scholarly journals Authority to Decide

2021 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 306-309
Author(s):  
Lee Aitken
Keyword(s):  
Federal Courts ◽  
The State ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Standard Work ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction

To realise that there is no Court in Australia with unlimited jurisdiction is at one stroke to recognise the continuing importance of Justice Leeming’s standard work, and the relevance of this second edition. The ‘autochthonous expedient’, as Sir Owen Dixon named it, has much to answer for: it leads inexorably to a bifurcated system of state and federal courts, which has many toils and snares for the unwary. To compound the problem, the state courts enjoy a large amount of ‘invested’ federal jurisdiction, which means that on many occasions they exercise it without appreciating the fact that they have done so.

From Rogers to Rivers: The Rights of the Mentally Ill to Refuse Medication

1987 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-52
Author(s):  
Ellen Wright Clayton
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Psychotropic Drugs ◽  
Mentally Ill ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Marked Contrast ◽  
Patients Rights ◽  
Treatment Refusals

AbstractMany individuals with mental illness wish to avoid psychotropic drugs, a type of treatment that may relieve their symptoms only at the risk of unpleasant, even permanent, side effects. In marked contrast to the widely-held view that most patients may refuse any treatment and that even patients with mental illness may reject other psychoactive interventions such as electroconvulsive therapy and psychosurgery, the courts and legislatures have been slow to recognize any right to refuse psychotropic drugs. This Article demonstrates that many of the justifications offered for forcing patients to take unwanted medications are inadequate and that unless treatment refusals are reviewed outside mental institutions, patients’ rights will rarely receive appropriate deference. The author analyzes the federal and state litigation to determine whether the courts have fashioned meaningful relief for the mentally ill. The Article concludes that two recent United States Supreme Court decisions have made it impossible for the federal courts to provide adequate protection. By contrast, several state courts have responded to the needs and rights of patients with mental illness.

Justice without the State within the State

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Conflict Resolution ◽  
North America ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Social Groups ◽  
17Th Century ◽  
The State ◽  
Global Perspective ◽  
State Courts ◽  
History Of ◽  
Research Questions

History of justice is not only the history of state justice. Rather, we often deal with a coexistence of state, parastatal and non-state courts. Interesting research questions emerge out of this constellation: Where are notions of just conflict resolution most likely to be enforceable? To what extent is non-state jurisdiction a mode of self-regulation of social groups who define themselves by means of ethnic, religious or functional criteria? How do state and non-state ambitions interact? This collective volume contains contributions exploring non-state and parastatal justice between the 17th century and the present in Europe, Asia, North America as well as from a global perspective.

scholarly journals Debunking Millar v. Taylor: The History of the Prohibition of Legislative History

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-58
Author(s):  
John J Magyar
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Careful Examination ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Legislative History ◽  
Secondary Literature ◽  
The Us ◽  
History Of ◽  
The 19Th Century

Abstract The generally accepted belief about the rule prohibiting recourse to legislative history as an aid to statutory interpretation is that it began in the case of Millar v.Taylor in 1769, and it was followed thereafter in England and throughout the United States through to the 20th century. However, all four judges on the panel in Millar v.Taylor considered evidence from the Journal of the House of Commons and changes made to the relevant bill in their opinions. Meanwhile, the case was widely cited for several substantive and procedural matters throughout the 19th century, but it was not cited by a judge as a precedent for the rule against legislative history until 1887. A careful examination of the relevant cases and secondary literature from the 18th and 19th centuries reveals a much more nuanced and complex history to the rule. Its emergence becomes less clear because it is shrouded in judicial silence. Its beginnings must be inferred from a general and often unarticulated principle that lawyers felt free to disregard. Furthermore, the development, refinement, and decline of the rule followed a different timeline in England, the US federal courts and the state courts.

Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 565-568
Author(s):  
Carlos M. Vázquez
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
District Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Southern District ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Argentine Republic ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction

Plaintiffs and respondents, Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. and United Carriers, Inc., were respectively the charterer and owner of the Hercules, a crude oil tanker that was bombed in international waters by Argentine military aircraft during the war over the Malvinas or Falkland Islands. The ship was severely damaged and had to be scuttled off the coast of Brazil. After unsuccessfully seeking relief in Argentina, the companies filed suit against defendant and appellant, the Argentine Republic, in the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs argued that the federal courts had jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute (28 U.S.C. §1350 (1982)), which confers federal jurisdiction over “any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (28 U.S.C. §§1330, 1602-1611 (1982)) (FSIA) is by its terms the sole basis of federal jurisdiction over cases against foreign states. A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court (per Rehnquist, C.J.) unanimously reversed the Second Circuit and held that the FSIA provides the exclusive basis of federal jurisdiction over suits against foreign states.

scholarly journals Analisis Disiplin Aparatur Sipil Negara pada Badan Kepegawaian Dan Pengembangan Sumber Daya Manusia Kabupaten Aceh Timur

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 138-146
Author(s):  
Muzanny Muzanny ◽  
Nina Siti Salmaniah Siregar ◽  
Isnaini Isnaini
Keyword(s):  
Human Resources ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Qualitative Method ◽  
The State ◽  
Human Resources Development ◽  
Development Agency ◽  
Work Ethics ◽  
Standard Work ◽  
Resources Development ◽  
Descriptive Qualitative

The purpose of this research is to analyze the discipline of the State Civil Apparatus at the Human Resources Development and Human Resources Development Agency in East Aceh Regency in terms of time discipline and work discipline and what are the obstacles. While the purpose of this study is to analyze the time discipline and work discipline of the state civil apparatus at the Human Resources and Human Resources Development Agency in East Aceh District and determine what obstacles are faced in improving the time discipline and work discipline of the state civil apparatus. The research method used is descriptive qualitative method, with a focus of research that is time discipline and work discipline. Based on the results of research and discussion the authors conclude that time discipline and work discipline apparatus BKPSDM East Aceh in general is good. Barriers that occur are distant domicile, do not have standard work standards, lack of maximum vigilance, not all understand work ethics. Some things suggested are more cooperative, give penalties for violations, continuous supervision.

scholarly journals How the Federal Cause of Action Relates to Rights, Remedies, and Jurisdiction

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
John F. Preis
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
History Of ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction ◽  
The U.S

Time and again, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that the federal cause of action is "analytically distinct" from rights, remedies, and jurisdiction. Yet, just pages away in the U.S. Reports are other cases in which rights, remedies, and jurisdiction all hinge on the existence of a cause of action. What, then, is the proper relationship between these concepts?The goal of this Article is to articulate that relationship. This Article traces the history of the cause of action from eighteenth-century England to its modem usage in the federal courts. This history demonstrates that the federal cause of action is largely distinct from rights, closely related to (and sometimes synonymous with) remedies, and distinct from jurisdiction except where Congress instructs otherwise or the case implicates sovereign immunity. Sorting out these relationships provides several benefits, including refining the doctrine of prudential standing, clarifying the grounds for federal jurisdiction, and dispelling claims that Congress lacks power over certain causes of action.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document