Federal Courts: Motion for Judgment under Rule 50(b): Power of Circuit Court of Appeals to Direct Entry of Judgment Contrary to Verdict Directed by the Trial Court

1948 ◽  
Vol 46 (6) ◽  
pp. 844
Author(s):  
F. L. Adamson
Keyword(s):  
Federal Courts ◽  
Trial Court ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals

AFSCME v. Washington: The Continued Viability of Title VII Comparable Worth Actions

1988 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 315-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Scheibal
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
The State ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
Comparable Worth ◽  
Public Attention ◽  
Trial Court ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals

The recent AFSCME v. Washington comparable worth case attracted significant public attention when plaintiffs won an initial $800 million judgment against the State of Washington, only to see the award overturned on appeal. This paper reviews the legal theories used by the trial court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The current legal status of comparable worth is discussed, with particular emphasis on the applicability and precedential value of the Ninth Circuit's opinion for comparable worth cases in other jurisdictions. Analysis indicates that conflicts between the Ninth Circuit holding and opinions in other circuits provide a continuing opportunity for aggrieved employees to pursue claims under comparable worth or closely related legal theories.

Recent Case Developments in Health Law

2010 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 436-440 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Wevers
Keyword(s):  
Medical Treatment ◽  
District Court ◽  
Hospital Inpatient ◽  
Trial Court ◽  
Leon County ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Emergency Decision Making ◽  
Consent To Medical Treatment ◽  
Emergency Decision

A 2009 decision by a Florida state trial court marks a recent addition to the long line of cases authorizing compelled medical treatment of pregnant women for the benefit of their unborn children. Despite recurring judicial and academic consideration of the issues involved, there is no consensus regarding the correct approach to take in cases that pit a woman's right to refuse medical treatment against the state's interest in protecting fetal health. Burton v. Florida, currently under appeal to Florida's First District Court of Appeals, demonstrates the difficulty of emergency decision-making in this area and the need for robust ex ante consideration of the important interests at stake.In March 2009, pursuant to a petition by the State of Florida, the Leon County Circuit Court overrode a pregnant woman's informed refusal to consent to medical treatment, and ordered her to remain a hospital inpatient and submit to medical treatment.

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

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.

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.

Wells Fargo Asia Ltd. v. Citibank, N.A. Trinh v. Citibank, N.A. Edelmann v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 573-580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Dilworth
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Exclusive Jurisdiction ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
The Law ◽  
Exchange Control ◽  
Governmental Action

In these three breach-of-contract actions, United States federal courts considered the liability of home offices of U.S. banks for obligations of their foreign branches in the event of foreign governmental expropriation or exchange control measures. In each decision the court of appeals did not apply the act of state doctrine and gave no effect to the foreign governmental action, largely on the ground either that the situs of the debt was not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the foreign state carrying out the governmental measure at issue or that the law governing the obligation was not that of the foreign state.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document