Search

The article explores copyright enforcement in the U.S., discussing traditional methods like notice and takedown and federal court litigation. It introduces the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) as a new option for resolving smaller disputes. It highlights potential fairness concerns for defendants and suggests solutions such as applying the fair use defense automatically and educating respondents.

This article discusses super injunctions and privacy orders and how the Scottish media continues to reveal and identify English gagging orders taken out by celebrities, including the "celebrity threesome" PJS order. It will further be argued that celebrities often use their children as privacy shields in the courts. In the light of the recently failed David Beckham super injunction against The Times and the Daily Mirror, do privacy orders remain significantly valid in the social media age? Are celebrities not entitled to the same respect for their private lives as anyone else? The article further examines the misuse o f private information as demonstrated in the David Axon case, whereby the court in Axon established a new approach to the granting o f privacy injunctions for the potential loss of reputation and constraints inherent in art. 8 EC HR. Finally, the question will be raised whether the UK judiciary is out of touch, as so eloquently expressed in the dissenting judgment by Lord Toulson in PJS. The notion of personal autonomy will be discussed in the conclusion, which stands alongside art. 8 ECHR and the freedom of media expression and how the courts have taken a proportionate approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When flying under visual flight rules, pilots must remain clear of clouds. The exact distance varies by airspace class, and this is determined by specific regulatory requirements found within 14 C.F.R. Section 91.155. But there are important questions about the extent to which pilots comply with this regulation, as determining one's exact distance from clouds is challenging. In this conference paper, we assess the decisions of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in 20 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) legal enforcement actions involving a violation of cloud clearance requirements. Among these cases, we examine how 91.155 violations were discovered, the form of sanction imposed by the FAA, the timelines associated with appeals for these cases, and the vote composition of the NTSB in these decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The revival of the nondelegation doctrine, foreshadowed last term in Gundy v. United States, signals the end of a distinctive style of legal and political thought. The doctrine's apparent demise after the 1930s facilitated the development of a methodological approach that embodied what Lon Fuller once called "the spirit of the Federalist Papers": an openended engagement with the problem of designing democracy and controlling public power. At its best, this discourse was critical and propulsive, with each purported solution generating more questions than it answered. The turn against congressional delegations will likely bring to a close this period of open and self-critical experimentation. In its place, we are likely to see the emergence of warring visions of the administrative state, each claiming legitimacy--neither credibly--according to its own comprehensive normative doctrine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses legal issues regarding prenuptial agreements amidst the growing popularity of the process in the U.S. Also cited are the need for courts to conduct double litigation to decide the validity of premarital agreements, how a well-written agreement prevents double litigation, and how said agreements allow couples to handle issues over their finances.

climate litigation rulings are widely viewed as the ultimate tool to enforce climate compliance. The objective of this paper is to evaluate whether a ruling on climate litigation has an impact on corporate share price and the direction of the effect. Prior work inclination is on the concept of climate law entropy and the recent case ruling on Lufthansa's climate litigation. The methodology is mixed with a review of relevant literature and mini-quantification of value difference using a t-test to analyse difference in mean share price before and after climate litigation ruling on Lufthansa, and finally a formulation of framework. Findings show that unlike previous ubiquitous literature findings, the share price of Lufthansa experienced a significant increase in value after the climate litigation ruling with a significant p-value of less than 0.01 (which indicates high significance level of difference in share price). The paper has practical and theoretical implications, for business law academics and for practitioners. Climate litigation may serve a dual role of enforcing climate law compliance and instilling corporate legitimacy. The paper contributes original value to corporate climate litigation literature by proposing a novel conceptual framework for understanding the diverse differential impact of climate litigation on corporate share price. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the International Criminal Court's (ICC's) issuance of a judgement in the 2014 case Prosecutor v. Katanga which deals with international criminal laws, criminal defendant Germain Katanga, and crimes against humanity. According to the article, the court outlines policies to improve prosecutorial outcomes in cases involving sexual and gender-based crimes. War crime litigation and the Rome Statute are mentioned, along with the ICC's jurisdiction and sexual slavery laws.

Copyright of Persona y Derecho is the property of Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra, S.A. 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.)

Recently, an SEC administrative judge suspended the Big Four accounting firms' China affiliates from practicing before the SEC for six months, citing the firms' refusal to turn over audit work papers requested by the SEC. This decision has since sparked a debate over the SEC's authority to access foreign audit work papers when those documents are stored in jurisdictions that restrict or prohibit their transfer without authorities' prior approval. In this Note, I trace the legislative history defining the SEC's everexpanding power to access foreign audit work papers with a focus on section 106(e) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. I also map out the development of the violation of non-U.S. laws defense that accounting firms frequently assert to counter the SEC's document requests. Against this background, I will argue that the administrative law judge's interpretation of section 106(e) is seriously flawed. It may lead to untenable results that could be contrary to Congress's intent and are certainly against the purposes of the SEC's own disciplinary proceedings. Drawing upon the federal courts' long-time jurisprudence in handling extraterritorial discovery disputes in civil litigations, I propose an alternative analytical framework that embraces a "good faith" defense to balance the SEC's need to access foreign audit work papers with a foreign country's authority to regulate its accounting profession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research paper is based on the investigation of over 1000 lawsuits for the declaration of nullity of marriage initiated at the Church Interdiocesan Tribunal in Split between 2000 and 2020. The main aim of this research paper was to focus on the lawsuits connected with the canon 1095, n. 3, especially on the problems of gambling addiction. The materials were analysed synthetically, and data were collected on a number of lawsuits conducted under this canon and on specific reasons for filing a lawsuit. Data on annulation of matrimony were also collected. The data are presented in an anonymous and aggregated manner. Descriptive and inferential statistical methods were used. The paper consists of a theoretical part and methodology, which includes the motive of the paper, the description of the sample used and the criteria of inclusion, materials, methods and procedures of paper, and the presentation of the results, together with the discussion of the results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the context of the national strategy of the construction of the Guangdong‐Hong Kong‐Macao Greater Bay Area, the first institutional breakthrough in cross‐border insolvency cooperation between the Chinese Mainland and Hong Kong was achieved on 14 May 2021, and the first case of recognition and assistance in insolvency proceedings in Hong Kong, Re Samson Paper Co Ltd., emerged in judicial practice in December 2021. The judicial practice of Samson not only successfully verifies the great significance of the Record of Meeting and the Opinion for institutional ice‐breaking of cross‐border insolvency cooperation in the Chinese Mainland, but also reflects the practical effects and legislative issues of the above documents on the mechanism of insolvency cooperation between two areas. In view of the problems reflected by the practice of Re Samson Paper Co Ltd. and existing in the legislation, this paper puts forward specific proposals for the cross‐border insolvency cooperation between the Chinese Mainland and Hong Kong, including abolishing the precondition of reciprocity, strengthening exchanges, and cooperation between the two areas on parallel bankruptcy issues, and supplementing the coordination of parallel bankruptcy procedures for cross‐border insolvency. It also proposes domestic legislation on cross‐border insolvency recognition and assistance in China in a point‐by‐point manner, so as to achieve the establishment of a sound cross‐border insolvency cooperation mechanism in line with the international community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The first issue of Artificial Intelligence and Law journal was published in 1992. This paper provides commentaries on nine significant papers drawn from the Journal's second decade. Four of the papers relate to reasoning with legal cases, introducing contextual considerations, predicting outcomes on the basis of natural language descriptions of the cases, comparing different ways of representing cases, and formalising precedential reasoning. One introduces a method of analysing arguments that was to become very widely used in AI and Law, namely argumentation schemes. Two relate to ontologies for the representation of legal concepts and two take advantage of the increasing availability of legal corpora in this decade, to automate document summarisation and for the mining of arguments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fall injury and fatality claims and legal cases involving ordinary pedestrians as well as employees/contractors at work sites have increased dramatically over the course of the author's 43-year engineering career. As a result, forensic engineers are frequently being contacted by insurers and attorneys to analyze these incidents. The need is to determine probable cause(s) and ascertain as to whether location features were designed, constructed, installed, manufactured, and/or maintained in accordance with the standard of care, including requirements specified in applicable codes and standards. The proper contemporary analysis techniques for these incidents are addressed in this paper as well as what constitutes proper basis for establishing a standard of care for involved installations and/or equipment. It will also expand on and update information provided in approximately two dozen past NAFE papers on various aspects of fall incident analysis, most of which are more than 10 to 30 years old. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Court in R v Jobidon held that consent to participate in a fist fight between adults is vitiated once bodily harm follows as a result of the fist fight. Jobidon's ruling fundamentally altered the defence of consent to assault. This paper critiques the extension of Jobidon to sexual assault in the context of BDSM in R v Welch on multiple grounds. First, the paper shows that there are complexities in applying Welch's ruling, which have led to confusions in jurisprudence surrounding: (a) the mental state of the assailant causing bodily harm; (b) the addition of psychological harm as a bodily harm to the scope of the ruling in question; and (c) the characterization of the sexual activity in question as degrading or dehumanizing. Second, the paper challenges the Court's reasoning in Welch on three grounds. First, characterizing a sexual activity as degrading to show that it is not worthy of protection by the law is subjective. Instead, the courts should assess the interests of sexual minorities. Second, the Court's comparison of sex with sport was inappropriate in finding the former containing insufficient social utility as opposed to the latter. Third, irrespective of political philosophy, the Court's ratio was contrary to the letter of law pursuant to section 9 of the Criminal Code by effectively creating a new law. This paper advocates for legal reform in Jobidon and applying it to sexual assault. The paper positions that Parliament has already taken steps to criminalize high-risk sexual activities such as asphyxiation under section267(c) of the Criminal Code. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to improve the efficiency of pattern-making for suit lapels in the apparel industry, to master the perceptual knowledge of suit lapels and to establish a mapping relationship between suit lapel styles and perceptual judgment. Design/methodology/approach: In this paper, notch lapel, peak lapel and shawl lapel are studied, and the authors extract the structural features in the order of drafting as the input values for model training. At the same time, after the expert screening, four perceptual evaluation dimensions based on a priori knowledge are selected as output values, which are finally classified using a decision tree algorithm. Findings: The results show that different design parameters produce different perceptions of people's vision and, thus, different perceptual judgments. The decision tree model can effectively classify the perceptual judgment of the lapel shape. Originality/value: The findings of this study help garment factories to provide optimal judgment of basic parameters before the production of a suit lapel and to improve the efficiency of the design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper develops a method to identify manipulation of custodial suspects who attempt to invoke the Miranda right to legal counsel during a custodial interrogation. The method, developed from a combination of framing theory and hypergame theory, first documents the point where custodial suspects' preferences shift and second identifies the proximate cause of that shift using excerpts from legal cases. The method applies linguistic analysis within a hypergame framework to reveal rational behavior of custodial suspects who, despite owning an initial preference to invoke, waive their right to counsel without explicit pressure from police. The paper terms this shift in preferences "manipulation" adding the concept to hypergames and to the literature on noncooperative discursive exchanges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Digital de Derecho Administrativo is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia 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.)

It did not take long for Oatly to falter beneath the unblinking eye of investors. Within two months of going public, the global oat milk company faced multiple allegations of securities fraud. Oatly had merely intended to reassure investors: "sustainability is at the core of our business." Instead, those eight words became kindling for litigation. Without pause, investors filed a class-action lawsuit in a New York federal district court alleging the company misled investors about its environmental practices and artificially inflated its stock price. For Oatly, it was an unexpected welcome to a new era of climate litigation. The story of Oatly's slip-up is an increasingly common narrative in climate-related litigation. As investor interest in sustainability grows, so does the risk of liability for public companies and directors. Attempts to mitigate the litigation risks are costly, but ignoring the risk carries even greater, perhaps even crippling, costs. True, companies have long been willing to volunteer climate information to investors in their sustainability reports, recognizing the reduction in risk premiums associated with such disclosures. But investors have challenged those disclosures as avalanches of information lacking meaningful, actionable data. Indeed, investors and directors alike are often left "drowning in information, while starving for wisdom. This paper addresses a new era of climate litigation, exploring the well-traveled private causes of action for securities fraud against the backdrop of the SEC's proposed climate disclosure rules. As written, the rules greatly expand the disclosure requirements for public companies. In doing so, the proposed rules also extend the footholds for private plaintiffs seeking to mount a securities class-action lawsuit. This paper analyzes these increased disclosure demands in the context of a historic reallocation of investment capital and the nascent ESG movement. Recognizing these climate-change efforts punch forward with considerable momentum, this paper provides solutions for public and private companies alike to prepare for and succeed in an expanding and uncertain climate litigation arena. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) practice of issuing opinions and taxation rulings for the guidance of taxation practitioners compiling and submitting taxation returns does not always result in greater clarity or certainty in the application of taxation laws. To illustrate that argument the paper addresses the example wherein the ATO considers all animals used in a business of primary production as trading stock. However, the word all is not contained in s 995 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (ITAA 1997); but rather, the ATO view is based on its interpretation of the findings in the appeal case of Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Wade ('Wade Case'). However, it has been previously argued that dairy cattle, and stud stock held for breeding purposes, should be treated as capital assets and not trading stock. Those publications examined the Wade Case but contained a number of assumptions made due to a lack of substantiable evidence. Subsequent investigation of the High Court appeal books and other documentary evidence focussing on initial Commonwealth Taxation Board of Review decision that preceded the Commissioner of Taxation's appeal to the High Court is examined in this paper. The paper analyses those documents and investigates background not reported in Court authorised publications. It compares them with previous publications to reveal a deeper insight of the case and addresses the assumptions made in those publications. It argues that the Wade Case focussed on the assessable nature of monies received as compensation for loss of assets. That Wade's loss was dairy cattle is somewhat irrelevant to the findings of the case. The paper finds that, prior to 1936, animals used as breeding stock were of capital nature for taxation purposes. However, the legislation was repealed in 1936 which rendered all animals used in a business of primary production to be classified as trading stock. Therefore, it concludes that while ATO view is correct, the basis supporting the view is not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By 1865 British Imperial governments had accepted that colonial courts had the authority to invalidate colonial statutes which contravened the relevant colony's constitution. This situation arose notwithstanding the lack of any express grant of such jurisdiction to colonial courts in Imperial or colonial legislation. This paper evaluates the first instance of a colonial court asserting that jurisdiction, during the Dog Act crisis in Van Diemen's Land (Tasmania) in the 1840s. Part one of the paper charts the background to, conduct of and judgment in the relevant litigation. The second part, which will appear in a future issue of this journal, explores the consequential attempts of the colony's Governor to remove the judges from office and to re-enact the invalidated colonial law. The suggestion made is that the Dog Act controversy provides considerable insight into how, despite the absence of any explicit statutory grant of such jurisdiction, the power of judicial review of colonial legislation by colonial courts became established as an orthodox element of British colonial constitutional law in the latter nineteenth century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Treaties are concluded by States but often impose rights and obligations directly upon private parties. Can private parties contract out of a treaty including States' oppositions without explicit permissions granted by the treaty? The complexity between party autonomy and State sovereignty is reflected in recent cases and unsettled debates regarding the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters of November 15, 1965 ("HSC"). The HSC contains a large number of oppositions made by 65 Contracting States including China, Germany, India, and Singapore. Combining public and private international law, this paper aims to explore the correlative relationship between party autonomy and State sovereignty in applying the HSC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the realm of autonomous driving tort, a significant disparity exists in the parties' access to autonomous driving data and essential technical information, resulting in challenges in unilateral proof. The traditional burden of proof framework in driving litigation is inadequate for direct application in the autonomous driving sphere. As we approach the era of widespread autonomous driving operations, there is an urgent need to clarify and redefine the allocation of the burden of proof in specific litigations. Utilizing comparative legal analysis and case studies, this paper delves into the disparities in the legislative provisions concerning the burden of proof for autonomous driving in Germany and China. China can learn from Germany's legislative precedence in shifting the burden of proof for "product defect" and "fault" onto the manufacturer, thereby requiring the infringed party to merely furnish preliminary evidence indicating a "causal relationship between the defect and the damage". This approach mitigates the evidentiary burden on the aggrieved party, clarifies the litigation procedures, incentivizes manufacturers to enhance the technology, reinforces risk management, and ultimately facilitates the progression of autonomous driving technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The notion of a defendant submitting a false guilty plea due to the penal incentive offered is not an uncommon phenomenon. While the practice has been legitimised based on the defendant's voluntary informed consent, it has often been argued that the structure of the plea-bargaining practice is coercive. Such can be the case whenever the plea offer entails a significant sentence differential, discrepancy in the form of punishment (a non-custodial sentence relative to a custodial one), or when the alternative of pleading guilty includes the risk of capital punishment. Having said that, plea-bargains have often been classified as a "non-coercive offer", whether due to their advantageous mutual character according to a baseline conception of coercion or being an offer that one can overcome according to an irresistible psychological account. While many scholars have struggled with the ambiguous notion of "coercive offers," the paper offers an alternative approach, arguing that it is the type of reasons to be considered within the offer that renders the bargain less than fully autonomous. It will be argued that the plea-bargain proposition infuses irrelevant (guilt-uncorrelated) penal considerations unrelated to the question of guilt. Such considerations are the wrong kind of reason for the guilty-plea decision, and due to the defendant's dependency on the plea offer, they distort the defendant's intentional character of her autonomous decision. It is part of the conception of the guilty plea. Though a defendant may autonomously intend to consider irrelevant penal considerations, such a decision cannot be genuinely considered a decision regarding the admission of guilt. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I address the theory of excuse, or more precisely, exculpatory excuse, and the question of what it is that justifies the category of excuse. I address different potential grounds for the law of excuse, which are often run together in ways that confound rather than clarify, focusing on the role of blamelessness and unfairness of expectations in the theory of excuse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines in three parts how ADR is being embedded into the English civil justice system. Section 1 discusses how courts encourage settlements, and it argues that while mounting costs in litigation lead to negotiated settlements, the participation in ADR primarily mainly occurs when parties are referred to it in a timely manner. Section 2 investigates the time when disputants are referred to ADR, and it proposes a taxonomy formed by three stages in the dispute life cycle: (1) before parties contemplate litigation; (2) at the pre-action phase as a pre-condition to issue a claim; and (3) after a defence is entered. Section 3 notes that the court digitalisation program is increasing ADR referrals across the above three stages, and it argues that these referrals will be more effective when they are timely and coupled with suitable incentives and sanctions, but the latter must take into consideration the parties' power asymmetries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Media Iuris is the property of Universitas Airlangga 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.)

This paper reviews the court-released discovery documents obtained from litigation against Monsanto over its herbicide Roundup and through Freedom of Information Act requests (requests to regulatory agencies and public universities in the United States). We sought evidence of corporate malfeasance and undisclosed conflicts of interest with respect to issues of scientific integrity. The findings include evidence of ghostwriting, interference in journal publication, and undue influence of a federal regulatory agency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Acta Bioéthica is the property of Universidad de Chile, Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios en Bioetica 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.)

This paper will first review the debate over the definition and recognition of Indigenous peoples with regard to the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa, focusing on the colonial history, specifically regarding the case of the lawsuit calling for the return of the Ryukyuan ancestral remains. Then, after an overview of the history of the lawsuit calling for the return of the Ryukyuan ancestors, which was instigated in 2018, I will present what has been achieved so far, the challenges that remain, and the prospects for the future. There, the 'colonialism by academic knowledge' nurtured since the colonial period will be exposed, and the recognition by the state of the people of Ryukyu and Okinawa as Indigenous peoples, and the possibility of solidarity among civil society and domestic and international Indigenous and minority peoples will be analyzed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Terrorism research has gained much traction since the 9/11 attacks, but some sub genres of terrorism, such as right-wing terrorism, have remained under-studied areas. Unsurprisingly data sources to study these phenomena are scarce and frequently face unique data collection obstacles. This paper explores five major, social-scientific terrorism databases in regards to data on right-wing terrorist events. The paper also provides an in-depth examination of the utilization of criminal legal proceedings to research right-wing terrorist acts. Lastly, legal case databases are introduced and discussed to show the lack of available court information and case proceedings in regards to right-wing terrorism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1966, the US Supreme Court overturned a conviction after pervasive coverage of a crime and court proceedings deprived a defendant's fair trial rights. Two North Carolina judges subsequendy issued a rule of court restricting the information trial participants, court workers, and law enforcement officers couldpublicly release between the time of an arrest and the end of a trial. Journalists indicated a virtual blackout on crime news followed as law enforcement officers cited the rule when refusing to release crime and accident reports. Editors initially presented the rule as a threat to press freedom, which undermined the press' responsibility to scrutinize criminal justice. News editorials criticized the rule, reflecting journalists' fears that the North Carolina experience exemplified the potential for police and judges to create broad blankets of secrecy. Members of the press and bench, however, ultimately came together to address ways to protect free press and fair trial rights. This article uses interviews of Judge E. Maurice Braswell and historical analysis of the archival paper collections ofJudge Raymond B. Mallard, Samuel T. Ragan, and Elmer Oettinger, Jr. This article aims to describe the North Carolina judges'motivation for issuing the order, judges' reactions to the order, press reactions to the order, judges' reactions to that press coverage, and methods that one of the judges and one of the journalists ultimately recommended to address free press and fair trial rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to analyse the effects of carousel fraud on the average price of goods, as one of the negative economic aspects of carousel fraud. Design/methodology/approach: This paper is primarily based on the description of selected legal cases and the modus operandi of carousel fraud, the analysis of legal texts (legislation and judgments of courts) and the discussion, from the point of view of price manipulation. Findings: The results of the analysis specify the negative impact of carousel fraud in the form of the distortion of reported average prices and suggest that the authorities should monitor usual or fair prices to detect cases where there is a risk of carousel fraud. Originality/value: This paper brings new insight into the issue of carousel frauds by understanding the principle of carousel fraud, the motives for it, and the possibilities for detecting this type of tax fraud, which is necessary to prevent tax evasion and to preserve a state's income. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Courtroom examination holds out much of the drama that characterises the adversarial justice system. In such communicative encounters, attorneys or counsel has the singular task of asking various questions related to the fact about a legal case; witnesses, on the other hand, are institutionally compelled to provide answers to the questions. One of the means by which counsel control the responses of witnesses and get desired answers is what is tagged 'conducive questioning'. This paper investigates how counsel use conducive questioning to serve predetermined discourse goals. It is argued here that conducive questions lend themselves to pragmatic interpretation with due consideration to the context of use. The data for this study is drawn from two legal matters. The first is a civil suit involving an employee who sued his employer, a big brand in Nigeria's telecommunication industry, and the second is an electoral dispute taken from the 2011 Governorship Election Petition Tribunal in Adamawa State, north-east Nigeria. A pragma-discursive approach is deployed in the analysis of the data. The findings reveal that conducive questioning in the cases under review is achieved not just through the structural pattern of questions but by the recursive process of pragmatic repetition, and such linguistic elements as negation as well as discourse markers especially where confirmatory questions are involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, the technology of cryptocurrency has become increasingly mainstream and has been documented as playing a role in the commission of contemporary criminal activity. The law must be responsive to these new techniques for committing crimes and adapt accordingly. Currently, there is a dearth of both jurisprudence and literature as it relates to section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the search and seizure of cryptocurrency by law enforcement. For the protections of section 8 to apply, there must be a reasonable expectation of privacy in the matter searched or seized by authorities. This paper analyzes the reasonable expectation of privacy as it relates to cryptocurrency in three different ways: first, in cryptocurrency transaction data on the blockchain, which is a public ledger that records cryptocurrency transactions; second, in various types of cryptocurrency storage mediums; and third, in user information on cryptocurrency exchanges. Previous section 8 Charter jurisprudence, U.S. case law, secondary sources, and blockchain data were all utilized to guide these analyses. Applying the reasonable expectation of privacy test to these inquiries yielded three distinct findings. It was determined that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in cryptocurrency transaction data on the blockchain, that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in various types of cryptocurrency storage mediums, and that there is a reasonable but diminished expectation of privacy in user information on cryptocurrency exchanges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper seeks to address the issue of how evidence obtained in violation of a Charter-protected right is to be dealt with in civil forfeiture proceedings. In arriving at the answer, the governing jurisprudence in this area of the law will be canvased to provide a contextual background that informs the parameters of this discussion. However, it will ultimately become clear by the end of this paper that evidence obtained in violation of a Charter-protected right should be dealt with by way of section 24(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the use of a modified Grant test. Civil forfeiture is the process by which the state commences legal action to obtain property that was seized as an instrument or proceed of unlawful activity. Although property can be forfeited through a number of different mechanisms, the scope of this paper is limited to forfeiture proceedings commenced by way of civil action under provincial legislation with a focus on British Columbia. The case law presented in this paper will focus primarily on appellate court decisions from across the country due to the scarce attention this area of the law has received. These cases will highlight the endeavours of litigants who sought to undermine civil forfeiture proceedings through the use of common law principles and the Charter. Finally, commentary will be provided on the direction future research in this area of the law should take. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses the role of a code of ethics for judges in connection to a contemporary definition of responsive 'T-shaped' judicial professionalism and the professional-ethical questions which can arise in judicial decision-making regarding politically and societally controversial issues. The paper's case study focuses on climate-change related litigation in Dutch courts. First, a theoretical framework which conceptualises practical and ethical elements of T-shaped judicial professionalism as 'virtuous judgecraft', building on the work of Kritzer and Van Domselaar, addresses the knowledge, skills, and ethical mindset that judges need for fulfilling their roles in relation to this notion of professionalism. Next, the paper analyses to what extent connections with guidelines of the Dutch Guide to Judicial Conduct (GJC), considered in light of the developed framework of virtuous judgecraft, can be recognised in the approaches of judges in the landmark Urgenda judgments. Based on this analysis, the paper presents conclusions regarding the value of the GJC for enhancing judicial performance and for explaining judgments, in particular those which involve complex societal issues, to parties and the general public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Are viewing and acting separate things? In his essay The Emancipated Spectator (2008), Jacques Rancière argues that the state of passivity inscribed in the traditional role of the spectator must be revoked by theater itself, whose primary aim should be to liberate “a form of consciousness, an intensity of feeling, an energy for action” that can empower the spectators, make them aware of the social reality they live in, and potentially foster their desire to transform some of its structures. This paper looks at two examples of contemporary attempts at “staging justice” that expressly require an emancipated spectatorship, though in different ways: Terror. Ein Theaterstück (2016) by Ferdinand von Schirach, a courtroom drama in which the spectators are requested to judge on a fictional legal case, and Zeugen! Ein Strafkammerspiel (2004) by theater collective Rimini Protokoll, in which experts of justice from the Berlin-Moabit criminal court share their knowledge and experience with the audience. By examining the aesthetic strategies through which both texts portray the world of justice on stage, the paper outlines their political relevance as well as the different ways in which they thematise the theatricality of legal processes and the relationship between make-believe and reality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") released its landmark decision in the case of R v Jordan. With the objective of addressing widespread delay within the Canadian justice system, the implications of the ruling were such that the Court set out definitive limits on the length of time in which accused persons must be brought to trial before a stay of proceedings is presumed to be entered. Since the decision, many scholars have emphasized the importance of resolving delay within the justice system to ensure that widespread stays of proceedings are not being entered, whereby the justice system may consequently fall into a state of disrepute. However, an equally important consideration that has not yet been explored concerns the risks that a failure to adequately remedy delay may result in police and Crown rushing to resolve cases within these strict time constraints. To explore this gap within the literature, this paper utilizes wrongful conviction concepts and available data to demonstrate that the current state of delay within the justice system has the potential to contribute to a "rush to justice" mentality among police and Crown. The development of such a mentality is problematic as it has the potential to lead to a wrongful conviction. Considering this elevated risk for wrongful convictions, this paper thus provides a new perspective in underscoring the importance of resolving delays within the justice system in the advent of Jordan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Construction disputes arising from claims have become common in this unique and complex industry. Resolving disputes leads to extra costs and is time-consuming. Most of the disputed claims in construction occur due to project delays. A claim for loss and expense is one of the claims incurred due to certain events that usually arise from the delay. Therefore, this paper aimed to identify disputes in claims for loss and expense related to the PWD form of contract based on Malaysian legal cases. Understanding why disputes occur in construction contracts can reduce the chances of their occurrence, and parties can establish a quick, cost-effective resolution process that will not jeopardise their potential in future business relationships when disputes arise. The research adopted a review related to construction law cases from 'Malayan Law Journal Report/Unreported'. Findings indicate that disputes in claims for loss and expenses related to the Public Works Department (PWD) form of contract can be categorised into contractual, documentation, and procedure. Understanding the contract provisions is a must for every construction party to obtain successful claims. This paper suggests identifying disputes related to PAM forms of contracts in the Malaysian construction industry, so that the contracting parties can understand the impact of the disputes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Accounting & Management is the property of Croatian Accountant 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 paper discusses the changes in Székely society during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The topic is presented from a legal historical perspective because the scholarly literature has either paid no substantial attention to the legal framework of the early modern era or failed to utilize the sources relevant for Székely society. By re-examining already known sources and analyzing new ones, i.e., judicial proceedings, testimonies, contract and personal letters, it appears that the main turning points of the history of Székely society have been misinterpreted in some aspects, and a series of new questions have emerged that are yet to be answered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper describes the organization of the independent Transylvanian central court of law, the so-called Royal/Voivodal/Princely Table (Tabula) and its court of appeal, the court of personal presence (personalis presentia), in the light of the modest secondary literature, dietary decisions, and archival sources. Manuscript and published sources of law referred to in the course of litigation in the Transylvanian Royal/Voivodal/Princely Table (Tabula, Curia) in the second half of the sixteenth century are also presented. Based on the analysed archival sources-mainly the various allegationes lawyers made-it may be concluded that different sources provided the grounds that were frequently given for the court decisions. The analysis of available sources shows that, besides the Tripartitum, which was mostly referred to, during the litigations lawyers generally used the laws of the Hungarian Kingdom, and that the Decreta of the Transylvanian diets and the Table judged some cases according to their own custom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After more than a decade of extensive reform of administrative litigation, which, despite clearly defined goals, did not yield the expected results, and after numerous requests and criticisms from practice and legal theory, a new Law on Administrative Disputes has been prepared. It contains numerous innovations primarily aimed at increasing the efficiency of administrative litigation. The paper presents and analyzes the basic novelties introduced by the new legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper reflects on the absurd humour contained in Kafka's novel The Trial in two selected works of Russian literature. Using the example of two texts representing different genres (a short story and a poem) by Daniil Kharms and Vladimir Yermolayev, it shows how these two authors were inspired by this aspect of Kafka's work: in the case of Vladimir Yermolayev, the source of inspiration is completely unquestionable and is already referred to by the direct allusion in the title. The entire poem is then constructed as a lawsuit that originates, unfolds and concludes within the lyrical subject, which is the metaphorical Kafka himself. For Daniil Charms, the source of inspiration is unacknowledged, though obvious: Charms was inspired by one particular passage of Kafka's novel, which he altered in accordance with his poetics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Standing is generally framed as a doctrine about plaintiffs. The basic question, the Supreme Court has said, is "whether the plaintiff is the proper party" to invoke the federal judicial power. Asking that question tends to obscure a natural corollary: Against whom? This Article attends to the other side of the "v." It argues that suits against private parties should be treated differently from suits against government officials for standing purposes because these two types of suits raise different structural concerns. Notwithstanding its focus on plaintiffs, the Supreme Court has said repeatedly that standing is "built" on the "single basic idea" of "the separation of powers. " When a government official is sued, a particular structural problem arises: If a court entertains the suit, it will be put in the position of supervising another branch of the government. And without some sort of injury requirement, the political branches might be subjected to continuous judicial oversight. As a historical matter, Article III standing doctrine developed primarily in this context. But the structural concern prompted by that context is absent when one private party sues another private party. There is no prospect that such a suit will yield a remedy against a government official. The suit may, of course, raise other constitutional problems, but those other problems should not be shoehorned into standing--an avowedly transsubstantive jurisdictional doctrine that derives from Article III. This theoretical claim is bolstered by a striking fact: Until 2020, the Supreme Court had never dismissed a case for lack of Article III standing when the defendant was a private party on the ground that the injury alleged was insufficient. And, as it followed this pattern, the Court was notably more generous in recognizing standing in cases against private parties than in cases against governmental parties. But the Court recently broke this pattern. In two closely divided opinions, the Court held--for the first time--that private parties could not sue other private parties because the injuries alleged were inadequate. Congress's attempt to authorize those suits thus violated Article III. This paper critiques those decisions, situates them in the broader arc of the development of standing law, and surveys the prospects for doctrinal reconstruction. To do so, it proposes a novel framework to return the law of standing to its historical and conceptual moorings. Under that framework, standing doctrine should not limit Congress's (or the states') power to authorize lawsuits between private parties in federal court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the article is to draw attention to one of the current trends in climate litigation, in which the solution of a human rights issue becomes the essence of the dispute. This trend is known as the "human rights turn", whereby the failure to fulfil or adequately fulfil national or international climate commitments is linked directly to the violation of fundamental human rights. The paper notes the impact of this trend on the interpretation of some fundamental human rights (in particular the right to life, the right to respect for private and family life and the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment). It draws attention to the need to strike a balance between protecting the rights of present and future generations. The application of the principle of intergenerational solidarity and the principle of proportionality is a primary factor in addressing this issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Pravnik is the property of Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of State & Law 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.)

This paper analyses the way in which the responsibility for managing climate change risks is addressed by the Dutch courts in the Urgenda and Shell cases. A foundation called Urgenda initiated proceedings against the State of the Netherlands; followed by Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) initiating proceedings against Shell, a multinational oil corporation with, at the time, its headquarters still in the Netherlands. This paper looks at both these examples of climate litigation, with a focus on what the courts had to say about responsibilities for managing climate change risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we raise two points. First, any rights‐based theory should provide a method by which to guide reasoning in addressing conflicts of rights. The reason, we argue, is that these theories must provide guidance on what should be done. Second, this method must contain two key recommendations: (1) We should try to find a deliberative mechanism through which none of the rights is simply eliminated from the scene; (2) these rights may be balanced against each other to define which right should prevail, but without considering non‐rights‐interests as if they were rights in the process. These recommendations instantiate two crucial principles that underlie our common intuitions on rights, namely, the principle that rights deserve equal respect and the principle that rights should be taken seriously. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Foreign Bank Account Reporting (FBAR) has emerged recently as a litigation matter in several federal courts. While past cases primarily focused on the determination of willful versus nonwillful FBAR violations, recent cases bring to light issues that should lead Congress to revisit requirements and legislation specifically related to penalties. This paper examines four specific topics recently discussed in the courts: the assessment of penalties per FBAR form or per account; Eighth Amendment challenges; payment of penalties by an estate; and repatriation of assets to pay penalties. We address what the recent FBAR litigation tells us about compliance, enforcement, and policy and encourage Congress to revisit and make changes to the law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]