Search

The article reports that the jurisdiction of the courts is decisive in view of the organizational act of dismissal from the function as head of the university clinic and as head of the clinical department. It notes that the legal classification of the order and the dismissal of heads of an organizational unit is not expressly stated in the concerned laws. It states that the Applicant has a subjective public law, only if the standardized requirements are met to be relieved of its functions.

Copyright of OHM: Obradoiro de Historia Moderna is the property of Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Servicio de Publicaciones and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article presents practical advice for American attorneys on how to keep litigation matters in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit after the court issues jurisdictional questions, and it mentions concerns about subject-matter jurisdiction. America's Constitution is addressed, along with U.S. federal district courts' original jurisdiction over civil actions. Legal complaints, diversity jurisdiction, and the removal of litigation to another court are assessed.

The article discusses the author's proposal for expanding equity in American courts as of 2016, and it mentions the origins of equity in the U.S. Constitution and the nation's Judiciary Act of 1789, as well as the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) case Kansas v. Nebraska which deals with issues such as American natural resources law and the USSC's original jurisdiction. The USSC's equitable power is examined in the 1999 case Grupo Mexicano de Desarollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund Inc.

The article discusses equitable apportionment legal cases in the U.S. Supreme Court in the wake of the court's ruling in the case Florida v. Georgia which deals with riparian rights, conservation measures, and prior appropriation principles. Other topics include original jurisdiction, a fair allocation legal principle, and case law regarding water law systems in America. A harm-benefit comparison is mentioned, along with state laws and an American riparian doctrine.

In this article, the author presents insights into concerns related to both foreign and domestic maritime piracy. He discusses the Alien Tort Statute, according to which district courts of the U.S. must have original jurisdiction of any civil act by an alien in context to the violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the U.S.

When interstate water disputes come before it, the U.S. Supreme Court can order states to pay large damage awards or to forfeit use of a significant amount of water. The high stakes in these original jurisdiction cases make the Court's use of and deference to Special Masters problematic for states, which need litigation to produce reasonably predictable outcomes so that litigation is as a viable alternative to negotiated agreements. The Court does states a great disservice by handling cases involving interstate water disputes in a seemingly unpredictable and unstructured manner. The Court's deference to the Special Master in Montana v. Wyoming is the latest example of a pattern of judicial abdication in interstate water disputes. This Note presents several specific recommendations, proposes a rule for analyzing exceptions to a Special Master's report, and discusses the potential for instituting a two-person panel of Special Masters that includes an Article III judge. If the Supreme Court is unwilling to make changes to better address states' substantial interests in original jurisdiction cases, future Special Masters should exert their considerable influence to encourage the Court's comprehensive engagement with interstate water disputes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the choice of law doctrine and the scope of liability under the U.S. Alien Tort Statute (ATS) in the wake of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's 2010 ruling in the corporate liability case Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. A historical overview of the ATS is presented, including information on the original jurisdiction of district courts in civil cases adjudicated in America. An interlocutory appeal under Title 28, Section 1292(b) of the U.S. Code is also examined.

The Caribbean Court of Justice, which was inaugurated in April 2005, is possessed of both an appellate and an original jurisdiction. In its original jurisdiction the Court is vested with a compulsory and exclusive power to interpret and apply the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas which establishes the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Single Market and Economy. This paper explores the Court's original jurisdiction and the role that it could play in promoting regional integration, taking account of the region's history and the institutional structure within which it will be expected to function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]