5. State Courts | ScienceGate

Abstract The current version of the Squire state court of last resort professionalization index is regularly used in studies of state courts. We have updated the index for 2019, producing a second and more recent index. Given the relative stability between this index and its predecessor, it is unlikely that many findings will change. During the 15 years that lapsed between the first index and the more recent one, little changed in most states, while reforms in a few places substantially shifted the relative standing of their court of last resort. It seems unlikely that the nation will experience any sweeping reform movements impacting state courts of last resort across the board. The more likely scenario is the sort of idiosyncratic changes impacting a few courts that were witnessed over the last decade and a half. Thus, looking to the future, it may be prudent to update the index every 5–10 years to capture any notable alterations.

Download Full-text

Jurisdiction of Arbitrators and State Courts over Conduct Constituting Both a Contract Violation and an Unfair Labor Practice

Harvard Law Review ◽

10.2307/1337473 ◽

1956 ◽

Vol 69 (4) ◽

pp. 725

Keyword(s):

State Courts ◽

Unfair Labor Practice ◽

Contract Violation

Download Full-text

State Pleading Rule Defeats Federal Right: Courts. State Courts. State Court Trying FELA Suit Cannot Defeat Federal Right by Applying Local Rule of Pleading

Stanford Law Review ◽

10.2307/1225951 ◽

1950 ◽

Vol 2 (3) ◽

pp. 594 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Keyword(s):

State Courts ◽

State Court ◽

Local Rule

Download Full-text

ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS IN ARBITRAL AWARDS: ENFORCEMENT IN EUROPE

The Cambridge Law Journal ◽

10.1017/s0008197315000859 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 74 (3) ◽

pp. 412-415

Author(s):

Ewelina Kajkowska

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Member State ◽

State Courts ◽

The European Union ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

The Status ◽

Recognition And Enforcement ◽

The Relationship ◽

Brussels Regulation

THE status of anti-suit injunctions in Europe has long given rise to controversy. The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-536/13, Gazprom OAO [2015] All E.R. (EC) 711 sheds a new light on the relationship between anti-suit injunctions and the European jurisdiction regime embodied in the Brussels Regulation (Regulation No. 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters). In this much anticipated judgment, the Court of Justice confirmed that, by virtue of the arbitration exclusion in Article 1(2)(d) of the Brussels Regulation, Member State courts are not precluded from enforcing anti-suit injunctions issued by arbitration tribunals and aimed at restraining the proceedings before Member State courts. Although the decision was given before the Recast Brussels Regulation came into force (Regulation No. 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, effective from 10 January 2015), it can be assumed that the same conclusion would have been reached under the new law.

Download Full-text

From Rogers to Rivers: The Rights of the Mentally Ill to Refuse Medication

American Journal of Law & Medicine ◽

10.1017/s0098858800006080 ◽

1987 ◽

Vol 13 (1) ◽

pp. 7-52

Author(s):

Ellen Wright Clayton

Keyword(s):

Mental Illness ◽

Psychotropic Drugs ◽

Mentally Ill ◽

United States Supreme Court ◽

Federal Courts ◽

State Courts ◽

Court Decisions ◽

Marked Contrast ◽

Patients Rights ◽

Treatment Refusals

AbstractMany individuals with mental illness wish to avoid psychotropic drugs, a type of treatment that may relieve their symptoms only at the risk of unpleasant, even permanent, side effects. In marked contrast to the widely-held view that most patients may refuse any treatment and that even patients with mental illness may reject other psychoactive interventions such as electroconvulsive therapy and psychosurgery, the courts and legislatures have been slow to recognize any right to refuse psychotropic drugs. This Article demonstrates that many of the justifications offered for forcing patients to take unwanted medications are inadequate and that unless treatment refusals are reviewed outside mental institutions, patients’ rights will rarely receive appropriate deference. The author analyzes the federal and state litigation to determine whether the courts have fashioned meaningful relief for the mentally ill. The Article concludes that two recent United States Supreme Court decisions have made it impossible for the federal courts to provide adequate protection. By contrast, several state courts have responded to the needs and rights of patients with mental illness.

Download Full-text