Criminal Law. Power of Appellate Court to Reduce Punishment

In the broadest sense, alternative sanctions are criminal law measures that substitute a prison sentence. They are practically parapenal sanctions considering that they lack the actual effectiveness inherent in classical punishment, which is expressed as a complete restriction of some rights or material values. The paper provides an overview of an international scientific-professional meeting of experts held at the Appellate Court in Niš, within the project "Strengthening the Probation and the Alternative Sanctions System in Montenegro and Serbia". Participants of the meeting were members of the Dutch delegation, as well as Serbian judges, public prosecutors, and probation officers. During the presentation of the project and the exchange of opinions and experiences on the application of alternative sanctions in both Netherlands and Serbia, numerous essential questions have been raised regarding the purpose of punishment, the achieved results, and the problems arising in everyday practice in the application of alternative sanctions.

Download Full-text

Criminal Law. Power of Appellate Court to Reduce Punishment. Dissenting. Davis v. State (1922, Ark.) 244 S. W. 750

The Yale Law Journal ◽

10.2307/789582 ◽

1923 ◽

Vol 32 (6) ◽

pp. 619

Keyword(s):

Criminal Law ◽

Appellate Court

Download Full-text

Medicaid & Medicare: D.C. Appellate Court Denies Claim for Medicare Reimbursement of GME Cost

The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics ◽

10.1017/s1073110500012997 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 27 (2) ◽

pp. 205-205

Author(s):

choeffel Amy

Keyword(s):

Medical Center ◽

Federal District ◽

Federal Court ◽

University Of Pennsylvania ◽

District Court ◽

Appellate Court ◽

Court Of Appeals ◽

Department Of Health ◽

Administrative Proceedings ◽

Summary Judgment

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld, in Presbyterian Medical Center of the University of Pennsylvania Health System v. Shalala, 170 F.3d 1146 (D.C. Cir. 1999), a federal district court ruling granting summary judgment to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) in a case in which Presbyterian Medical Center (PMC) challenged Medicare's requirement of contemporaneous documentation of $828,000 in graduate medical education (GME) expenses prior to increasing reimbursement amounts. DHHS Secretary Donna Shalala denied PMC's request for reimbursement for increased GME costs. The appellants then brought suit in federal court challenging the legality of an interpretative rule that requires requested increases in reimbursement to be supported by contemporaneous documentation. PMC also alleged that an error was made in the administrative proceedings to prejudice its claims because Aetna, the hospital's fiscal intermediary, failed to provide the hospital with a written report explaining why it was denied the GME reimbursement.

Download Full-text