scholarly journals Law reports for psychiatrists

2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 308-314
Author(s):  
Hugh Series
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Psychiatric Practice ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Medical Work ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
Judicial Reasoning ◽  
Law Reports ◽  
Civil Courts

SummaryThe article briefly describes the structure of the civil courts in England and Wales and explains how laws are drafted. This information is used as a basis for understanding the rule of precedent: how earlier court decisions may be binding in later cases. The article explains what law reports are, how cases are reported in the legal literature and how they may be located and cited. A number of key cases are summarised to illustrate the process of judicial reasoning and to show how case law contributes to psychiatric practice and defines the legal structure of medical work. A list of useful legal websites is given.

Judicial review and environmental law —is there a coherent view of standing?

Legal Studies ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Hilson ◽  
Ian Cram
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Pressure Groups ◽  
Environmental Materials ◽  
Action Model ◽  
Judicial Reasoning ◽  
Law Reports ◽  
Domestic Law

In this article we examine the issue of the standing of individuals and pressure groups in judicial review proceedings, with particular emphasis on standing in planning and environmental law litigation. We begin by developing a particular conception of liberalism to justify a broad, ‘citizen action’ model of standing. The article then proceeds to examine English domestic law on access to the courts against the background of this liberal model.It is right to say at the outset that the choice of planning and environmental materials is not intended to point up issues in standing which are exclusive to that context. Instead, our purpose is to make some more general arguments about standing in public law and then, through an examination of case law in planning/environmental litigation–which features relatively frequently in the law reports–to test for coherence and contradiction in the judicial reasoning there encountered

Use of the uncrc in Family Law Cases in England and Wales

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 500-518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Gilmore
Keyword(s):  
Family Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Law Reports

This article presents quantitative and qualitative findings of an analysis of 130 domestic family law cases in England and Wales reported in the Family Law Reports in which, as of April 2017, the uncrc had been cited. Data are presented on the scope and frequency of citation of Articles of the uncrc, together with an analysis of the various ways in which the uncrc has been used in the case law.

Openlaws.eu

2017 ◽  
pp. 173-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Lampoltshammer ◽  
Andres Guadamuz ◽  
Clemens Wass ◽  
Thomas Heistracher
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Legal Information ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Open Framework ◽  
Fundamental Building Block ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
Legal Texts ◽  
Public Decision

Legal texts represent a fundamental building block in all democratic states. As such, legal information must be accessible to all members of society to the widest possible extent, to aid inclusiveness and to enable participation in public decision-making. In recognition of this, the EU and its Member States work to make laws, court decisions, etc. publicly available online. The sheer mass of legal norms, instruments, and interpretations in court decisions, commentaries and other sources, makes it increasingly difficult for citizens, civil society, businesses, and all involved stakeholders in legal practices to locate the relevant law. The challenge is to interlink local legal information and to have structures in place to enrich this information through aggregation and mass customization. The technological possibilities to achieve this goal do exist. The European project openlaws.eu aims for initiating a platform and to develop a vision for Big Open Legal Data (BOLD): an open framework for legislation, case law, and legal literature from across Europe.

scholarly journals Sytuacja prawna jednostki w normatywnej koncepcji „wspólnot gruntowych”

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-65
Author(s):  
Wojciech Drobny
Keyword(s):  
Public Administration ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
The Rich ◽  
Civil Courts

The article presents the legal structure of land communities in the context of the 2015 amendment. The rights and obligations of co-owners of communities and the procedure of public administration bodies in these matters are presented accordingly. The considerations are illustrated with the rich case law of administrative and civil courts.

Standardy należytego uzasadnienia w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego i Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

2014 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Reasoning ◽  
The Right

The core function of the judiciary is the administration of justice through delivering judgments and other decisions. The crucial role for its acceptance and legitimization by not only lawyers, but also individulas (parties) and the hole society plays judicial reasoning. It should reflect on judge’s independence within the exercise of his office and show also judicial self-restraint or activism. The axiology and the standards of proper judicial reasoning are anchored both in constitutional and supranational law and case-law. Polish Constitutional Tribunal derives a duty to give reasoning from the right to a fair trial – right to be heard and bring own submissions before the court (Article 45 § 1 of the Constitution), the right to appeal against judgments and decisions made at first stage (Article 78), the rule of two stages of the court proceedings (Article 176) and rule of law clause (Article 2), that comprises inter alia right to due process of law and the rule of legitimate expactation / the protection of trust (Vertrauensschutz). European Court of Human Rights derives this duty to give reasons from the guarantees of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of European Convention of Human Rights. In its case-law the ECtHR, taking into account the margin of appreciation concept, formulated a number of positive and negative requirements, that should be met in case of proper reasoning. The obligation for courts to give sufficient reasons for their decisions is also anchored in European Union law. European Court of Justice derives this duty from the right to fair trial enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Standards of the courts reasoning developed by Polish constitutional court an the European courts (ECJ and ECtHR) are in fact convergent and coherent. National judges should take them into consideration in every case, to legitimize its outcome and enhance justice delivery.

What are the duties of an outgoing trustee?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Alexander ◽  
Michael Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Royal Court ◽  
Trust Company

Abstract The recent case of Geneva Trust Company SA v D and Ors [2020] JRC 104 has served to shed interesting new light on the duties of outgoing trustees regarding disclosure of documents and information (in other words, trust records) by a retiring trustee to a new trustee. The general principles of Jersey law in this area are relatively well-defined, as per the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 (the Trusts Law) and a not inconsiderable body of case law derived from the Royal Court in Jersey as well as of the courts of England and Wales. However, it is useful to both professional trustees and legal practitioners alike when the Court provides further elucidation. The Geneva Trust Company case centred around the transfer of trust records for the D Discretionary Trust (the DDT) from the former trustee, Geneva Trust Company SA (formerly known as Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees SA) (the Former Trustee) to the current joint trustees, Fort Trustees Limited and Balchan Management Limited (collectively, the Current Trustees).

Revisiting the risk of undesired appeal in investment treaty arbitration: is deference to the tribunal’s award still less likely in the ICSID context?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander J Marcopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration ◽  
The Way

Abstract Although they are generally not subject to appeal the way court decisions typically are, investor-State arbitration awards can be reviewed—and potentially set aside—in a number of ways and on various bases. In this respect, investor-State arbitration under the auspices of ICSID is notable in that it provides a self-contained system for the review of arbitral awards by ICSID-appointed ad hoc committees. In the period 2000–2010, this feature of the ICSID system attracted criticism as ad hoc committees appeared to be overreaching in their review of arbitral awards, exercising less deference to the tribunal’s decisions than what would be expected given the narrow bases for setting aside an award under the ICSID Convention. This article revisits the issue 10 years later, exploring whether ICSID practice has evolved in these areas and whether there remains a greater risk of unexpected de novo review by ICSID ad hoc committees. Looking at recent ICSID annulment decisions as well as the case law of arbitration-friendly jurisdictions, the article concludes that although the ICSID ad hoc committees have recently shown more restraint, they continue to interfere more with the tribunal’s reasoning and decisions than many courts exercising the same function.

Proportionality under Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello: Clarifying their Relationship

2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raphaël van Steenberghe
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Military Operation ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Military ◽  
The Relationship

Proportionality is a condition provided under both jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Based on a particular interpretation of state practice and international case law, recent legal literature argues that the two notions of proportionality are interrelated in that proportionality under jus in bello is included in the assessment of proportionality under jus ad bellum. This article seeks to refute such a position and, more generally, to clarify the relationship between the two notions of proportionality.The main argument of the article is in line with the traditional position regarding the relationship between jus ad bellum and jus in bello. It is argued that, although sharing common features and being somewhat interconnected, the notions of proportionality provided under these two separate branches of international law remain independent of each other, mainly because of what is referred to in this article as the ‘general versus particular’ dichotomy, which characterises their relations. Proportionality under jus ad bellum is to be measured against the military operation as a whole, whereas proportionality under jus in bello is to be assessed against individual military attacks launched in the framework of this operation.This article nonetheless emphasises the risk of overlap between the assessments of the two notions of proportionality when the use of force involves only one or a few military operations. Indeed, in such situations, the ‘general versus particular’ dichotomy, which normally enables one to make a distinct assessment between the two notions of proportionality, is no longer applicable since it becomes impossible to distinguish between the military operation as a whole and the individual military attacks undertaken during this operation.

scholarly journals Asymmetric cross-citations in private law: An empirical study of 28 supreme courts in the EU

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2110146
Author(s):  
Sabrina D’Andrea ◽  
Nikita Divissenko ◽  
Maria Fanou ◽  
Anna Krisztián ◽  
Jaka Kukavica ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Study ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Reciprocal Relationship ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Mixed Result ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Ease Of Access ◽  
The Eu

Recent years have seen a growing volume of research on citations between courts from different countries. This article fills a gap in the current literature by presenting and analysing cross-citations between the highest domestic courts responsible for matters of private law in the EU from 2000 to 2018. It addresses two main questions: first, to what extent do judges cite foreign case law in their decisions? Second, what may explain the varying levels of engagement of supreme courts with foreign case law? Our findings offer a mixed result as to the nature and frequency of such cross-citations. Overall, we identify 2984 cross-citations; yet, only in few instances do we find a reciprocal relationship between the supreme courts of two countries, while more generally an asymmetric picture emerges. The article also discusses whether problems with the ease of access to court decisions may partly be responsible for limitations in the use of cross-citations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document