryniak culture shift creates uncertainty for Alberta litigants.


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 16
Author(s):  
K. Tjukup ◽  
P.R. A. Potra ◽  
P.A.H. Martana

The procedural  law  of Class Action  is  a legal  concept  known  in  the Anglo-Saxon  legal  system  (Common  Law). Whilst  this  concept  is  not  recognised   in  the  Continental  European  legal  system  (Civil  Law),  likewise  in  Indonesian  civil procedure  that based on Herzien Inlandsch Reglement (H.I.R) and Rechtsreglement  voor de Buitengewesten  (RBg). Initially, the procedural  law of class action in Indonesian  legal  system was arranged consecutively under Law No. 23 of 1997  (Environmental Protection  Law), Law No.  8  of  1999  on Consumer Protection  and Law No. 41 of  1999  on Forestry.  The arrangement  of class action lawsuit  in the substantive  law was inspired by the recognition  of class action lawsuit  in the United  States through Article 23 of the US Federal  Rule of Civil Procedure  prescribing  that the requirements  for filing class action  lawsuit are as follows: numerosity,  commonality, typicality,  and adequacy of representation.  In Indonesia there is no procedural  law setting out the class action  lawsuit,  thus  Supreme  Court  Regulation   No.   1      of  2002  was  enacted.  The  replacement   of Law  No.  23  of  1997 (Environmental  Protection Law) by Law No. 32 of 2009 (Environmental  Protection and Management Law) allows the application of the class action with reference to this Supreme Court Regulation.  The arrangement of class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court Regulation No.  1    of 2002 still  encounters many challenges in its application.  The initial process i.e. certification  is very decisive whether the lawsuit  can be accepted  or is  qualified  as a class action lawsuit. In conjunction with this, the judges'  active role is very  important  whilst  waiting  for a specific  and adequate  legislation  to establish  the class action  procedure.  Meanwhilst,  the judges  are supposed to patch up the Supreme Court Regulation No. 1   of 2002.  Keywords:  Environmental Disputes, Procedural Law,  Class Action Lawsuit


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 21
Author(s):  
Syahrul Sajidin

Court beside as a judicial institution, have other function to give public service. One of the good and excellent services is realized by the existence of a simple service procedure. One of the most highlighted is that there are still many trial agendas that are considered unnecessary to be delivered directly in front of the panel of judges (during the hearing). Some of these stages include the agenda for reading answers, replicating and duplicating. So that from some of these backgrounds it is necessary to examine the urgency of simplifying the civil procedure law in Indonesia. From the description of the background of the research, the formulation of the problem can be arranged as follows, what is the urgency of simplifying the session agenda by submitting the answers, replicating and duplicating in writing and how is the simplifi  cation of the Civil Procedure Law in supporting the implementation of the judicial principle fast, simple and low-cost?. Simplification of civil procedural law is expected to be able to reduce the hours of the trial so that with fewer trial agendas the session becomes effective and efficient. In order for the simplification of civil procedural law to be able to bring maximum results, the Supreme Court needs to prepare several things. With the stages of building the system, managing the system, utilizing technology, increasing the role of the business world, developing HR capacity and implementing development in a systematic and measurable manner.


Media Iuris ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 200
Author(s):  
Ajrina Yuka Ardhira ◽  
Ghansham Anand

Mediation is a duty which must be taken by the parties wishing to settle its dispute in the Court as specified in the Civil Procedure Code and in accordance with Article 130 HIR and 154 RGB. To improve the regulation of mediation in the Court, the Supreme Court shall issue its Regulation, namely the Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2016 on Mediation Procedures in the Court. Where the regulations on mediation as stipulated in the Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2016 use good faith in its formal conditions. And with such a condition the Supreme Court expects the success rate of mediation in the first level to increase so as to reduce the number of cases accumulated at the Supreme Court. Good faith as a duty to the parties in the Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 Year 2016 is made clear in Article 7 paragraph (1), where there are legal consequences for parties that are considered not having good intentions by doing things listed in Article 7 paragraph (2) , namely Article 22 for the plaintiff and Article 23 for the defendant. 


2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-180
Author(s):  
Atanas Ivanov

Abstract The right of the party concerned to a cassation appeal is result of specific inspection performed by the Supreme Court of Cassation where examined is the presence of conditions, foreseen in art. 280, par. 1 of Civil-Procedure Code. The right of cassation, however, shall incur from the presence of appellate judgment [1], and not from the specific inspection of Supreme Court of Cassation. The cassation appeal is submitted when the resolution is void, impermissible or inaccurate. This is why the right of cassation appeal is presented and guaranteed by the law opportunity of an individual to oblige Supreme Court of Cassation to rule on the first stage of cassation proceeding - the proceeding on allowing the cassation appeal estimating the statutory criteria in art. 280 of Civil-Procedure Code.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document