Contributory Negligence in the Twenty-First Century: An Empirical Study of Trial Court Decisions

Workplace aggression is an ever-increasing and multi-faceted phenomenon that managers and human resources professionals worldwide will have to address in the twenty first century. A greater awareness of the presence and negative consequences of human aggression in the workplace and the ability to cope with it will become necessary to maintain an effective organization. The purpose of this article is to present an integrated approach to identify and measure aggression in the workplace. The results of a preliminary empirical study are used to demonstrate how the framework can be used for effectively managing different manifestations of workplace aggression.

Download Full-text

Rationalising corporate disregard

Legal Studies ◽

10.1017/lst.2020.7 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 40 (2) ◽

pp. 187-208

Author(s):

Alan Dignam ◽

Peter Oh

Keyword(s):

Empirical Study ◽

Family Law ◽

Case Law ◽

Evidence Base ◽

First Century ◽

Empirical Literature ◽

Judicial Reform ◽

Twenty First Century ◽

Historical Developments ◽

The Relationship

AbstractThe area of corporate disregard has a poor reputation for certainty of reasoning. To provide an alternative way of approaching the issue, we conducted an empirical study of the relationship between rationale and outcome within UK corporate disregard cases from the nineteenth to the twenty-first century. We examine the evidence from three perspectives. First, we examine the broad range of instrumental rationales found in the case law by disregard rates in order to identify where issues might be arising with individual rationales. Secondly, as suggested in the wider empirical literature, we examine the rationale rates by jurisdiction in order to see whether there were problematic interpretation issues concentrated in particular parts of the court levels. Thirdly, we examine the rationale rates by substantive claim to see whether contextual aspects of the doctrine, as the court identified with family law in Prest, were influencing outcomes. By providing an empirical study on the rationales instrumental to corporate disregard outcomes we aim to introduce a broader evidential view of where concerns may lie, which can both aid critique of key judicial historical developments such as Adams and Prest and provide a broader evidence base that might aid future judicial reform of the area.

Download Full-text

The Eleventh Circuit Holds that Agreements in which Pharmaceutical Companies Pay Generic Companies Not to Compete May be Valid

The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics ◽

10.1017/s107311050000749x ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 32 (1) ◽

pp. 181-184

Author(s):

Amy Garrigues

Keyword(s):

Pharmaceutical Companies ◽

Court Decisions ◽

Patent Holder ◽

Trial Court ◽

Court Of Appeals ◽

The Us ◽

Antitrust Laws ◽

Per Se ◽

Appeals Court ◽

Two Sides

On September 15, 2003, the US. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that agreements between pharmaceutical and generic companies not to compete are not per se unlawful if these agreements do not expand the existing exclusionary right of a patent. The Valley DrugCo.v.Geneva Pharmaceuticals decision emphasizes that the nature of a patent gives the patent holder exclusive rights, and if an agreement merely confirms that exclusivity, then it is not per se unlawful. With this holding, the appeals court reversed the decision of the trial court, which held that agreements under which competitors are paid to stay out of the market are per se violations of the antitrust laws. An examination of the Valley Drugtrial and appeals court decisions sheds light on the two sides of an emerging legal debate concerning the validity of pay-not-to-compete agreements, and more broadly, on the appropriate balance between the seemingly competing interests of patent and antitrust laws.

Download Full-text