Separate-Entity Doctrine Defeats Federal Tax Lien: Civil Procedure. Jurisdiction. Tax Liens. Banks and Banking. Conflict of Laws

1964 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 1101
Author(s):  
Stephen E. Solomon
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Separate Entity ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Banks And Banking

scholarly journals INTERNATIONAL CIVIL PROCESS AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (06) ◽  
pp. 259-262
Author(s):  
Akhmurodov Jakhongir ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Civil Process ◽  
Definition Of

This article examines various opinions regarding the international civil procedure as part of private international law and concludes that international civil procedure is directly related to the definition of applicable law, and that substantive regulation of private law relations complicated by a foreign element is generally impossible in practice without addressing both conflict of laws and procedural problems.

scholarly journals U.S. Supreme Court Brief of Professors of Conflict of Laws and Civil Procedure as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners, Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher A. Whytock ◽  
Zachary D. Clopton
Keyword(s):  
Relevant Information ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
American Law ◽  
Foreign Governments ◽  
Court Proceedings

The Second Circuit held that “when a foreign government, acting through counsel or otherwise, directly participates in U.S. court proceedings by providing a sworn evidentiary proffer regarding the construction and effect of its laws and regulations, which is reasonable under the circumstances presented, a U.S. court is bound to defer to those statements.” In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 837 F.3d 175, 189 (2d Cir. 2016). This “bound-to-defer” rule is incorrect and unwise.First, the “bound-to-defer” rule is inconsistent with basic American conflict-of-laws principles governing the determination of foreign law. It is inconsistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1’s broad authorization for U.S. courts to “consider any relevant material or source” when determining foreign law. It is inconsistent with the principle that determinations of foreign law should be accurate. And it is inconsistent with the principle of judicial independence in the determination of foreign law.Second, the “bound-to-defer” rule is inconsistent with foreign and international practice. In most other countries, information about foreign law is not binding on courts. Moreover, the world’s two main treaties on the interpretation of foreign law expressly provide that information supplied by foreign governments in accordance with those treaties is not binding on courts. Simply put, foreign governments do not expect each other’s courts to be “bound to defer” to each other’s interpretations of foreign law, much less the interpretation of one executive agency of a foreign government.Third, there are important reasons why deference principles should be kept separate from the principles governing the determination of foreign law. The Second Circuit’s “bound-to-defer” rule would inappropriately delegate to foreign governments power to influence the application of domestic law — and hence the implementation of domestic policy — in a wide range of cases in which the proper application of U.S. law depends on the determination of foreign law. In addition, international comity does not require U.S. courts to defer to foreign governments in the determination of foreign law. International comity is a traditional rationale for choice-of-law rules that require the application of foreign law as a rule of decision under specified circumstances. But in this case, foreign law is at issue because the application of U.S. law depends on the interpretation of foreign law, not because choice-of-law rules require the application of foreign law. Therefore, this case does not implicate the comity rationale for choice-of-law rules. Moreover, the concerns that animate comity doctrines are not the same as those that animate the rules governing the determination of foreign law. The former are concerned with the respect owed between governments, whereas the latter are concerned with ensuring that U.S. courts independently and accurately determine the content of foreign law. In fact, the “bound-to-defer” rule raises issues that are likely to pose significant comity concerns that the ordinary Rule 44.1 approach avoids. U.S. courts can still address comity concerns — separately from their independent determination of foreign law.To be sure, U.S. courts should give respectful consideration to a foreign government’s statements about its law. But as a matter of law, a foreign government’s statements cannot be binding on U.S. courts. Instead, U.S. courts should accurately and independently determine the meaning of foreign law taking into account not only the foreign government’s own statements, but also other relevant information about that law. This independent approach is especially important when — as in this U.S. antitrust case and many other cases — the proper application of American law depends on a determination of foreign law.

Einstweiliger Rechtsschutz in grenzüberschreitenden Schiedsverfahren

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Mink
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Arbitral Proceedings ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
Interim Measures ◽  
Rome I ◽  
Einstweiliger Rechtsschutz

The thesis focuses on the difficulties of determining the applicable law in interim proceedings in cross-border arbitral proceedings. First, it examines whether arbitral tribunals have a lex arbitri. Subsequently, the various possibilities of interim measures are described and the question is discussed whether arbitral tribunals have to refer to the Rome I Regulation or Section 1051 of the German Code of Civil Procedure in order to determine the applicable conflict of laws for contractual obligations. Then, it is analysed how the applicable substantive law is to be determined or how to proceed in case of non-determinability of such. Finally, the consequences of the application of a substitute law for the main proceedings are discussed.

scholarly journals Procedural Conflict-of-Laws Rules in Private International Law and International Civil Procedure

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ирина Гетьман-Павлова ◽  
Irina Getman-Pavlova
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Conflict Of Laws

Foreign Judgments

2018 ◽  
pp. 122-125
Author(s):  
V.C. Govindaraj
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Law ◽  
Substantive Law

A foreign judgement, even as a local judgement, should be assigned finality and decisiveness, if it is in conformity with the lex fori and, at the same time, does not ignore the applicable substantive law of the transaction. Hindu husbands, who go abroad either for higher studies or seeking lucrative jobs overseas, obtain a divorce for foreign courts in such of those states where domicile can be acquired by a make believe ‘six weeks’ or, as for that, a ‘three months’ stay. The concerned foreign courts grant divorce ignoring the law, that is, Hindu law, that governs their relationship. In order to circumvent such abuses, Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code has to be suitably amended so as to curb divorce decrees granted by foreign courts in violation of rules of conflict of laws.

scholarly journals "Close Connection" Category in International Civil Procedure and in Conflict of Laws

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 46-55
Author(s):  
L. V. Terentyeva
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Close Connection ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Court Order ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
Judicial Procedures

The use of "close connection" in conflict of laws area and in international civil procedure preconditions the question whether it is possible to interpret it uniformly both as a basis for establishing the jurisdiction to resolve cross-border private law dispute, and as a basis for choosing the applicable law.When studying close connection within the framework of conflict-of-laws regulation, the author of the paper, along with the concept of "close connection" examines the concepts of "connection with only one country" and "the closest connection". The paper also discusses the concept of Proper law which, as a rule, in the Russian doctrine is identified with the category of close connection.Analysis of the close connection as the basis for establishing jurisdiction has led to the conclusion that it is necessary to apply a differentiated approach to determining the content of close connection within the framework of Conflict of Laws and international civil procedure. This assumption is based on the fact that when establishing jurisdiction to consider cross-border private law disputes on the ground of a close connection, a special task is solved to overcome the conflict of jurisdiction while observing the principle of equality between judicial procedures of different states, as well as the principle of international judicial cooperation. In addition, within the framework of the international civil procedure, the concept of “foreign element” preconditioning the manifestation of a close connection of the disputed legal relationship with the court of the state, can be endowed with additional content except the content attached to the foreign element within the framework of the conflict of laws, namely: obtaining evidence abroad; enforcement of a court order abroad, etc.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document