scholarly journals Investors´ protection in the U.S.: the issue of mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts between investors and brokerage/advisory firms

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 520-536
Author(s):  
DÉBORA CHAVES MARTINES FERNANDES
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
American Literature ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Securities Market ◽  
Middle Ground ◽  
Arbitration Clause ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
The U.S

Abstract This paper proposes a review of the American literature, as well as the main rulings of Supreme Court of United States, aiming to map the pros and cons of inserting a mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clause in contracts between investors and brokerage/advisory firms that trade on the securities market. The study discusses some proposals to banish this sort of clause and some ideas to reach a middle ground solution.

Questions

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
James L. Gibson ◽  
Michael J. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
African Americans ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Public Support ◽  
The United States ◽  
Future Research ◽  
White Americans ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
The U.S

We have investigated the differences in support for the U.S. Supreme Court among black, Hispanic, and white Americans, catalogued the variation in African Americans’ group attachments and experiences with legal authorities, and examined how those latter two factors shape individuals’ support for the U.S. Supreme Court, that Court’s decisions, and for their local legal system. We take this opportunity to weave our findings together, taking stock of what we have learned from our analyses and what seem like fruitful paths for future research. In the process, we revisit Positivity Theory. We present a modified version of the theory that we hope will guide future inquiry on public support for courts, both in the United States and abroad.

scholarly journals Immunizing the Flock: How the Pandemic Court Rewrote Religious Freedom

Laws ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 12
Author(s):  
Paul Baumgardner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
The United States ◽  
Religious Practices ◽  
The Past ◽  
The U.S

When coronavirus began to descend upon the United States, religious freedom advocates across the country sounded the alarm that citizens’ religious practices and institutions were under threat. Although some of the most extreme arguments championed by these advocates were not validated by our legal system, many were. This article explores the underappreciated gains made by religious freedom advocates before the U.S. Supreme Court over the past year. As a result of the “Pandemic Court”, religious freedom in the United States has been rewritten. This promises to radically change the educational, employment, and health prospects of millions of Americans for the rest of the pandemic and long afterwards.

scholarly journals Ewolucja instytucji sędziów pokoju w Stanach Zjednoczonych

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 39
Author(s):  
Ewa Gmurzyńska
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Tendency ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
American Democracy ◽  
Modern Times ◽  
Justices Of The Peace ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
The U.S

<p class="Normalny1">This article presents a history and development of the institution of justices of the peace in the United States from the beginning of formation of American democracy until modern times. It presents jurisdiction, the scope of the activities and the role of justices of the peace in several states through different periods of times. It includes a thorough discussion concerning pros and cons of justices of the peace in the U.S. legal system and general tendency of declining the institution of justices of the peace in modern times. The article includes also a discussion of the major court decisions concerning justices of the peace.</p>

scholarly journals U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Habeas Case Brought by Guantánamo Bay Detainee Challenging His Continuing Detention

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (4) ◽  
pp. 849-855
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Past Time ◽  
Guantanamo Bay ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
September 11 Attacks ◽  
The U.S

On June 10, 2019, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in a case in which the D.C. Circuit held that the United States could continue to detain an individual at Guantánamo Bay until the cessation of the hostilities that justified his initial detention, notwithstanding the extraordinary length of the hostilities to date. The case, Al-Alwi v. Trump, arises from petitioner Moath Hamza Ahmed Al-Alwi's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of his continued detention at the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay. The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari was accompanied by a statement by Justice Breyer observing that “it is past time to confront the difficult question” of how long a detention grounded in the U.S. response to the September 11 attacks can be justified.

Jam v. International Finance Corp. (U.S. Sup. Ct.)

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 646-663 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Perkins ◽  
Sally Pei
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Finance ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Critical Importance ◽  
The U.S

On February 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Jam v. International Finance Corp., a case of critical importance for international organizations. The question presented in Jam was whether U.S. law affords international organizations absolute immunity from suit in the United States, or whether international organizations instead are entitled to only the more limited or “restrictive” immunity that applies to foreign sovereigns under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

APPLICATION THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PRINCIPLE OF SOCIAL STATE

10.12737/903 ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-81
Author(s):  
Владимир Сафонов ◽  
Vladimir Safonov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Social State ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The U.S

The article reveals the problem of applying the principle of the social state in the practice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court

1988 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 1109-1127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory A. Caldeira ◽  
John R. Wright
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Amicus Curiae ◽  
Organized Interests ◽  
Using Data ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Selection Of

Participation as amicus curiae has long been an important tactic of organized interests in litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court. We analyze amicus curiae briefs filed before the decision on certiorari and assess their impact on the Court's selection of a plenary docket. We hypothesize that one or more briefs advocating or opposing certiorari increase the likelihood of its being granted. We test this hypothesis using data from the United States Reports and Briefs and Records of the United States Supreme Court for the 1982 term. The statistical analysis demonstrates that the presence of amicus curiae briefs filed prior to the decision on certiorari significantly and positively increases the chances of the justices' binding of a case over for full treatment—even after we take into account the full array of variables other scholars have hypothesized or shown to be substantial influences on the decision to grant or deny.

International Tin Council v. Amalgamet Inc.

1988 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 837-840
Author(s):  
Steven R. Ratner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Legal Process ◽  
Arbitration Clause ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
York County

Petitioner, International Tin Council (ITC), brought an action to stay an American Arbitration Association arbitration that was initiated by respondent, Amalgamet Inc., and that arose out of petitioner’s refusal to honor three contracts for the purchase of tin from respondent. Petitioner claimed that it was immune from suit in the United States by virtue of its status as an international organization under British law, and, in the alternative, that the arbitration clause in its contract with respondent was unenforceable. The Supreme Court of New York County (per Parness, J.) dismissed the petition, and held that petitioner lacked any basis under U.S. law for immunity from legal process and that petitioner had consented to the arbitration clause providing for arbitration in New York.

The U.S. Supreme Court: Garcia V. Texas

2012 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-53
Author(s):  
David P. Stewart
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The U.S

On July 7, 2011, the United States Supreme Court declined to stay the execution of Humberto Leal García, a Mexican national who had been convicted some sixteen years ago in Texas of murder.1 Relying on the decision of the International Court of Justice (‘‘ICJ’’) in the Avena case,2 García contended that the United States had violated his right to consular notification and access under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (‘‘Consular Convention’’).3 He sought the stay so that the U.S. Congress could consider enactment of proposed legislation to implement the ICJ decision.4 In a 5-4 decision, the Court rejected his argument, stating that ‘‘[t]he Due Process Clause does not prohibit a State from carrying out a lawful judgment in light of unenacted legislation that might someday authorize a collateral attack on that judgment.’’5 García was executed by lethal injection that evening.

scholarly journals Elonis v. United States: The Doctrine of True Threats: Protecting Our Ever-Shrinking First Amendment Rights in the New Era of Communication

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-223
Author(s):  
Mary Margaret Roark
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
New Era ◽  
The Public ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The U.S

The First Amendment protects one of our most precious rights as citizens of the United States—the freedom of speech. Such protection has withstood the test of time, even safeguarding speech that much of the population would find distasteful. There is one form of speech which cannot be protected: the true threat. However, the definition of what constitutes a "true threat" has expanded since its inception. In the new era of communication—where most users post first and edit later—the First Amendment protection we once possessed has been eroded as more and more speech is considered proscribable as a "true threat." In order to adequately protect both the public at large and our individual right to free speech, courts should analyze a speaker’s subjective intent before labeling speech a "true threat." Though many courts have adopted an objective, reasonable listener test, the U.S. Supreme Court now has the opportunity, in deciding Elonis v. United States, to take a monumental step in protecting the First Amendment right to free speech. By holding that the speaker’s subjective intent to threaten is necessary for a true threat conviction, the Court will restore the broad protection afforded by the First Amendment and repair years of erosion caused by an objective approach.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document