Courts. Power of Federal Court to Disregard State Law in Field Preempted by Federal Statute

1941 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 125 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Federal Court ◽  
State Law ◽  
Federal Statute

Unresolved Business: Federal Corporate Governance Enhancements

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc I. Steinberg
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Insider Trading ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Professional Conduct ◽  
State Law ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Tender Offers ◽  
Federal Level ◽  
Federal Statute

This chapter analyzes and recommends federal corporate governance enhancements that should be implemented. These enhancements, which should be adopted in a measured and directed manner, are necessary to remediate certain deficiencies that currently exist. Consistent therewith, this chapter focuses on several important matters that merit attention, including the undue deference by federal courts to state law, the appropriate application of federal law to tactics undertaken in tender offers, the need for a federal statute encompassing insider trading, and the propriety of more vigorous oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission (such as with respect to the “current” disclosure regime, the SEC’s Standards of Professional Conduct for Attorneys, and the Commission’s neglecting at times to invoke its statutory resources). Thus, the analysis set forth in this chapter identifies significant deficiencies that currently exist and recommends measures that should be implemented on the federal level to enhance corporate governance standards.

Some Recent French Decisions on the Relationship Between Treaties and Municipal Law

1955 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 347-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis C. Bial
Keyword(s):  
State Law ◽  
Constitutional Amendments ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
Federal Statute ◽  
The Relationship

The relationship between treaties and municipal law has been widely discussed in this country in recent years. The discussion, however, has been limited to the problems raised by the proposed Constitutional amendments. Thus, the possibility of a conflict between the Constitution and a treaty, or between a treaty and State law, has been debated, while the possibility of a conflict between a treaty and a Federal statute has been hardly ever mentioned.

Culpability Standards in Section 1983 Litigation Against Criminal Justice Officials: When and Why Mental State Matters

2001 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
John L. Worrall
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Mental State ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
State Law ◽  
The U.S

Title 42, Section 1983 of the U.S. Code provides a remedy in federal court for individuals who suffer constitutional rights violations at the hands of criminal justice officials. To succeed in a Section 1983 lawsuit, a plaintiff must demonstrate a constitutional violation by an official acting under color of state law. Recently, however, courts have begun to require that constitutional rights violations be committed with a certain level of culpability for a finding of liability, a development that has received little attention in the criminal justice literature. Accordingly, this article seeks to (1) sort out the important culpability issues associated with Section 1983 litigation, with particular reference to theories of liability, and (2) discuss the relevance of this inquiry for both academics and practitioners, calling attention to the problems the current multitude of culpability standards pose.

1 Courts and Foreign Affairs

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
The Political ◽  
State Law ◽  
Government Institutions ◽  
The Common ◽  
Political Question

This chapter provides an overview of some of the constitutional, statutory, and common law doctrines that govern the adjudication of foreign affairs–related disputes in the United States. These doctrines include requirements for federal court jurisdiction, “justiciability” limitations such as the political question doctrine, the Erie doctrine concerning federal court application of state law, and the common law “act of state” doctrine. The chapter also discusses more general interpretive principles such as the Charming Betsy canon of construction and deference to the executive branch. The chapter concludes by briefly describing the constitutional authority of U.S. government institutions other than the courts, including the situations in which state law that concerns foreign affairs will be preempted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document