Has the Landmark Supreme Court Decision in Jones v. Kaney Changed the Role of Expert Witnesses for the Better, for the Worse, or in Fact Not at All?

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richie Billing
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Expert Witnesses

Roadblock to Innovation: The Role of Patent Litigation in Corporate R&D

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Filippo Mezzanotti
Keyword(s):  
Research And Development ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Financing Constraints ◽  
Patent Litigation ◽  
General Increase ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Patent Enforcement

I examine how patent enforcement affects corporate research and development (R&D), exploiting the legal changes induced by the Supreme Court decision eBay v. MercExchange. This ruling increased courts’ flexibility in remedying patent cases and effectively lowered the potential costs of patent litigation for defendants. For identification, I compare innovative activity across firms differentially exposed to patent litigation before the ruling. Across several measures, I find that the decision led to a general increase in innovation. This result confirms that the changes in enforcement induced by the ruling reduced some of the distortions caused by patent litigation. Exploring the channels, I show that patent litigation negatively affects investment because it lowers the returns from R&D and exacerbates its financing constraints. This paper was accepted by Gustavo Manso, finance.

Equity & Trusts Law Directions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Watt
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Council Decision ◽  
Key Points ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Farming Families ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. This book explains the key topics covered on equity and trusts courses. The content of the text is designed to emphasise the relationship between equity, trusts, property, contract and restitution to enable students to map out conceptual connections between related legal ideas. There is also a focus on modern cases in the commercial sphere to reflect the constantly changing and socially significant role of trusts and equity. The book starts by introducing equity and trusts. It then includes a chapter on understanding trusts, and moves on to consider capacity and formality requirements, certainty requirements and the constitution of trusts. Various types of trusts are then examined such as purpose, charitable, and variation trusts. The book then describes issues related to trusteeship. Breach of trust is explained, as is informal trusts of land. There is a chapter on tracing, and then the book concludes by looking at equitable liability of strangers to trust and equitable doctrines and remedies. This new edition includes coverage of significant recent cases, including the Supreme Court decision on interest to be paid by tax authorities on monies owed; the Supreme Court decision on the test of dishonesty applicable to civil matters; the Privy Council decision on the division of investment property acquired by cohabitants; the Court of Appeal decisions on Quistclose trusts; fiduciary duties in arms-length contracts; transactions prejudicing creditors; beneficiary anonymity in variation of trust cases; exemption clauses; discretion exercised beyond trustee’s authority; implications of GDPR for trustee disclosures; trustee personal liability; causation and equitable compensation; statutory relief for a professional trustee’s breach of trust; use of proprietary estoppel to reward work undertaken in farming families; costs of seeking court’s directions; injunctions ordered against persons unknown; equitable jurisdiction to rectify agreements.

An honest mistake: two cases of mistaken dispositions

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 289-294
Author(s):  
Thomas Watts ◽  
Hugh Gunson
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
The Supreme Court

Abstract Two recent English cases, Hartogs v Sequent1and Payne v Tyler2, provide helpful examples of the application of the guidelines in the Supreme Court decision in Pitt v Holt3for claims seeking to set aside voluntary transactions on the grounds of mistake where significant unexpected tax liabilities are incurred. The facts and quantum of the cases are quite different and demonstrate the potentially wide application of the Pitt v Holt guidelines, as well as the willingness of the English Courts to hear such claims and grant the relief sought. The cases also offer guidance on a number of practical points for potential claimants for claims based on a mistake, in particular on the issues of proper forum, the role of HMRC and the position adopted by fiduciaries as non-contesting parties to the claims.

Managing the Supreme Court: The Chief Justice, Management, and Consensus

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Daniel Ura ◽  
Carla M. Flink
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Public Management ◽  
Judicial Politics ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Chief Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court

In this article, we draw on a prominent model of public management to develop a preliminary theoretical approach to understanding the role of the chief justice in Supreme Court decision-making. In particular, we argue that the Court may seek legitimacy through greater unanimity and discuss how the leadership of the chief justice can facilitate that effort. We assess a hypothesis derived from this theory, showing greater agreement among the justices as the incumbent chief justice’s tenure in office increases. We argue that these results provide support for further attention to and development of a public administration-based approach to the study of Supreme Court decision-making. The application of public administration to judicial politics provides further evidence of management dynamics in American institutions.

scholarly journals Making Up the Issue: The Judges' Role in Formulating Actions in the Crown Colony Period: Pharazyn v Smith (1844)

2010 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 427
Author(s):  
Shaunnagh Dorsett
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
English System

This article considers one of the key procedural innovations of the first Supreme Court rules – the making up of the issue – through the lens of the Supreme Court decision in Pharazyn v Smith (1844). Making up the issue referred to the process whereby pleadings were drafted in conference with the judge hearing the case. This contrasted with the English system of the time of a series of written exchanges between parties designed to identify the disputed issues of fact and law, and in which the role of the judge was essentially a passive one. Through Pharazyn v Smith we can see one of the ways in which judges sought to modify English laws to the circumstances of the colony, as well as the judges' role in shaping litigation, and hence law, in the infant colony.

scholarly journals Eksistensi Paralegal dalam Pemberian Bantuan Hukum bagi Masyarakat Miskin

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 70
Author(s):  
Eka N.A.M. Sihombing
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
The Poor ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Laws And Regulations

<h1>The role of paralegals is needed to handle cases of non-litigation and litigation to fulfill the need for legal aid rights for the poor in facing the law, however, the provision of the role of paralegals in providing litigation legal assistance as stated in article 11 and article 12 Minister of Law and Human Rights of Republic of Indonesia number 1 of 2018 concerning paralegals in the provision of legal assistance based on the Supreme Court decision number 22 P / HUM / 2018 was declared contrary to the higher laws and regulations, namely Law Number 18 of 2003 concerning Advocates and hence not generally accepted. Thus, after the Supreme Court's ruling, paralegals can no longer provide legal litigation aid. Advocate are the only professions who are authorized to carry out legal aid in litigation and court</h1><p class="KataKunciInggris"> </p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document