Notes on the Constitution of the United States. Showing the Construction and Operation of the Constitution as Determined by the Federal Supreme Court, and Containing References to Illustrative Cases from the Inferior Federal Courts and State Courts

1904 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 566
Author(s):  
William A. Sutherland
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Federal Supreme

United States Supreme Court Rules on Expert Testimony

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 95 (6) ◽  
pp. 934-936 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary N. McAbee
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Us Supreme Court

Many medical and legal commentators have expressed concern about the validity of scientific evidence that is proffered by expert witnesses at depositions and in courts of law.1,2 The sparse research that is available on the testimony of medical expert witnesses suggests that it is frequently flawed and erroneous.3 On June 28, 1993, the United States (US) Supreme Court ruled on the proper standard for admissibility of scientific evidence in the courtroom.4 Although the ruling establishes guidelines that are binding only in federal courts, it is expected that many state courts will follow the Court's ruling. This commentary reviews the Court's guidelines for admissibility of expert testimony, and expresses concern about their applicability in future cases involving scientific testimony.

How Courts Structure State-Level Representation

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan P. Kastellec
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Median Voter ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Structure State ◽  
The Relationship

I examine how courts condition the relationship between state-level public opinion and policy. The system of federalism in the United States allows federal and state courts to establish the types of policies that states are constitutionally allowed to implement. In particular, federal courts can set “federal floors” for policy, below which no states can go. State courts, in turn, can raise the level of this floor. Thus, both federal and state courts shape whether state policy can match the preferences of the median voter in a given state. Analyzing data on public opinion, judicial decisions, and state-level policy on the issue of abortion, from 1973 to 2012, I show that changes in the set of allowable abortion restrictions, according to the combined decisions of state and federal courts, significantly affect whether states implement majority-preferred policies. I also show that ignoring the influence of courts on the policymaking environment significantly affects the estimated level of policy congruence and thus conclusions about the scope of representation. These results demonstrate the importance of placing courts in the larger study of state-level representation.

Pendent Jurisdiction in Australia—Section 32 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976

1979 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. M. C. Gummow
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Statutory Law ◽  
The Future

The Federal Court of Australia has only the jurisdiction conferred on it by statute. However, many disputes falling within that jurisdiction, particularly in trade practices matters, will also involve elements of common law or other State or federal statutory law. Section 32 invests in the Federal Court additional jurisdiction in some such cases in respect of “associated matters”. This may be compared with “pendent jurisdiction” developed by the federal courts in the United States. The object of this article is to analyse the meaning of the term “associated matters” and to consider the bearing it has upon the future relationship between the Federal Court and the various State courts.

scholarly journals THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA AND THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - A CENTENARY REFLECTION

2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-78
Author(s):  
Michael J Kirby CMG
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
First Century ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
High Court Of Australia ◽  
Federal Supreme

In October 2003 in Melbourne, the High Court of Australia celebrated the centenary of its first sitting.  According to the Australian Constitution, it is the “Federal Supreme Court” of the Australian Commonwealth.1  Although the Constitution envisaged the establishment of the High Court, the first sitting of the new court did not take place until a statute had provided for the court and the appointment of its first Justices.  They took their seats in a ceremony held in the Banco Court in the Supreme Court of Victoria on 6 October 1903.  Exactly a century later, the present Justices assembled in the same courtroom for a sitting to mark the first century of the Court.

Procedure in Cases Involving Immunity of Foreign States in Courts of the United States

1931 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-96
Author(s):  
A. H. Feller
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
Procedural Complications ◽  
The Law

To the ever-increasing confusion of doctrine which makes up the law of sovereign immunity, the courts of the United States have added procedural complications which, though not as weighty, are nevertheless as puzzling as any of the substantive rules. Of recent years the United States Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts have often had occasion to consider the method whereby the question of immunity was raised. The result has been the evolution of a set of rules so vaguely defined in the decisions as to offer little guidance to the bench and bar, and withal of interest to the scholar who finds that these rules exist in no other judicial system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document