Children's Legal Rights in the U.S

2012 ◽  
pp. 132-151
Keyword(s):  
Legal Rights ◽  
The U.S

U.S. Patent/Intellectual Property Law: What Should Engineers Know?

2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff E. Schwartz ◽  
Richard T. Girards ◽  
Karen A. Borrelli
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
New Methods ◽  
Property System ◽  
The U.S

Abstract Engineers, by the practice of their profession, regularly apply new methods and products to the end of solving old problems. These new methods and products may prove to be both commercially useful and financially valuable. The U.S. intellectual property system can afford such innovations broad protection from old fashioned “poaching” by securing for their creators/inventors powerful legal rights to such innovations.

Anti-Nepotism Rules: The Legal Rights of Married Co-Workers

1989 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine M. Reed ◽  
Linda J. Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Public Organizations ◽  
The Other ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
State Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Public Employer ◽  
The U.S

Anti-nepotism rules in public organizations have led to law suits based on anti-discrimination statutes and the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to work with their spouses if they are qualified employees. Employers, on the other hand, defend anti-nepotism rules as a business necessity, arguing that married co-workers are a potentially disruptive influence in the office. A review of federal and state court decisions suggests that married co-workers rarely prevail in such cases. In this area of civil and constitutional litigation, public employer liabilities appear to be limited to situations where restrictions are unreasonably broad.

Childrens Legal Rights in the U.S.

1995 ◽  
Vol 21 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 121-140
Author(s):  
Mark C. Stafford
Keyword(s):  
Legal Rights ◽  
The U.S

scholarly journals Chattel or Child: The Liminal Status of Companion Animals in Society and Law

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole R. Pallotta
Keyword(s):  
Family Member ◽  
Interpersonal Relationships ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Companion Animals ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Animal Protection ◽  
New Family ◽  
Cultural Status ◽  
The Law ◽  
The U.S

Companion animals in the U.S. are increasingly regarded as members of the family with whom one may share a strong emotional bond. However, despite an evolving social construction that has elevated their status in the dominant culture, companion animals lack meaningful legal rights, and “family member” is a provisional status that can be dissolved at will based on the discretion of the sole rights-holder in the relationship: the human owner. Because they are still defined within the U.S. legal system as property, it is a common lament within the animal protection movement that the law has not kept pace with the emergent cultural perception of companion animals as family or best friends who may occupy a significant place in one’s constellation of interpersonal relationships. But how divergent are the laws that govern our treatment of companion animals from prevailing social norms? This article examines current trends in animal law and society to shed light on this question. I find that while a new family member cultural status is emerging for companion animals in the U.S., their legal status as property is a countervailing force, enabling contradictory practices and beliefs that construct animals as expendable. The fact that their cultural status is in flux in turn reinforces their status under the law. I conclude with proposed policy reforms that will facilitate the integration of companion animals into society as true rather than rhetorical family members.

Introduction

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Stow
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
French Revolution ◽  
Canon Law ◽  
Jewish Life ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Late Eighteenth Century ◽  
Late Eighteenth ◽  
The U.S

This introductory chapter explores the transformation in Jewish life that failed to occur in late eighteenth-century Rome. The French Revolution and the U.S. Constitution had established that Jews were citizens with full and equal legal rights. But in Rome, the capital of the then Papal State, no such proclamation occurred. Although Rome's Jews possessed rights in civil law, the discrimination determined by canon law was great. Roman Jews were forced to live in the ghetto decreed by Pope Paul IV in 1555, as part of a vigorous conversionary drive. People were taken to an institution known as the House of Converts, where they were held for periods of time, and most eventually converted. However, some did not, most notably Anna del Monte, who not only remained a Jew but also left a diary recounting her thirteen days in the Catecumeni, as Rome's Jews called the place.

Chapter 8: The Legal Rights of Fathers in the U.S.

1986 ◽  
Vol 9 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 101-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Salt
Keyword(s):  
Legal Rights ◽  
The U.S

Labor and the Government: A Comparative Historical Perspective

1977 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 210-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaston V. Rimlinger
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Historical Perspective ◽  
Industrial Relations ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Collective Agreements ◽  
The Government ◽  
Labor Negotiations ◽  
The U.S ◽  
State Protection

This article compares the development of the workers' right to organize and bargain collectively in England, France, and the U.S. Starting with a common repressive policy, each country followed a different path toward establishing the workers' rights. The main ultimate difference lies in the extent to which the state became involved in industrial relations. In England the state remained aloof after securing very broad legal rights of collective action. The workers were left to do their own battling. In France the state came to look upon collective agreements as an aspect of public policy and became the dominant partner in labor negotiations. The American pattern lies in between: state protection extends to procedural but not to substantive issues.

The Right to Privacy

2000 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 25-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lloyd L. Weinreb
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Moral Claim ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Positive Law ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

The question that I address in this paper is whether there is a right to privacy. It is not the question whether in the United States there is a legal right to privacy or, more particularly, a constitutional right to privacy. There are any number of ordinary legal rights and specific constitutional rights that might be so described, and the U.S. Supreme Court has referred also to a generic “right to privacy” that is implicit in the U.S. Constitution. Nor is the question that I address whether persons have a moral claim to privacy that others ought to respect. I assume that in many circumstances, respecting a person's claim to privacy is productive of the good and, if so, that the claim ought to be respected. Rather, my question is whether persons have a right to privacy not dependent on positive law, such that it ought ordinarily to be respected without regard to the consequences, good or bad, simply because it is right.

scholarly journals The U.S.-Proposed “Trusteeship Agreement” for Palestine: The UN-Styled Plan That Could Have Avoided Forcible Displacement of the Palestinian Refugees in 1948

Refuge ◽  
2003 ◽  
pp. 70-88
Author(s):  
Gail J. Boling
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
British Mandate ◽  
Palestinian Refugees ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The U.S

In this article, the author examines the U.S.-proposed “Trusteeship Agreement for Palestine,” circulated by the U.S. in the UN Security Council and in subcommittees of the General Assembly from March through May of 1948. The U.S. proposed a UN trusteeship for Palestine as a possible means to provide for a peaceful transition from the end of the British Mandate for Palestine into a new governmental entity that would provide equality under the law for all of its citizens. Notably, the proposed trusteeship arrangement would have avoided partition of Palestine. The author asserts that this, in turn, could have avoided the forcible displacement of three-quarters of a million Palestinian refugees in 1948, as well as Israel’s subsequent refusal to repatriate them. The author argues that the U.S.-proposed Trusteeship Agreement for Palestine sheds light on important norms of international law that existed in 1948 and that could, and should, have been followed by the United Nations in providing for the welfare and legal rights of all the inhabitants of mandate Palestine as the clock ticked down on the announced British withdrawal from Palestine as mandatory authority as of 15 May 1948.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document