Limitations on Restriction on Qualification for Participation in Tendering Procedures by Public Institutions - Critical Notes on the 2017du39365 Case of the Korean Supreme Court -

2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 3-34
Author(s):  
Jun-Gen Oh
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Institutions ◽  
Critical Notes

scholarly journals Addressing the Senate’s “Triple-Deficit”: The Senate as Driver of its own Reform

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Dodek
Keyword(s):  
Public Participation ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Institutions ◽  
Democratic Deficit ◽  
Democratic Institutions ◽  
The People ◽  
Legal Foundation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Obvious Reason ◽  
History Of

Instead of arguing for or against a “Triple-E” Senate, I argue that, whatever one’s position on the Senate (short of abolition), the Senate suffers from a “Triple Deficit”: (1) an integrity deficit; (2) a legitimacy deficit; and (3) a democratic deficit. It suffers from an integrity deficit because of the reputation that the Senate has for not being a particular demanding job, and, more importantly, because of recent scandals that are a continuation of a history of scandal which the Senate has never taken concrete steps to address. The Senate suff ers from a legitimacy deficit because of the integrity deficit and because of its history of patronage appointments. Finally, it suffers from a democratic deficit for more than the obvious reason that it is unelected. As the Supreme Court stated in the Quebec Secession Reference, democracy as it has come to be understood in Canada means more than simply respect for majority will: “to be accorded legitimacy, democratic institutions must rest, ultimately, on a legal foundation.  That is, they must allow for the participation of, and accountability to, the people, through public institutions created under the Constitution.  The system must be capable of refl ecting theaspirations of the people.” Rather than allowing for public participation and accountability, the Senate has allowed itself to become isolated from the Canadian people. This sense of isolation has exacerbated the Senate’s democratic deficit and has led Canadians to view it as distant, elitist, andout of touch with the people.

Malpractice & Negligence: State Supreme Courts Limit Therapists’ Duties to Third Parties

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 204-205
Author(s):  
Megan Cleary
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Abuse ◽  
Child Sexual Abuse ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
New Hampshire ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
State Supreme Courts ◽  
Recovered Memories ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Repressed Memory ◽  
University Of Colorado

In recent years, the law in the area of recovered memories in child sexual abuse cases has developed rapidly. See J.K. Murray, “Repression, Memory & Suggestibility: A Call for Limitations on the Admissibility of Repressed Memory Testimony in Abuse Trials,” University of Colorado Law Review, 66 (1995): 477-522, at 479. Three cases have defined the scope of liability to third parties. The cases, decided within six months of each other, all involved lawsuits by third parties against therapists, based on treatment in which the patients recovered memories of sexual abuse. The New Hampshire Supreme Court, in Hungerford v. Jones, 722 A.2d 478 (N.H. 1998), allowed such a claim to survive, while the supreme courts in Iowa, in J.A.H. v. Wadle & Associates, 589 N.W.2d 256 (Iowa 1999), and California, in Eear v. Sills, 82 Cal. Rptr. 281 (1991), rejected lawsuits brought by nonpatients for professional liability.

Malpractice & Negligence: Cal. Supreme Court Clarifies Negligence Provisions under State’s Elder Abuse Act

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-203
Author(s):  
Kendra Carlson
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Elder Abuse ◽  
Skilled Nursing Facility ◽  
Pressure Sores ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Nursing Facility ◽  
Skilled Nursing ◽  
The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of California held, in Delaney v. Baker, 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 610 (1999), that the heightened remedies available under the Elder Abuse Act (Act), Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 15657,15657.2 (West 1998), apply to health care providers who engage in reckless neglect of an elder adult. The court interpreted two sections of the Act: (1) section 15657, which provides for enhanced remedies for reckless neglect; and (2) section 15657.2, which limits recovery for actions based on “professional negligence.” The court held that reckless neglect is distinct from professional negligence and therefore the restrictions on remedies against health care providers for professional negligence are inapplicable.Kay Delaney sued Meadowood, a skilled nursing facility (SNF), after a resident, her mother, died. Evidence at trial indicated that Rose Wallien, the decedent, was left lying in her own urine and feces for extended periods of time and had stage I11 and IV pressure sores on her ankles, feet, and buttocks at the time of her death.

Antitrust: U.S. Supreme Court Affirms FTC Jurisdiction but Vacates Scope of Analysis on CDA Policy

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-198
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Zakhary
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Trade Commission ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Antitrust Analysis ◽  
Business Financing ◽  
The U.S

In California Dental Association v. FTC, 119 S. Ct. 1604 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that a nonprofit affiliation of dentists violated section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), 15 U.S.C.A. § 45 (1998), which prohibits unfair competition. The Court examined two issues: (1) the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) jurisdiction over the California Dental Association (CDA); and (2) the proper scope of antitrust analysis. The Court unanimously held that CDA was subject to FTC's jurisdiction, but split 5-4 in its finding that the district court's use of abbreviated rule-of-reason analysis was inappropriate.CDA is a voluntary, nonprofit association of local dental societies. It boasts approximately 19,000 members, who constitute roughly threequarters of the dentists practicing in California. Although a nonprofit, CDA includes for-profit subsidiaries that financially benefit CDA members. CDA gives its members access to insurance and business financing, and lobbies and litigates on their behalf. Members also benefit from CDA marketing and public relations campaigns.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document