Supreme Court Amicus Brief (Merits Stage) of Civil Procedure and Securities Law Professors in Support of Petitioner, Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. IndyMac MBS, Inc., No. 13-640

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Freeman Engstrom
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Public Employees ◽  
Securities Law ◽  
Retirement System ◽  
Law Professors

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ADMINISTRATIVE, CONSTITUTIONAL, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW PROFESSORS URGING REVERSAL AND SUPPORTING PETITIONERS In 19-1434 & 19-1452 (U.S. Supreme Court)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua D. Sarnoff ◽  
Alan B. Morrison ◽  
Robert L. Glicksman ◽  
Dmitry Karshtedt ◽  
Mark A. Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Amicus Curiae ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Law Professors

Victory Island Public Employees' Retirement System

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Wurtzebach ◽  
John McMahan
Keyword(s):  
Public Employees ◽  
Retirement System

Summary Procedures in Israel and Abroad

1967 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 210-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernst Livneh
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
European Institutions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
History Of ◽  
New Israel ◽  
Rules Of The Game ◽  
Summary Procedure

The new Israel Civil Procedure Rules, 1963 re-enact in rr. 269–82, with certain amendments, rr. 241–50 of the Palestinian Civil Procedure Rules, 1938 dealing with “Summary Procedure on Specially Endorsed Statement of Claim”, which in their turn were a colonial version of Order XIV of the English Rules of the Supreme Court. A glance at some recent judgments in Israel shows a surprising number of cases in which doubts have arisen as to the application and scope of the Summary Procedure in general and the defendant's right to be heard in particular. One may wonder whether litigants and lower courts quite understand the rules of the game or whether the game is after all not as easy as might be expected of a summary procedure. And indeed, compared with institutions in continental Europe, where scores of thousands of claims are disposed of without discussion and complaint, our Summary Procedure seems inelegant and burdensome on plaintiff and defendant alike. It is the object of this study to compare it, and the procedure under the English Order XIV, with those European institutions. In view of the gap between Anglo-Israel and Continental notions of civil procedure it may be useful also to sketch the history of the various forms of action, viz. the (summary) trial by documents, the non-litigious executory instruments and the conditional command to pay.

scholarly journals Reference-Based Benefits for Colonoscopy and Arthroscopy: Large Differences in Patient Payments Across Procedures but Similar Behavioral Responses

2018 ◽  
Vol 77 (3) ◽  
pp. 261-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy T. Brown ◽  
Chaoran Guo ◽  
Christopher Whaley
Keyword(s):  
Cost Sharing ◽  
Lower Cost ◽  
Claims Data ◽  
Ambulatory Surgery ◽  
Public Employees ◽  
Ambulatory Surgery Centers ◽  
Retirement System ◽  
Outpatient Procedures ◽  
Out Of Pocket Payments ◽  
Surgery Center

This study examines how reference-based benefits (RBB) affect patient out-of-pocket payments across outpatient procedures. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) implemented RBB asymmetrically for outpatient procedures in 2012, only applying RBB to outpatient procedures performed in a hospital outpatient department (HOPD), and not applying RBB to outpatient procedures performed in a lower cost ambulatory surgery center. Using claims data (2009-2013) on arthroscopy and colonoscopy services, we found that for colonoscopy, CalPERS patients paid an average of 63.9% ( p < .01) more for HOPDs than ambulatory surgery centers in 2012. For arthroscopy, no statistically different cost sharing was found on average. However, high-priced HOPDs were 17.3% and 17.9% less likely to be chosen by CalPERS patients in 2012 for colonoscopy and arthroscopy, respectively. These magnitudes increased in 2013 to 25.2% and 24.2% less, respectively. Overall, responsiveness to RBB with regard to the most expensive HOPDs was similar despite varying cost sharing by procedure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document