on the 22nd of June 2009 <http://www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/convegni_seminari/Relazione_Gallo_opinione.pdf> (accessed March 2016).
Geyh CG, ‘Can Rule of Law Survive Judicial Politics?’ (2012) 97 Cornell Law Review.
Gibson James L, ‘Judges Role Orientations, Attitudes, and Decisions: An interactive Model’ (1978) 72 American Political Science Review 3.
Gillman H, Clayton CW, ‘Beyond Judicial Attitudes: Institutional Approaches to Supreme Court Decision- Making’ in CW Clayton, H Gillman (eds) Supreme Court
Health Care, Mixed Stories
The 2012 decision in National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius was reported as a relief for the administration as Chief Justice Roberts’ decision to side with the liberal quartet meant that the Afordable Care Act, the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s domestic policy agenda, survived the challenge brought by NFIB and 26 state attorneys general. Nat’l Fed’n Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012). In a complicated ruling the Court determined that the so-called ‘individual mandate’, which required people
lost the election to Richard Nixon, but the concept of basic income survived, albeit in another form. In 1975, the United States passed a law on tax credit [Earned Income Tax Credit ( Wikipedia 2019c )]. This idea is based on proposals for a negative income tax presented by Milton Friedman in his book Capitalism and Freedom , published in 1962. Friedman’s idea is closely related to the idea of basic income. Every individual of a given age would be eligible for tax credit of a given size. The credit would be taxed as any other income. Hence, individuals receiving
pertinently, the systematic absence of it) requires to be considered. Tax authorities suffer from information asymmetries and resource constraints, with the consequence that only a small minority of uncertain positions taken at the tax compliance stage are challenged. Further, in cases where a position is likely (but not certain) to survive a tax authority challenge, a tax authority may be expected not to challenge it even with adequate resources at its disposal and in full view of the evidence. In the United Kingdom, for example, HMRevenue&Customs’ stated policy provides
Human rights are much talked about and much written about, in academic legal literature as well as in political and other social sciences and the general political debate. Indeed, they are so oft en referred to and used as a basis for claims of various kinds that there may be a risk of certain “inflation” in that so much is said to be a human right that the notion loses its essential meaning. Th is article argues that the universality of basic human rights is one of the values of the concept of rights. Th e rights and the understanding and interpretation of rights may have to be purist. Th is may be the way universal human rights as a concept can survive at all. In the modern world there are different trends that to some extent conflict, like the trend of globalisation but also the re- emphasising in different parts of the world of traditional values, whether from a religious background or something else. It appears that the basic dogma of human rights - which has also been called the first universal ideology - that it is the individual and her rights and freedoms that should always be in the centre of any human rights discourse, is abandoned all the more oft en as the central principle. Instead the banner of human rights is used for various political and economic aims
Mergers and acquisition (M&A) operations generally follow wide due-diligence and investigation works. This suggests that a lot of elements outside of the final contract could help the judge or arbitrator interpret the intent of the parties. Yet, the common law tradition usually includes a so-called ‘parol evidence rule’ (PER) that prohibits the use of such evidence to this end, among numerous exceptions. Other legal tradition such as the civil law don’t include such rule. As transnational M&A operations now generally use international commercial arbitration (ICA) as a way to solve potential disputes, parties can wonder if these extrinsic evidence can be used in an ICA context, given its multicultural legal habits. To answer this question, this article analyses the cultural roots that explain the existence or absence of the PER, and matches them with the specificities of ICA. There are two main explanations for the distinction between common law and civil law regarding the PER. One is substantial and regards the contractual interpretation approach. The second depends on the culture regarding evidence and the existence of exclusionary rules. These two explanations don’t survive in ICA. Moreover, the specificities of ICA tend to encourage the admission of extrinsic evidence in contractual interpretation.
sometimes retained their birth names at marriage; men sometimes adopted the surnames of their wives; and children and grandchildren sometimes took the surnames of their mothers or grandmothers. Women had been permitted to own and inherit property through early medieval times, with Saxon landowners willing their lands to their daughters as well as their sons. Later, inheritance for daughters became limited to situations where there were no surviving sons. Surnames as a social and legal convention became closely connected to property, such that the person with the property
French Administration . New York City: United Nations, 1954.
UWECHUE, Ralph. Reflections on the Nigerian Civil War: A Call for Realism . London, UK: O.I.T.H. International Publishers Limited, 1969.
UZOKWE, Alfred Obiora. Surviving Biafra: The Story of the Nigerian Civil War: Over Two Million Died . Lincoln, Nebraska: iUniverse, 2003.
VORENBERG, Michael. Final Freedom: The Civil War, the Abolition of Slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
WALDMEIR, Patti. Anatomy of a Miracle: The End of
in business, lending support to the conclusion that Trump’s attempt to maintain a stake in his private interests while serving in public office would be untenable in other contexts. See infra notes 97–113 and accompanying text. Returning to legal issues raised by the President’s conflicts of interest, Part VI describes three federal lawsuits filed in 2017, two of which have survived motions to dismiss and have addressed the meaning of “emoluments” as understood by the Framers of the Constitution. See infra notes 114–201 and accompanying text. We conclude that
wearing body armor and would not be injured), and Joe moves to avoid the bullet. The bullet hits Jane and kills her.
According to the bodily movement test, Joe’s movement would be classified as killing since it caused Jane’s death. Nevertheless, his act is seemingly more accurately defined as a letting die, and, therefore, Joe would be liable only if we could identify a duty to stand in one place and not move.
“Freezing to death” – Joe is about to freeze to death. In order to survive, he tries to enter John’s house. John blocks Joe by locking the door. Joe dies