Search

In Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shade Systems Pty Ltd in 2018, Gageler J questioned the historical foundations of certiorari for error of law on the face of the record and hinted at the doctrine's possible "burial". In this article, we take up that invitation, and show that the doctrine was, as it were, invented by the English Court of Appeal in R v Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Shaw in 1951. The doctrine is premised on a misreading of older authority. The true position is that certiorari was always concerned with jurisdiction and, save for the peculiar procedure of using certiorari to state a case to King's Bench, decisions were never quashed for mere error of law. Not only is the doctrine historically suspect, it is inconsistent with other aspects of modern Australian administrative law and should be "buried". This article also considers how statutes which refer to the doctrine should now be construed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the challenges surrounding the application of the mistake of fact and mistake of law defenses in Texas criminal law. It offers suggestions on how to address them, including the requirement that the mistake of fact defense must be "reasonable," determining intent for an offense, confusion over the relationship between a defendant's mental state and causation, and distinguishing between a mistake of fact and a mistake of law.

Relationships between functional specialists working on NPD projects can lack trust, resulting in poor communication, low levels of co-operation, and, in the extreme, the political sabotage of projects. We empirically test a hypothesized model of managerial perceptions of motives and intentions, negative project politics, and affect-based trust, as well as their effect on dysfunctional conflict and defensive behaviors, with their subsequent effect on collaboration and NPD project success. Data were from 184 projects from the technically trained manager perspective, and 145 projects were from the marketing manager perspective. We find that, despite all of the NPD process improvement and use of integration methods, NPD managerial level interactions are still fundamentally relationally-based, where the strongest effects on cross-functional managerial behavior are from perceptions of negative motives, leading to defensive behaviors and politics interfering with collaboration and NPD success. On a positive note, while evident affect-based trust leads to collaboration and NPD success, it is far more important for technically trained managers. The implications for top management lie in structuring organizational processes that are trust-rich, in order to avoid the opportunity for distrust and suspicion to arise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When parties fail to raise claims at the proper time, courts often subject those claims to heightened standards that impose additional hurdles to relief. One of the most common is "plain error," which only permits correcting an error that is obvious, that affects substantial rights, and that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. In the 1982 decisions of United States v. Frady and Engle v. Isaac, however, the Supreme Court rejected plain error's applicability to procedural default in federal habeas corpus proceedings--i.e., to claims that should have been, but were not, timely presented at a pre-federal habeas stage. Instead, it applied the rule of "cause and prejudice," which allows review only if a petitioner has a valid reason for a default and can show actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law. Recent scholarship has largely ignored Frady and Engle's rejection of plain error. But that rejection warrants academic scrutiny--especially as we mark the fortieth anniversary of these decisions this year--and this Article presents the argument that it must now be rethought. Frady and Engle were premised on the idea that plain error was less stringent than cause and prejudice, but subsequent doctrinal developments have rendered that premise false. And beyond that, the present-day manifestation of plain error much more effectively serves the core purposes of habeas and procedural default. Given that, the choice of cause and prejudice over plain error is now itself plainly erroneous. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses how to properly preserve plain error in Missouri criminal law and allow a new trial. Other topics include the three types of trial error in state jurisprudence, namely, reversible, harmless and plain, the importance of making timely objections to preserve an error, and the most common errors like admission or exclusion of evidence.

Based on a fieldwork investigation offTontline judges in Chinese courts, this article provides empirical evidence for understanding the nuances of accountability of Chinese judges for error. The study looks at the wider perspective of judicial errors (encompassing mistakes, omissions, faults and wrongdoings committed by judges at any stage of the proceedings), as opposed to simply, incorrectly decided cases. We incorporate "the seriousness of the consequence of the error" and "the cause of the error" to develop a two.by-two matrix to explain the nature and gravity of liability of the judge. It is discovered that the same error may result in varying magnitudes of sanctions because of the different social and political consequences that emerge from the error. An mor of institutional cause attracts lighter sanction as compared to an error of individual cause when the conse- quence is of the same magnitude. We also argue that the judicial reform in 2015 did not fundamentally transform the logic of disc*lining judges and the way judges are held accountable for their errors in the Chinese courts as the reform did not bling about any major change in the institutional environment. The typology thus provides a comprehensive theoretical framework for understanding judges' accountability for error andjudicial disc*line in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyzes the approach of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) to plain error review in the case United States v. Tovarchavez. Topics discussed include the role of preservation of the alleged error and nature or magnitude of error in determining the appropriate standard of review, implication of the CAAF ruling that the constitutional nature of the error is the dominant factor, and approach of CAAF to preserved and unpreserved constitutional errors on appeal.

Atrocities are often unprecedented and identifying them therefore may require moral and political judgement, not only the application of legal rules. Consequently, potential defendants charged for perpetrating them may be genuinely unable to recognize the law that prohibits their criminal activity. Starting from its classical treatment in Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem, this problem has perplexed scholars who have noted the seemingly normal character of defendants in mass atrocity cases. In disagreement with other scholars in the area, I argue for a recognition of a "mistake of law"? defense in international criminal law. The Article demonstrates the stakes of the claim through three hypothetical international criminal cases with different political underpinnings, all pertaining to burning contemporary concerns: cases against individuals responsible for the enormous risks of climate change; against abusers of migrants in the context of border enforcement; and against individuals responsible for the termination of pregnancies in abortion clinics. I argue for a dual approach: on the one hand, prosecutors and judges must constantly leave open the possibility of a radical departure from extant doctrine and precedent in charging individuals. On the other, they must recognize that defendants may reasonably not be able to recognize the law qua law, especially when such departures occur. The internal tension between these two imperatives sheds light on the predicament of international criminal adjudication. A recognition of the proposed mistake of law defense is but a modest doctrinal solution for a much more fundamental perplexity of the discipline. Yet it is especially crucial today, with an ever-clearer normative divergence among actors in the "international community."? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article compares Michigan Supreme Court case Sherwood v. Walker and the Restatement of Contracts. Topics discussed include unstated mistaken factual assumption reported cases in the past ten years that apply the Restatement of Contracts; law of mistake witnessed by law students and lawyers; and adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code.

Little scholarly research has focused on misdemeanor court dispositions and sentencings, and no research has explored misdemeanor appeals. First-step appellate courts, which review nearly all appealed cases, focus on error-correction. As such, these courts are significant for providing oversight and safeguarding due process of law. This research is the first to explore and examine the role of error-correction courts in misdemeanor cases. In a single, large, metropolitan Florida county, this research investigated which, if any, cases were appealed, and when appealed, by whom, why, the outcomes, and whether any significant legal or extra-legal factors influenced the process or outcomes, including defendant representation by counsel. Strikingly, few misdemeanor court dispositions were appealed, and when appealed, few resulted in any error correction or even, a written explanation for the outcomes. Implications for the legal system, policy recommendations, and suggestions for future scholarly work are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights • Tests robustness of Game Form Misconception in the BDM. • Broadly replicates Cason and Plott (2014). • Formalizes the game form recognition theory for the analysis of treatment effects. • Explores the robustness of Cason and Plott's conclusions. • Concludes that previous results are not robust. Abstract Cason and Plott (2014, hereafter CP) conclude that sub-optimal behavior in the (second price) Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism (BDM) is consistent with the hypothesis that a significant proportion of subjects misconceive the BDM as a first price auction. We broadly replicate CP's results, formalize a game form recognition theory for the analysis of treatment effects, and explore the robustness of CP's conclusions across four treatments. We conclude that the pattern of misconception that explains the BDM data cannot simultaneously explain observed choices in closely related treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tripartite motif (TRIM) proteins belong to a large family with many roles in host biology, including restricting virus infection. Here, we found that TRIM2, which has been implicated in cases of Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease (CMTD) in humans, acts by blocking hemorrhagic fever New World arenavirus (NWA) entry into cells. We show that Trim2-knockout mice, as well as primary fibroblasts from a CMTD patient with mutations in TRIM2, are more highly infected by the NWAs Junín and Tacaribe virus than wild-type mice or cells are. Using mice with different Trim2 gene deletions and TRIM2 mutant constructs, we demonstrate that its antiviral activity is uniquely independent of the RING domain encoding ubiquitin ligase activity. Finally, we show that one member of the TRIM2 interactome, signal regulatory protein α (SIRPA), a known inhibitor of phagocytosis, also restricts NWA infection and conversely that TRIM2 limits phagocytosis of apoptotic cells. In addition to demonstrating a novel antiviral mechanism for TRIM proteins, these studies suggest that the NWA entry and phagocytosis pathways overlap. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]