The Recent Developments in Custody Law for Muslims in Israel: Gender and Religion

Hawwa ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moussa Abou Ramadan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Capacity ◽  
Best Interest ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
Guardianship Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Back Door ◽  
Supreme Court Rulings

AbstractIn this paper we explore how Shari‘a Courts cope with the issue of custody, in light of two Supreme Court rulings concerning custody cases, in which the regional Shari‘a court suspected the mother of living a Christian way of life. The article aims at discerning the debate between the Shari‘a Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court concerning the Legal Capacity and Guardianship Law and rulings in the issue of child custody, and at proposing an alternative line of interpretation that would help avoiding the debate. The article argues that Shari‘a courts have embarked on a “purification” process, removing secular elements from their legal discourse, both at the rhetoric and symbolic levels, and thus excluding any affinity to secular legislation. The Legal Capacity and Guardianship Law is a main focus of those “purification” efforts. This raises the question of why the Supreme Court actually reversed only so few Shari‘a court rulings. We suggest that it did not have to do so. Though explicitly not basing its rulings on civil law, the Shari‘a Court of Appeals actually imported the principle of the child’s best interest through the back door, by considering it to be a principle acknowledged by Shari‘a. The court reinterpreted religious legal literature and in fact Islamized Israeli law, in the sense of turning an Israeli legal principle into an Islamic one. Another softening of what appears to be a rigid position held by the Shari‘a court may be discerned in its rulings that allow drawing on social workers’ reports in order to determine a child’s best interest.

Constitutional Law in 1942–1943: The Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1942

1944 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 266-288
Author(s):  
Robert E. Cushman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
West Coast ◽  
The United States ◽  
Japanese American ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Right

On February 15, 1943, Wiley B. Rutledge, Jr., a judge of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, took the seat on the Supreme Court vacated by the resignation in October, 1942, of Mr. Justice Byrnes. There were no other changes in the Court's personnel. Disagreement among the justices abated somewhat. In only a dozen cases of importance did either four or three justices dissent, as against some thirty cases in the last term. The Court overruled two earlier decisions, both recent; and the reversal in each case was made possible by the vote of Mr. Justice Rutledge.A. QUESTIONS OF NATIONAL POWER1. WAR POWER-CIVIL VERSUS MILITARY AUTHORITYWest Coast Curfew Applied to Japanese-American Citizens. In February, 1942, the President issued Executive Order No. 9066, which authorized the creation of military areas from which any or all persons might be excluded and with respect to which the right of persons to enter, remain in, or leave should be subject to such regulations as the military authorities might prescribe. On March 2, the entire West Coast to an average depth of forty miles was set up as Military Area No. 1 by the Commanding General in that area, and the intention was announced to evacuate from it persons of suspected loyalty, alien enemies, and all persons, aliens and citizens alike, of Japanese ancestry.

Sperry Corp. v. United States

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-90
Author(s):  
Rose Cecile Chan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
World Trade ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Fifth Amendment ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Circuit

Plaintiffs, Sperry Corp. and Sperry World Trade Inc. (Sperry), received an award from the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (Tribunal). Upon payment of the award, the United States deducted 2 percent of the total amount pursuant to a directive license issued by the Secretary of the Treasury regarding recovered claims by U.S. nationals against Iran. When plaintiffs challenged the authority of the Treasury to make the deduction and the United States Claims Court announced a preliminary ruling that concurred with plaintiffs’ position, the Executive persuaded Congress to approve legislation authorizing specified percentages to be deducted by the United States from Tribunal awards to U.S. citizens. Responding to the plaintiffs’ challenge to the constitutionality of the newly enacted statute, the United States Claims Court dismissed the suit and, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (per Meyer, J.) reversed and held: that the deduction constitutes a taking without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In September 1988, the United States filed notice of appeal with the Supreme Court.

scholarly journals Retiring Forum Non Conveniens

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maggie Gardner
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
New York University ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
Scope Of Application

92 New York University Law Review 390 (2017)When it comes to transnational litigation in the federal courts, it is time to retire the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The doctrine, which allows judges to decline jurisdiction in cases they believe would be better heard in foreign courts, is meant to promote international comity and protect defendant fairness. But it is not well-designed for the former purpose, and given recent developments at the Supreme Court, it is dangerously redundant when it comes to the latter. This Article seeks to demythologize forum non conveniens, to question its continuing relevance, and to encourage the courts and Congress to narrow its scope of application so that, when the time is right, it may be fully interred.

scholarly journals Fiduciary Law and the Constructive Trust: Perfecting the Fiduciary Undertaking

2012 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ciara Toole
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Fiduciary Duty ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Best Interest ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Fiduciary Obligations ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
Fiduciary Relationships

Two recent unanimous decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada in Galambos v Perez and Alberta v Elder Advocates of Alberta Society have narrowed and refreshed the requirements for recognizing fiduciary relationships and obligations. All fiduciary obligations must be founded by an undertaking, either express or implied, on the part of the fiduciary to act in the best interest of the beneficiary. At the heart of the fiduciary obligation, the undertaking of a fiduciary may also serve as a foundation for the goals of fiduciary accountability. The developing “Galambos approach” remains incomplete in its application in this regard. In the spirit of Galambos and Elder Advocates, I propose that the undertaking of the fiduciary can provide principled guidance in the availability of gain-based relief for breach of fiduciary duty. Particularly, I suggest that the imposition of a constructive trust as proprietary gain-based relief may be rationalized under the objective of perfecting or enforcing the fiduciary undertaking. To demonstrate my proposal, I investigate three example undertakings and breaches of fiduciary duty in which the fiduciary acquires property through the breach of duty. By grounding this overall discussion towards a conceptual remedial goal of enforcing the fiduciary’s undertaking, Galambos may spark the development of a principled approach to understanding both the making and the breach of fiduciary obligations.

The International Sale of Goods

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridge Michael
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Standard Form ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Letter Of Credit ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
International Sale Of Goods ◽  
Credit Contracts

The fourth edition of this text on all aspects of international trade law has been updated to incorporate and analyse the major recent developments, both in English law and contracts under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). As well as contract law, the book also covers property matters and addresses those issues which arise from the use of documents of title, such as marine bills of lading. There is extensive treatment of the rights and duties of both the buyer and the seller, and sale contracts are considered alongside other contracts such as charter parties and letter of credit contracts. The CISG material has been significantly developed in this fourth edition and there is more extensive treatment of such matters as remedies, passing of property, standard form contracts, and the international dealing of commodities. The major developments in the case law are examined, most notably further developments on interpretation and implied terms in the Supreme Court, bunkers litigation, and the implications for the compensatory principle following the Supreme Court decision in Bunge SA v Nidera NV (2015).

Constitutional Law in 1949–1950

1951 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-109
Author(s):  
Robert J. Harris
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
The United States ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Supreme Court

There were two changes in the personnel of the Supreme Court during the 1949 term. Attorney General Tom C. Clark was sworn in as an Associate Justice to succeed the late Justice Frank Murphy on August 24, 1949, after his nomination by President Truman had been approved on August 19 by a vote of 73 to 8. Judge Sherman Minton of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals was nominated to be an Associate Justice on September 15, 1949, to succeed Justice Wiley Rutledge. His nomination was approved by the Senate on October 4 by a vote of 48 to 16, and he was sworn in on October 12. During much of the term Justice Douglas was absent as the result of an accident incurred during the preceding summer recess. The loss of Justices Murphy and Rutledge greatly weakened the liberal alignment of the Court and very positively influenced the decision of a number of doubtful cases contrary to precedents of a recent date.

Recent Developments in Canadian Aboriginal Law: Overview of Case Law and of Certain Principles of Aboriginal Law

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 319-350
Author(s):  
Patricia Ochman
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Treaty Rights ◽  
Aboriginal Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Aboriginal Law

AbstractThe author reviews the most recent judgments rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada and certain provincial courts, in order to provide an update in the sphere of Aboriginal law practice in Canada, destined mainly for foreign lawyers and academics. Throughout the review of those recent judgments, the author provides an overview of certain key principles and concepts of Canadian Aboriginal law. Besides providing an overview of recent judgments in the sphere of Aboriginal law, the author seeks to illustrate how meaningful the protection and recognition of Aboriginal rights and treaty rights are in practice, through the overview of key concepts and principles of Canadian Aboriginal law and how they were recently interpreted by Canadian courts. The author briefly addresses Canada's vote against the adoption of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Justiciability of Paraguay’s Claim of Treaty Violation

1998 ◽  
Vol 92 (4) ◽  
pp. 697-704 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori Fisler Damrosch
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. Government’s position asserting nonjusticiability of the treaty claims raised by Paraguay in the domestic and international lawsuits is disturbing. The Government’s amicus filings at the court of appeals and the Supreme Court denied that Paraguay’s claims belonged in federal court (or indeed in any court at all); at die International Court of Justice, the United States admitted a treaty violation but denied the competence of that tribunal to enter a judicial remedy. At one or another phase of these proceedings, the U.S. Government pressed a variety of arguments that (if accepted) would rule out virtually any judicial consideration of a treaty-based claim. The haste with which the Supreme Court denied a stay in Breard’s case foreclosed adequate consideration of the justiciability of such claims in domestic courts and also effectively barred Paraguay from achieving the relief it sought on the international plane.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document