In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: Brief of Interested Law Professors, as Amici Curiae, in Support of the Petition for Rehearing En Banc of Nejapa Holding Company Limited and Inkia Salvadorian Power

The debate surrounding the legalization of assisted suicide has been galvanized in recent years by reports of specific cases of assisted suicide, primarily involving physicians such as Kevorkian and Quill, and by impassioned pleas for legalization and assistance in suicide from individuals suffering in the throes of terminal or agonizing diseases, such as Sue Rodriguez. Media attention on criminal trials of individuals accused of assisting in a suicide has heightened public awareness of the issue. The constitutionality of criminal prohibitions on assisted suicide has been tested in various jurisdictions, and has recently been considered by the Supreme Courts of both the United States and Canada. Following two narrowly unsuccessful attempts to enact dignified death provisions by referenda in Washington and California, Oregon voters passed the first of such proposed laws in November 1994, providing for physician-assisted suicide under certain specified conditions. Attempts to introduce legislation to legalize assisted suicide in other jurisdictions have been galvanized by the success in Oregon. A model statute has been drafted by a group of law professors, philosophers and medical professionals.

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

American Political Science Review ◽

10.2307/1950166 ◽

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.

Zedan v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.2307/2203519 ◽

1988 ◽

Vol 82 (4) ◽

pp. 828-830

Author(s):

Edward M. Leigh

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Saudi Arabia ◽

Direct Effect ◽

District Of Columbia ◽

The United States ◽

Telephone Call ◽

District Court ◽

Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia ◽

Court Of Appeals ◽

American Citizen

Plaintiff Zedan, an American citizen, brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for breach of a contract guaranteeing wages and profits. While performance under the contract occurred in Saudi Arabia, plaintiff alleged that the jurisdictional requirements under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (28 U.S.C. §§1330, 1602-1611 (1982)) (FSIA) were satisfied by a recruitment call in California from a representative of the royal overseer of a private Saudi company. The district court granted the Saudi motion to dismiss. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (per Silberman, J.) unanimously affirmed and held: (1) that the telephone call did not have the requisite substantiality of contact with the United States; (2) that it was not sufficient to form the basis of a cause of action; and (3) that the alleged breach did not have sufficient direct effect in the United States to satisfy the exceptions to immunity under the FSIA.

United States v. Stuart

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.2307/2203382 ◽

1989 ◽

Vol 83 (4) ◽

pp. 918-923

Author(s):

Daniel M. Price

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

The United States ◽

Good Faith ◽

District Court ◽

Criminal Prosecution ◽

Justice Department ◽

Court Of Appeals ◽

Canadian Law ◽

History Of ◽

The U.S

In response to a request by Canadian tax authorities under the United States-Canada Double Taxation Convention (Convention), the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued summonses to obtain U.S. bank records concerning certain accounts of respondents, Canadian citizens whose Canadian tax liability was under investigation. Respondents sought to quash the summonses, arguing that because under 26 U.S.C. §7609(b) the IRS is prohibited by U.S. law from using its summons authority to obtain information about a U.S. taxpayer once a case is referred to the Justice Department for prosecution, and because the tax investigation of respondents was part of a Canadian criminal investigation, the IRS should be precluded from using its summons authority to honor the Canadian request under the Convention. Unsuccessful in the district court, respondents prevailed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that under the “good faith” standard applicable to enforcement of domestic summonses, the IRS may issue a summons pursuant to a Convention request only if it first determines and makes an affirmative statement to the effect that the Canadian investigation has not reached a stage analogous to a Justice Department referral by the IRS. The U.S. Supreme Court (per Brennan, J.) reversed, and held: (1) that if the summons is issued in good faith, it is enforceable regardless of whether the Canadian request is directed toward criminal prosecution under Canadian law; and (2) neither United States law nor anything in the text or the ratification history of the Convention supports the imposition of additional requirements. Justice Kennedy (joined by O’Connor, J.), concurring in part and in the judgment, filed a brief opinion to state his view that it is unnecessary to decide whether Senate preratification materials are authoritative sources for treaty interpretation. Justice Scalia, concurring in the judgment, wrote separately to oppose the use of such materials in treaty construction.

Fraud and Abuse: United States ex rel Merena v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.; United States ex rel Spear v. SmithKline Beecham Clinical Lab.; United States ex rel Grossenbacher v. SmithKline Beecham Clinical Lab.

The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics ◽

10.1111/j.1748-720x.2000.tb00013.x ◽

2000 ◽

Vol 28 (2) ◽

pp. 191-193 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Allyson Behm

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Health Care ◽

Health Care Providers ◽

Laboratory Tests ◽

The United States ◽

Care Providers ◽

Individual Analysis ◽

Court Of Appeals ◽

The Third ◽

The Government

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that when quitam relators file a multi-claim complaint under the Fraudulent Claims Act (FCA), their share of the proceeds must be based on an individual analysis of each claim. More importantly, the court held that relators are not entitled to any portion of the settlement of a specific claim if that claim was subject to dismissal under section 3730(e)(4) Relator Merena filed a quitam suit against his employer, SmithKline Beecham (SKB), claiming, among other things, that SKB defrauded the government by billing for laboratory tests that were not performed, paying illegal kickbacks to health care providers, and participating in an “automated chemistry” scheme. Soon thereafter, additional relators filed suit.

Sperry Corp. v. United States

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.2307/2202794 ◽

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.

Lee v. Dong-A Ilbo

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.2307/2202795 ◽

1989 ◽

Vol 83 (1) ◽

pp. 90-94

Author(s):

Sonya D. Winner

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

The United States ◽

Korean American ◽

District Court ◽

Public Television ◽

Court Of Appeals ◽

South Korean ◽

Official Report ◽

Foreign Governments ◽

Summary Judgment

In 1985 two intelligence agencies of the South Korean Government announced that they had successfully disrupted a North Korean spy ring operating in the United States. Their press release, which was widely publicized in the Korean press, named Chang-Sin Lee as a North Korean agent associated with a spy ring at Western Illinois University, where Lee had been a student. The story was picked up and reported in the United States by six Korean-American newspapers and a public television station. When Lee sued for libel, the defendants relied upon the official report privilege, which gives absolute protection to the accurate republication of official government reports. The district court, holding that the privilege applied and that Lee had not overcome it by showing malice, dismissed the case. Plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which in a two to one decision reversed (per Ervin, J.) and held: that the official report privilege does not apply to the republication of official reports of foreign governments. Judge Kaufman, sitting by designation, dissented from the majority’s reversal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

Coda as Brief

Modernism and the Meaning of Corporate Persons ◽

10.1093/oso/9780198868873.003.0007 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 214-240

Author(s):

Lisa Siraganian

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Contemporary Literature ◽

The United States ◽

Mechanical Parts ◽

Court Of Appeals ◽

The University ◽

Hobby Lobby

“A corporation has convictions as a person has mechanical parts.” Jena Osman, “The Beautiful Life of Persona Ficta” (2014)1 Appeal No. 17-1001-CR IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE UNIVERSITY CIRCUIT Contemporary LITERATURE Appellant v. Burwell v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. 573 US (2014)...