Whose Embryo Is It Anyway?: The Need for a Federal Statute Enforcing Frozen Embryo Disposition Contracts

2017 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 633-647
Author(s):  
Alexandra Faver
Keyword(s):  
Federal Statute ◽  
Embryo Disposition

Unresolved Business: Federal Corporate Governance Enhancements

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc I. Steinberg
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Insider Trading ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Professional Conduct ◽  
State Law ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Tender Offers ◽  
Federal Level ◽  
Federal Statute

This chapter analyzes and recommends federal corporate governance enhancements that should be implemented. These enhancements, which should be adopted in a measured and directed manner, are necessary to remediate certain deficiencies that currently exist. Consistent therewith, this chapter focuses on several important matters that merit attention, including the undue deference by federal courts to state law, the appropriate application of federal law to tactics undertaken in tender offers, the need for a federal statute encompassing insider trading, and the propriety of more vigorous oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission (such as with respect to the “current” disclosure regime, the SEC’s Standards of Professional Conduct for Attorneys, and the Commission’s neglecting at times to invoke its statutory resources). Thus, the analysis set forth in this chapter identifies significant deficiencies that currently exist and recommends measures that should be implemented on the federal level to enhance corporate governance standards.

ERISA Preemption and Regulation of Managed Health Care: The Case for Managed Federalism

1997 ◽  
Vol 23 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 251-289
Author(s):  
Margaret G. Farrell
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Retirement Income ◽  
Structural Reforms ◽  
Unborn Child ◽  
Income Security ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Managed Health Care ◽  
Federal Statute ◽  
Managed Care Organizations ◽  
Retirement Income Security

The result ERISA compels us to reach means that the Corcorans [who lost their unborn child allegedly as a result of United Healthcare’s negligent determination that hospitalization was not medically necessary] have no remedy, state or federal, for what may have been a serious mistake. This is troubling....In the words of its sponsor, Senator Jacob Javits, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) was enacted in 1974 “to maintain the voluntary growth of private [pension and employee benefit] plans while at the same time making needed structural reforms in such areas as vesting, funding, termination, etc. so as to safeguard workers against loss of their earned or anticipated benefits....” Ironically, one of ERISA’s provisions—its indeterminate provision for the preemption of state law—has probably created more uncertainty about the adequacy and security of health care benefits than any other piece of legislation. Neither ERISA nor any other federal statute comprehensively regulates the content of employer provided health care plans, including benefits provided through managed care organizations (MCOs).

‘Compassionate transfer’: an alternative option for surplus embryo disposition

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 791-794
Author(s):  
Kirsten A Riggan ◽  
Megan Allyse
Keyword(s):  
Alternative Option ◽  
Embryo Disposition

scholarly journals Condemning Religion: RLUIPA and the Politics of Eminent Domain

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Serkin ◽  
Nelson Tebbe
Keyword(s):  
Local Governments ◽  
Important Implication ◽  
Safety Valve ◽  
Eminent Domain ◽  
The Political ◽  
Religious Groups ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Statute ◽  
The One ◽  
Special Protection

85 Notre Dame Law Review 1 (2009)Should religious landowners enjoy special protection from eminent domain? A recent federal statute, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), compels courts to apply a compelling interest test to zoning and landmarking regulations that substantially burden religiously owned property. That provision has been controversial in itself, but today a new cutting-edge issue is emerging: whether the Act’s extraordinary protection should extend to condemnation as well. The matter has taken on added significance in the wake of Kelo, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed its expansive view of the eminent domain power. In this Article, we argue that RLUIPA should not give religious assemblies any extraordinary ability to resist condemnation. We offer two principal reasons for this proposal. First, the political economy surrounding condemnation is markedly different from that of zoning, so that broadening the law’s protections beyond zoning to cover outright takings would be unnecessary and ineffective. Second, the costs of presumptively exempting congregations from condemnation are likely to be far higher than the costs of doing so with respect to zoning. In conclusion, we identify an important implication of our argument for the law’s core zoning provision – namely, our proposal invites local governments to circumvent RLUIPA by simply condemning religious property that they find difficult to zone because of the Act. On the one hand, this gives local governments a needed safety valve while, on the other hand, requiring them to pay just compensation to religious groups. Our proposal therefore suggests a powerful compromise.

The New Federal Statute Relating to Liens on Vessels

1911 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 182
Author(s):  
Fitz-Henry Smith
Keyword(s):  
Federal Statute

Reflections on the Commission’s Legacy in Legislated Minimum Standards

2011 ◽  
Vol 53 (5) ◽  
pp. 698-717
Author(s):  
Marilyn Pittard
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Justice ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Industrial Relations ◽  
Test Cases ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
Hours Of Work ◽  
Labour Standards ◽  
Federal Statute ◽  
State Legislative

This article examines the extent to which the labour standards adopted by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and its predecessors have left a ‘legacy’ in the new legislated standards and dismissal protection in the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission’s ‘community standards’, developed from ‘test cases’ and piecemeal from other decisions, will be explored, together with factors that had an impact on those decisions, including: the very nature of test cases; economic, social and public interest considerations; the federal statute; State legislative developments; and international influences. Case studies involving paid annual leave and standard hours of work will illustrate the Commission’s approach in its decision-making. Questions are posed as to whether the Commission has left guiding principles to achieve economic and social justice and assist future policymakers and regulators when they face similar decisions; and why some Commission standards were not legislated but may remain in awards.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Germany

2021 ◽  
pp. 53-58
Author(s):  
Lilly Weidemann
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Protective Effects ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Federal Statute ◽  
The Right ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
Subjective Rights

This chapter explores administrative procedure and judicial review in Germany. The German Basic Law contains a guarantee of access to justice. According to section 40(1) of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (CACP), recourse to the administrative courts shall be available in all public-law disputes of a non-constitutional nature insofar as the disputes are not explicitly allocated to another court by a federal statute. German administrative court procedure generally aims to protect subjective rights. In general, all measures taken by a public authority are subject to review by courts. This principle forms an essential part of the fundamental rights constitutionally guaranteed. Thus, no measure by the public administration is excluded from this guarantee. The infringement of a procedural provision with protective effects does not necessarily lead to the right of the applicant to have the decision quashed. This usually requires the infringement of a right of the appellant resulting from substantive law. Damages cannot be claimed within the same (administrative) court proceeding that aims to quash an administrative decision.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document