44.1 Luftballons: The Communication Breakdown of Foreign Law in the Federal Courts

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Ahn
Keyword(s):  
Federal Courts ◽  
Communication Breakdown ◽  
Foreign Law

Foreign Law in Federal Courts

1981 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen L. Sass
Keyword(s):  
Federal Courts ◽  
Foreign Law

scholarly journals Buried Treasure: Excavating Foreign Law from Civil Pleadings Filed in U.S. Federal Courts

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-52
Author(s):  
Loren Turner
Keyword(s):  
English Translation ◽  
Large Firm ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Phone Call ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
Law Student ◽  
Government Website

Early last summer, I received a phone call from a law student in the litigation department of a large firm. He was working with a team on a case involving Czech law and, as part of a due diligence review, he was seeking an English translation of a piece of Czech legislation before the firm outsourced the bulk of the foreign legal research to Czech attorney-experts. Although it was easy to find the Czech legislation in Czech from a Czech government website, we could not find an English translation – official or otherwise – from any of our free or subscription-based databases. In the end, we relied on the flawed magic of Google Chrome's translate feature to “translate” the Czech legislation from the Czech government website into English. Despite my protestations and disclaimers, the student was thrilled with our results and insisted he had satisfied his due diligence duties. I hung up the phone and thought to myself: certainly, other American litigants have taken cases involving Czech law. What happens to the foreign law and legal analysis they obtain from their Czech attorney-experts? Assuming they submit some of it to our U.S. courts in the course of litigation, why can't we easily retrieve it?

Ethical Challenges: Less About Moral Wrongdoing and More About Communication Breakdown

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 72-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Leslie ◽  
Mary Casper
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Thickened Liquids ◽  
Communication Breakdown ◽  
Professional Duty ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
The Law ◽  
Personal Case

“My patient refuses thickened liquids, should I discharge them from my caseload?” A version of this question appears at least weekly on the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's Community pages. People talk of respecting the patient's right to be non-compliant with speech-language pathology recommendations. We challenge use of the word “respect” and calling a patient “non-compliant” in the same sentence: does use of the latter term preclude the former? In this article we will share our reflections on why we are interested in these so called “ethical challenges” from a personal case level to what our professional duty requires of us. Our proposal is that the problems that we encounter are less to do with ethical or moral puzzles and usually due to inadequate communication. We will outline resources that clinicians may use to support their work from what seems to be a straightforward case to those that are mired in complexity. And we will tackle fears and facts regarding litigation and the law.

Appeals by the Prosecution

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy J. King ◽  
Michael Heise
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Work ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Sample ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
High Courts ◽  
Extensive Information ◽  
State High Courts ◽  
State Prosecutors ◽  
Rate Of Success

Scholarly and public debates about criminal appeals have largely taken place in an empirical vacuum. This study builds on our prior empirical work exploring defense-initiated criminal appeals and focuses on criminal appeals by state and federal prosecutors. Exploiting data drawn from a recently released national sample of appeals by state prosecutors decided in 2010, as well as data from all appeals by federal prosecutors to the United States Court of Appeals terminated in the years 2011 through 2016, we provide a detailed snapshot of non-capital, direct appeals by prosecutors, including extensive information on crime type, claims raised, type of defense representation, oral argument and opinion type, as well judicial selection, merits review, and relief. Findings include a rate of success for state prosecutor appeals about four times greater than that for defense appeals (roughly 40% of appeals filed compared to 10%). The likelihood of success for state prosecutor-appellants appeared unrelated to the type of crime, claim, or defense counsel, whether review was mandatory or discretionary, or whether the appellate bench was selected by election rather than appointment. State high courts, unlike intermediate courts, did not decide these appeals under conditions of drastic asymmetry. Of discretionary criminal appeals reviewed on the merits by state high courts, 41% were prosecutor appeals. In federal courts, prosecutors voluntarily dismissed more than half the appeals they filed, but were significantly less likely to withdraw appeals from judgments of acquittal and new trial orders after the verdict than to withdraw appeals challenging other orders. Among appeals decided on the merits, federal prosecutors were significantly more likely to lose when facing a federal defender as an adversary compared to a CJA panel attorney.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document