scholarly journals Towards Reducing the Pendency of Cases at Court: Automated Case Analysis of Supreme Court Judgments in India

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shubham Pandey ◽  
Ayan Chandra ◽  
Sudeshna Sarkar ◽  
Uday Shankar
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Case Analysis ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Computational Techniques ◽  
Court System ◽  
Document Structure ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Legal Professionals ◽  
Legal Domain

The Indian court system generates huge amounts of data relating to administration, pleadings, litigant behaviour, and court decisions on a regular basis. But the existing Judiciary is incapable of managing these vast troves of data efficiently that causes delays and pendency of a large volume of cases in the courts. Some of these time-consuming tasks involve case briefing, examining the legal issues, facts, legal principles, observations, and other significant aspects submitted by the contending parties in the court. In other words, computational methods to understand the underlying structure of a case document will directly aid the lawyers to perform these tasks efficiently and improve the overall efficiency of the Justice delivery system. Application of Computational techniques (such as Natural Language Processing) can help to gather and sift through these vast troves of information, identify patterns, extract the document structure, draft documents and make the information available online. Traditionally lawyers are trained to examine cases using the Case Law Analysis approach for case briefing. In this article, the authors aim to establish the importance and relevance of the automated case analysis problem in the legal domain. They introduce a novel case analysis structure for the supreme court judgment documents and define twelve different case law labels that are used by legal professionals to identify the structure. Finally the authors propose a method for automated case analysis, which will directly aid the lawyers to prepare speedy and efficient case briefs and drastically reduce the time taken by them in litigation.

6. The Doctrine of Judicial Precedent

2019 ◽  
pp. 160-195
Author(s):  
James Holland ◽  
Julian Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Stare Decisis ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Legal Problems ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Pure Case ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Court Of Appeal

This chapter examines the use of case law to solve legal problems. In the study and practice of law we seek to analyse legal principles; and the ‘principles’ in English law are derived from pure case law or from case law dealing with statutes. The discussions cover the idea of binding precedent (stare decisis); establishing the principle in a case; the mechanics of stare decisis; whether there are any other exceptions to the application of stare decisis to the Court of Appeal that have emerged since 1944; whether every case has to be heard by the Court of Appeal before it can proceed to the Supreme Court; precedent in the higher courts; other courts; and the impact of human rights legislation.

scholarly journals ‘Not My Employee, Not My Liability’

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-49
Author(s):  
Carrie De Silva
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Practical Interest ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Body ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Potential Impact ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In April 2020, the Supreme Court in WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] and Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] overturned the decisions of the Court of Appeal in applying the law regarding vicarious liability of employees and others (and deciding in both cases that the defendant companies were not liable for the acts in question). The scope of responsibilities which the employment relationship brings, together with an awareness among many businesses of the classification worker, along with the more familiar employed/self-employed status, makes an examination of the outcomes and potential impact of these cases of wide, practical interest for those running businesses, large or small. The review concluded that there had been no dramatic change in the law but that the cases provide a measure of comfort to employers in something of a common-sense view being taken as to the scope of vicarious liability. They also add to the body of case law, helping to ensure that future issues can more clearly be reasoned out of court, with the detailed steer on the application of legal principles which a Supreme Court judgment provides.

Clarifications of the Russian Supreme Court on General Aspects of Intellectual Property Protection: A Summary

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (9) ◽  
pp. 925-927
Author(s):  
Natalia Kapyrina
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Professionals ◽  
Application Of Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Fertile Ground ◽  
General Aspects ◽  
Ip Law

Abstract Since April 2019, Russian intellectual property law has been enriched by an interpretative Resolution of the highest judicial instance, the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court, which performs, among other prerogatives, the task to ensure the correct and uniform application of law.** The last time a judicial instrument of an equivalent scale was adopted was in 2009 (the Joint Resolution No. 5/29 of 26 March 2009 of the Plenary Sessions of the Supreme Court and of the Supreme Arbitration Court ‘On certain issues arising in connection with the enactment of Part Four of the CCRF’). Back then a significant number of issues deriving from the introduction in 2006 of Part Four of the Civil Code (dedicated to Intellectual Property) were identified, solved and converted into guidance for courts and other legal professionals. Now, subsequent revisions of the legislation, primarily aimed at its ‘modernisation’, as well as the adoption of other modifying instruments (such as the Ruling of the Constitutional Court n° 28-P of 13 December 2016), pushed by a growing IP practice and disparate case law, have provided a fertile ground for this new supreme judicial effort. The outcome is generous – useful to those wishing to acquire a global overview of Russian IP law. It slightly resembles a Prévert’s inventory, as many issues are touched upon with a varying depth, length and degree of sophistication. Although some observers have deplored the avoidance of this or that issue, the document is comprehensive and lengthy (182 paragraphs), and generally lauded by the Russian IP community.1

Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties in Japan

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masami Okino
Keyword(s):  
Case Analysis ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
German Model ◽  
Recent Debate ◽  
The Law

This chapter discusses the law on third party beneficiaries in Japan; mostly characterized by adherence to the German model that still bears an imprint on Japanese contract law. Thus, there is neither a doctrine of consideration nor any other justification for a general doctrine of privity, and contracts for the benefit of third parties are generally enforceable as a matter of course. Whether an enforceable right on the part of a third party is created is simply a matter of interpretation of the contract which is always made on a case-by-case analysis but there are a number of typical scenarios where the courts normally find the existence (or non-existence) of a contract for the benefit of a third party. In the recent debate on reform of Japanese contract law, wide-ranging suggestions were made for revision of the provisions on contracts for the benefit of third parties in the Japanese Civil Code. However, it turned out that reform in this area was confined to a very limited codification of established case law.

AI Applications to the Law Domain in Japan

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 471-494
Author(s):  
Katsumi NITTA ◽  
Ken SATOH
Keyword(s):  
Expert Systems ◽  
Information And Communication Technologies ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Text Processing ◽  
Research Area ◽  
Legal Information ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Legal Expert ◽  
Legal Domain ◽  
Legal Expert Systems

AbstractArtificial intelligence (AI) and law is an AI research area that has a history spanning more than 50 years. In the early stages, several legal-expert systems were developed. Legal-expert systems are tools designed to realize fair judgments in court. In addition to this research, as information and communication technologies and AI technologies have progressed, AI and law has broadened its view from legal-expert systems to legal analytics and, recently, a lot of machine-learning and text-processing techniques have been employed to analyze legal information. The research trends are the same in Japan as well and not only people involved with legal-expert systems, but also those involved with natural language processing as well as lawyers have become interested in AI and law. This report introduces the history of and the research activities on applying AI to the legal domain in Japan.

The concept of human dignity in the case-law of the Supreme Court of Canada on Charter Equality Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 118-137
Author(s):  
Tatiana Vasilieva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Equality Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Additional Burden ◽  
The Impact

This article explores the evolution of the Supreme Court of Canada’s approach to the application of the concept of human dignity in constitutional equality cases. Traditionally, in human rights cases, this concept serves only to strengthen the argument, to show that the violation affects the person’s intrinsic worth. It is only in Canada and in South Africa that there is experience in applying the concept as a criterion for identifying discrimination. In 1999, in Law v. Canada, the Supreme Court recognized the purpose of Article 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982 to be the protection of human dignity and stated that discrimination must be established based on assessment of the impact of a program or law on human dignity. However, in 2008, in R. v. Kapp, the Court noted that the application of the concept of human dignity creates difficulties and places an additional burden of prove on the plaintiff. It is no coincidence that victims of discrimination have preferred to seek protection before human rights tribunals and commissions, where the dignity-based test is not used. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the use of the concept of human dignity as a criterion for identifying discrimination. The unsuccessful experience of applying the concept of human dignity as legal test has demonstrated that not every theoretically correct legal construction is effective in adjudication.

The UK courts and EU law post-Brexit

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. Christopher-Vajda
Author(s):  
Christopher Vajda
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Transition Period ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Following the expiry on 31 December 2020 of the ‘transition period’ under the UK/EU Withdrawal Agreement, the relationship between UK and EU law had changed. Whilst much EU legislation at that date will continue to apply in UK law as ‘retained EU law’ and judgments of the EU courts handed down before that date will remain binding on UK courts as ‘retained EU case law’, the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court can depart from that case law. Whilst EU court judgments handed down after that date are not binding on UK courts, they may be taken into account. This article considers both the status of EU retained case law and when the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal may depart from it, and the future of EU law that is not ‘retained EU case law’ and how judgments of the European Courts and national courts of its Member States may influence UK judges in the future.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document