Disintegrating

2018 ◽  
pp. 195-208
Author(s):  
Ronny Regev
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Economic Factors ◽  
Film Production ◽  
Stock Company ◽  
New Hollywood ◽  
Labor Practices ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Studio System

The final chapter follows the decline of the studio system. Toward the late 1940s, political and economic factors such as the rise of television and changes in the tax code, pushed film production away from the studio system and towards a system based more and more on “spot production” or separate deals. Furthermore, the Paramount decision handed down by the Supreme Court ended vertical integration and eroded the power of the major film companies. Changes in labor practices followed, as demonstrated by the career of actors like Gino Corrado and producers like Hal Wallis. As the “stock-company” model ended, and the number of long-term contracts declined, new forces, particularly talent agents such as Lew Wasserman became the power brokers of the new Hollywood.

Exploring the Polysemy of Voice and Silence

2018 ◽  
pp. 402-421
Author(s):  
Gust A. Yep ◽  
Rebecca N. Gigi ◽  
Briana E. Avila
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Gay Marriage ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Multiple Meanings ◽  
Voice And Silence

This chapter addresses the complex interplay between voice and silence in US LGBT communities. In terms of voice, the chapter focuses on Evan Wolfson, founder of Freedom to Marry and colloquially known as “Mr. Gay Marriage,” whose public comments on same-sex divorce before and after the Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality focused on two central themes: (1) fairness and (2) protection. In terms of silence, the chapter focuses on the largely absent discourse about same-sex divorce in mainstream LGBT online media to explore its multiple meanings. The analysis explores three major themes: (1) that same-sex divorce is a recent phenomenon, (2) that same-sex divorce may not be relevant to unconventional long-term relationships, and (3) that creation of a pseudo charmed circle suppresses the visibility of same-sex divorce. The chapter concludes by exploring the implications of the multiple meanings of voice and silence surrounding same-sex relational dissolution.

US Supreme Court-packing unlikely

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Change ◽  
Content Type ◽  
White House ◽  
Presidential Nomination ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
Conservative Bias

Significance Rubio's move comes as several candidates for the Democratic Party's 2020 presidential nomination are discussing 'packing' the Supreme Court -- adding justices intended to nullify the perceived long-term conservative bias of the Court following Trump-era appointments. Impacts A constitutional change to limit the Supreme Court to nine justices is unlikely: amendments are purposely hard. Court-packing would not guarantee 'Democratic' or 'Republican' rulings: much depends on the case and how justices feel. Packing the courts would likely increase their politicisation, and potentially slow their deliberative capacity. If Trump wins a second term and Republicans keep the Senate, they will appoint further conservative justices. If the Democrats win the White House and Senate in 2020, they might 'pack' the lower courts.

scholarly journals GROUNDS FOR THE INVALIDATION OF THE RULINGS OF THE JOINT-STOCK COMPANY SUPERVISORY BOARDS IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECENT CASES OF THE SUPREME COURT

2021 ◽  
pp. 53-60
Author(s):  
A. V. Smitiukh ◽  
V. S. Veremchuk
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supervisory Board ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
Joint Stock Company ◽  
Stock Company ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Supervisory Boards

The article presents the results of a study of the recent case law of the Supreme Court’s Economic Court of Cassation as for the grounds for invalidating the rulings of the joint-stock companies’ supervisory boards. Since the law does not define such grounds, the Supreme Court’s practice on this matter is crucial. It is concluded that the rulings of the joint-stock companies’ supervisory boards may be invalidated if there is a violation of the rights and legal interests of shareholders of the joint-stock company as well third parties. The specific grounds for the invalidation are highlighted in the article: excess of the powers by the supervisory board; the incompetence of its composition; failure to notify a shareholder on the appointment of a meeting of the supervisory board; lack of a quorum at a meeting of the supervisory board; other non-compliance with the requirements of legal rules governing the procedure for convening a meeting of the supervisory board and making decisions, if the aforesaid violation entailed the adoption of an incorrect act; violation by the ruling of the supervisory board of the rights and legal interests of shareholders or third parties. The authors propose to provide the above grounds for invalidation of the supervisory board’s ruling by the legislation. Also the ruling of the joint-stock company’s supervisory board made online (if the members of the board are outside the location of the company and the signing of the ruling does not take place on the day of the meeting is not a ground for invalidation of such a ruling.

Conclusions: Specialism and the Primacy of the Legal

2020 ◽  
pp. 263-282
Author(s):  
Chris Hanretty
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Final Outcome ◽  
Future Research ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Initial Selection ◽  
Selection Of

This final chapter draws out some of the key messages of the book—how the behavior of judges on the Supreme Court can be best characterized using legal factors; and that among these, specialization in areas of law plays a key role. A review of the different models presented in the book shows that legal factors predominate when explaining the initial selection of cases, the size of the panel, the identity of the lead opinion author(s), and the final outcome. The conclusion identifies the key findings for different audiences, and sets out directions for future research on judges in common law systems.

The Supreme Court as a Countermajoritarian Institution? The Impact of Public Opinion on Supreme Court Decisions

1993 ◽  
Vol 87 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Mishler ◽  
Reginald S. Sheehan
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Membership Change ◽  
Collective Decisions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Long Term Trends ◽  
Time Series Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Although normative questions about the role of the Supreme Court as a countermajoritarian institution have long excited controversy in democratic theory, empirical questions about how far the Court acts contrary to majoritarian opinion have received less attention. Time series analyses for the period 1956–89 indicate the existence of a reciprocal and positive relationship between long-term trends in aggregate public opinion and the Court's collective decisions. The Court's ideological composition changes in response to previous shifts in the partisan and ideological orientation of the president and Congress. The Court also responds to public opinion at the margins even in the absence of membership change. Since 1981, the relationship has vanished or turned negative in direction. The Court's ideological balance has been upset by an unbroken string of conservative-to-moderate appointments, thereby undermining the dynamics that promote judicial responsiveness and raising questions about the majoritarianism of the contemporary and future Court.

Evergreening patents: The Indian Supreme Court rejects patenting of incremental improvements

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Brougher
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Generic Drugs ◽  
Drug Product ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Patent Laws ◽  
Biotechnology Companies ◽  
Indian Supreme Court

On April 1, 2013, the Supreme Court in India handed down its decision to dismiss Swiss drug maker Novartis AG's attempt to win patent protection for its cancer drug Glivec. In doing so, the Supreme Court held that incremental improvements or modifications to an existing drug are not patentable under India’s patent laws. While the ruling may have allowed India to maintain its ability to manufacture generic drugs, the ruling has increased the challenges that pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies face in obtaining patent protection in India. In the long term, these challenges may prove to have far greater implications for the biotechnology industry that go beyond merely the patentability of one drug product. In view of this recent decision, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies are undoubtedly re-evaluating their foreign patent strategies.

Constitutional Confusion in the Cocos Islands: The Strange Deliverance of LIM Keng

1983 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 229-252
Author(s):  
G M Kelly
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Practical Importance ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
Special Position ◽  
British Rule ◽  
Legal Principle ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
English Law

When, in 1902, a murder was committed in the Cocos Islands and a resident native of the Islands was brought to trial at Singapore, the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements ruled unexpectedly that it had no jurisdiction. That decision threw doubt upon the validity of Letters Patent of 1886 which were to remain the constitutional foundation of British rule in the Cocos until the transfer of sovereignty to Australia in 1957. The doubt necessarily extended to matters of long-term practical importance, including the special position in the Cocos held by the Clunies-Ross family until 1978. This article considers the validity of those Letters Patent—a question peremptorily closed off by British authorities in the aftermath of the 1902 affair. Fundamental doctrines of colonial law in relation to territorial acquisition, and their application to British annexation of the Cocos Islands, are examined. The continuing relevance of those doctrines—eg to the recent line of land rights cases in Australia—is incidentally pointed out. The Letters Patent are also tested against the maxim omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta and in terms of evolving judicial acceptance of severance. For that purpose, illustration of legal principle is drawn from Australian cases as from English law.

scholarly journals Presidential Control of High Courts in Latin America: A Long-term View (1904-2006)

2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aníbal PΈRez-Liñán ◽  
Andrea Castagnola
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
High Turnover ◽  
High Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
Political Conditions ◽  
Latin American Countries

In many Latin American countries the executive branch manipulates the composition of the Supreme Court, and judicial independence has remained elusive. Because high courts can exercise judicial review and influence lower courts, incoming presidents often force the resignation of adversarial justices or “pack” the courts with friends. One indicator of this problem has been the high turnover among members of the high courts. In this paper we offer systematic evidence to compare this problem across countries and to place this issue in historical perspective. Our analysis covers 11 Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, and Uruguay) between 1904 and 2006. We model the entrance of new justices to the Supreme Court as a function of “natural” (legal and biological) factors, political conditions empowering the president to reshuffle the Court, and institutional incentives promoting executive encroachment on the judiciary.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document