The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and Section 339 of the Restatement of Torts: A Case Study of Opinion-Writing

1965 ◽  
Vol 113 (4) ◽  
pp. 563
Author(s):  
Henry A. Gladstone
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Opinion Writing

scholarly journals Deservingness in Judicial Discourse. An Analysis of the Legal Reasoning Adopted in Dutch Case Law on Irregular Migrant Families’ Access to Shelter

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Lieneke Slingenberg
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Migrant Families ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Discourse ◽  
Major Shift ◽  
New Interpretation ◽  
Irregular Migrant ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In September 2012, the Dutch Supreme Court upheld a judgment of the Hague Court of Appeal that the eviction from basic shelter of a mother and her minor children, who did not have legal residence in the Netherlands, was unlawful. This ruling was instigated by a radically new interpretation of the European Social Charter’s personal scope and caused a major shift in Dutch policy. This article provides a case study into the legal reasoning adopted by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. It argues that, instead of relying on legal doctrinal reasoning for justifying the outcome, both courts referred to factors that the general public relies on to assess people’s deservingness of welfare. This finding raises fundamental questions about the relationship between human rights law and deservingness; and calls, therefore, for further research into the relevance of deservingness criteria in judicial discourse.

Is There a Need for an Amending Power Theory?

1978 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claude Klein
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Power Theory ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Opinion Writing

In his case note on the famous Bergmann decision of the Supreme Court, Professor Akzin wrote: While the Court's conclusions seem to be perfectly justified and went so far as they could in the circumstances, the reasoning in its decision shows serious flaws… [others] seem to have sprung from the Court's unwillingness to look for help to the very thorough discussion of the issues by several Israeli scholars, notably Messrs. Sternberg, Akzin, Klinghoffer and Rubinstein. The dignity of the Court would not have suffered if the opinion-writing judge had taken a look at academic writing in a case where precedents offer little or no guidance.These remarks probably express the most original view ever put forward on this land mark case. They emphasize the crux of the complex constitutional problem discussed in the Bergmann case, i.e., the definition of the legal nature of the basic laws in the legal order of Israel. The extremely abstract questions involved in that discussion, indeed, the most abstract that exist in public law, concern the definition of the nature of the power which adopts the Constitution and more specifically, of the power which amends the Constitution.

scholarly journals The Urgency of Trademark Registration for Business Actors (Case Study of Supreme Court Decision No 575 K / Pdt.Sus-HKI / 2020 Between Ruben Samuel Onsu vs PT Ayam Geprek Benny Sujono)

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 250-259
Author(s):  
Nurhani Fithriah
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Geographical Indications ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Business People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Trademark Registration

Brand registration is very important for business people. A brand is one of the distinguishing entities between the business activities of business actors. The problem occurs when business actors already have a trademark which is then well known in the community but in fact they have not registered the trademark, as experienced by Ruben Samuel Onsu with his Geprek chicken business. However, in its development, it turns out that there are other business actors using the same mark but have registered the mark. This research was conducted using a normative method through a statutory approach and concepts. This research examines the Supreme Court's decision rejecting the appeal from Ruben Samuel Onsu and analyzes the urgency and procedures for trademark registration. Based on the research results, trademark law in Indonesia is regulated in Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications. The terms and procedures for application for registration of a mark are regulated in Article 4 - Article 8 and further regulated in the Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights No. registration of a mark and being recognized as the legal owner of the mark and rights to the mark are obtainedafter the mark is registered. Ruben Onsu's Bensu mark was declared invalid because Ruben Onsu was not the first party to register the mark, and the Supreme Court decided to cancel all trademark applications made by Ruben Onsu.

scholarly journals Case Study of The Supreme Court Ruling Number: 3002 K/Pdt/2015 On The Validity of Provision of Income Agreement Which Was Made Before Divorce Based On Civil Code

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hazar Kusmayanti ◽  
Tri Utami Warapsari ◽  
Linda Rachmainy
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Married Couple ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Consequence ◽  
Legal Consequences ◽  
Living Cost

Abstract:A legally created agreement applies as law to those who make it. The terms of the validity of an agreement are regulated in Article 1320 of the Civil Code (KUHPerdata). If the terms of the validity of the agreement are not fulfilled, then the legal consequences arising from such agreements can be annulled or null and void. The practice in society can be seen in The Supreme Court Ruling Number 3002 K/PDT/2015, there was married couple who are while in the period of marriage bonds, made agreements in front of the Notary and written down in Notarial Deed Number 72, which content is concerning the demand of child’s living cost for a lifetime, asked by the wife to the husband when the divorce happens later. The Supreme Court Ruling Number 3002 K/PDT/2015 states that the demand of living cost agreement is invalid and can be annulled because it does not meet one of the requirements of the validity of the agreement, which is lawful reason as regulated in Article 1320 of the Civil Code. The purpose of this study is to know the Supreme Court Ruling on the validity of the demands of living cost agreement and legal consequence of the agreement based on the Civil Code.Keywords: the validity of the demands of living cost agreement, legal consequence of the agreement Abstrak:Suatu perjanjian yang dibuat secara sah berlaku sebagai undang-undang bagi mereka yang membuatnya. Syarat-syarat sahnya suatu perjanjian diatur di dalam Pasal 1320 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata (KUHPerdata). Apabila syarat-syarat sahnya perjanjian tidak terpenuhi, maka akibat hukum yang ditimbulkan adalah perjanjian tersebut dapat dibatalkan atau batal demi hukum. Dalam praktek di masyarakat sebagaimana yang ada pada Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 3002 K/PDT/2015, terdapat pasangan suami istri yang dalam masa ikatan perkawinan membuat perjanjian di hadapan Notaris dan dituangkan di dalam Akta Notaris Nomor 72, isinya menyangkut tuntutan nafkah hidup untuk anak dan dimintakan selama seumur hidup yang diajukan oleh istri kepada suami apabila kelak terjadi perceraian. Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 3002 K/PDT/2015 menyatakan bahwa perjanjian tuntutan nafkah tersebut tidak sah dan dapat dibatalkan karena tidak memenuhi salah satu syarat sahnya perjanjian yaitu syarat sebab yang halal yang diatur di dalam Pasal 1320 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata (KUHPerdata). Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui putusan Mahkamah Agung tentang keabsahan perjanjian tuntutan nafkah dan akibat hukum perjanjian tersebut ditinjau dari Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata (KUHPerdata).Kata Kunci: keabsahan perjanjian tuntutan nafkah, akibat hukum perjanjian

scholarly journals Tax Debt in the Bankruptcy Dispute: Industries Badja Garuda Inc. v.s. Tax Office of Medan Belawan

Rechtsidee ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rilda Murniati ◽  
Richmond Cosmas Tobias
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
District Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Law ◽  
Study Type

The biggest problem for the debtor who is the business actor is his inability to repay the loan to the creditors in case the business activities have problems. The inability to pay may result in the debtor being petitioned for bankruptcy by the creditor or the debtor himself. Curator as the party who performs the management and the settlement of all debtor debts is obliged to make a bill list based on the nature and rights of the bills of creditors as stipulated in Act Number 37 Year 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Obligation for Payment of Debts (the Law 37/2004). The problem that occurred in the case of Bankruptcy of Industries Badja Garuda Inc. (IBG Inc.) that the Tax Office of Medan Belawan (Tax Office) made a legal effort against the list of tax bills made by the curator of IBG Inc. which set Tax Office as the concurrent creditor through renvoi procedures to the Court Commerce so that the Tax Office loses its precedent over tax debt as stipulated in the Law of Commercial Court refuses the request so that the cassation law is also applied to the Supreme Court which in its decision strengthen the decision of the District Court. For that reason, there is a review effort but the Supreme Court in its sentence Number 45 PK/Pdt.Sus/Pailit/2016 still reinforces the previous verdict. This research is normative research with descriptive type and problem approach applied is normative applied with case study type of court decision. The result of the research indicates that the Tax Office has lost its predecessor right as regulated in Article 21 Paragraph (4) in Act Number 16 Year 2009 regarding General Provisions and Tax Procedures (the Law 16/2009) on the status of tax debt of IBG Inc.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document