scholarly journals The Supreme Court and Labor Dispute Arbitration: The Emerging Federal Law

1965 ◽  
Vol 63 (5) ◽  
pp. 751
Author(s):  
Russell A. Smith ◽  
Dallas L. Jones
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Labor Dispute ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Labor Dispute Arbitration

scholarly journals Novels of the Criminal Code on responsibility for abusesin public procurement: background and problems of qualification

2018 ◽  
pp. 34-43
Author(s):  
A. Ya. Asnis
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Service Contract ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Contract Managers

The article deals with the criminological grounds and background of the adoption of the Federal law of April 23, 2018 № 99-FZ, which introduced criminal liability for abuse in the procurement of goods, works and services for state or municipal needs (Art. 2004 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and for bribery of employees of contract service, contract managers, members of the Commission on the implementation of the procurement of persons engaged in the acceptance of the delivered goods, performed works or rendered services, other authorized persons, representing interests of customer in the scope of the relevant procurement (Art. 2005 of the Criminal Code).The author formulates private rules of qualification of the corresponding crimes and differentiation of their structures from structures of adjacent crimes and administrative offenses. The necessity of changing the position of the legislator regarding generic and direct objects of these crimes, the adoption of a special resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to explain the practice of applying the relevant innovations.

scholarly journals The Rise of American Minimum Wages, 1912–1968

2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-96
Author(s):  
Price V. Fishback ◽  
Andrew J. Seltzer
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Minimum Wages ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
World War ◽  
State Laws ◽  
The Real ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Women And Children ◽  
The Impact

This paper studies the judicial, political, and intellectual battles over minimum wages from the early state laws of the 1910s through the peak in the real federal minimum in 1968. Early laws were limited to women and children and were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court between 1923 and 1937. The first federal law in 1938 initially exempted large portions of the workforce and set rates that became effectively obsolete during World War II. Later amendments raised minimum rates, but coverage did not expand until 1961. The states led the way in rates and coverage in the 1940s and 50s and again since the 1980s. The most contentious questions of today—the impact of minimum wages on earnings and employment—were already being addressed by economists in the 1910s. By about 1960, these discussions had surprisingly modern concerns about causality but did not have modern econometric tools or data.

Common Interest as a Sign of Related Party

2021 ◽  
pp. 42-48
Author(s):  
M. V. Kamenkov
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Economic Behavior ◽  
Common Interest ◽  
Economic Interest ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Market Participants ◽  
Economic Entity ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Group Members ◽  
General Economic Interest

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation proposes to consider a group of persons as a single economic entity, the participants of which act in the common economic interest of the group in relation to third parties (other market participants). At the same time, it is proposed to give an opportunity to interested parties to prove that an economic entity that is formally included in a group of persons in accordance with Article 9 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” should not be subject to the legal regime of this group, if in reality this entity is autonomous in its behavior, for example when other group members do not have sufficient legal (contractual, corporate) and organizational (managerial) means of influencing his behavior.The Supreme Court of Russia does not clarify the correlation between the signs of a general economic interest among members of a group of persons and sufficient means of influencing the economic behavior of an economic entity in relation to a group of persons. The author chose the above ratio as the main subject of his research. According to the author, the presence of a general economic interest of economic interest is not sufficient for the recognition of the totality of economic entities as a group of persons in the absence of a real connection between them.

scholarly journals Relevant Problems of Improving the Measures of Criminological Prevention of Extremist Crimes Committed Using Information and Telecommunication Networks

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 776-784 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergey Ivantsov ◽  
Sergey Borisov ◽  
Gulfiya Usembaeva ◽  
Tatiana Muzychuk ◽  
Yuri Tishchenko
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Telecommunication Networks ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Republic Of Bashkortostan ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Internal Affairs ◽  
The Republic

The goal of this study is to identify the problems in the existing system of criminological prevention of extremist crimes committed using information and telecommunication networks, and to work out ideas for its improvement. The authors use general and special research methods, primarily, sociological ones. They have studied 184 criminal cases of extremist crimes committed using information and telecommunication networks tried in courts in the cities of Irkutsk, Moscow, Penza, in Kursk, Moscow, Murmansk, Samara and Chelyabinsk Regions and in the Republic of Bashkortostan in 2010–2017. The have also analyzed the published decisions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and surveyed 158 employees of the internal affairs bodies, 42 judges, 80 employees of the Investigation Committee of the Russian Federation, as well as 46 faculty members from Moscow, Moscow Region and the Republic of Bashkortostan. The authors have analyzed statistical data for 2010–2017 gathered by the Chief Information and Analytics Center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia and the Court Department of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The article takes into account novels of criminal legislation regarding the use of information and telecommunication networks for committing extremist crimes introduced in 2013–2017, the clauses of the Federal Law «On the Basics of the System of Preventing Crimes in the Russian Federation» of 2016. The authors also pay attention to the Strategy of State National Policy of the Russian Federation until 2025, the Counter-Extremism Strategy of the Russian Federation until 2025, the Doctrine of Information Security of 2016, the Strategy of Developing Information Society in the Russian Federation in 2017–2030, and the new Clarifications of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. A complex research of the problems of counteracting extremist crimes committed with the use of information and telecommunication networks allowed the authors to formulate suggestions on improving the system of criminological prevention of these criminal acts.

US Supreme Court, Medellín v. Texas: More than an Assiduous Building Inspector?

2009 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOHN KING GAMBLE ◽  
CHRISTINE M. GIULIANO
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Strong Reaction ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Case

AbstractThe US Supreme Court case of José Ernesto Medellín, Petitioner v. Texas, decided on 25 March 2008, has generally been seen as a US refusal to follow unambiguous treaty provisions. There has not been such a strong reaction to US behaviour relative to specific treaty obligations since the 1992 Alvarez-Machain case. The Supreme Court majority (six votes to three) held that ‘neither Avena nor the President's Memorandum constitutes directly enforceable federal law’. The uncomfortable – and to many illogical – conclusion reached by the Court was that even though Avena is an ‘international law obligation on the part of the United States’, it is not binding law within the United States even in the light of an explicit presidential order. While the result may be disappointing, the case should be understood in the context of a legal system that (i) makes treaties part of ‘the supreme Law of the Land’; (ii) has developed a complicated concept of self-executing treaties; and (iii) can be hesitant to direct states (sub-national units) to follow presidential directives even on matters of foreign policy.

scholarly journals Sovereign Immunity and Interstate Government Tort

2021 ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Louise Weinberg
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
Government Action ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
State Of Power

This paper argues that the Supreme Court made a serious mistake last term, when, in a case of interstate government tort, it tore up useful options that should be available to each state for the rare cases in which they would be of service. In seeking to insulate a state from liability when its employee intrudes on a sister state’s territory and causes injury there, the Court stripped every state of power, in cases of interstate government tort, to try injuries occurring on its own territory to its own residents—an unprecedented disregard of a state’s acknowledged traditional interests. Indeed, the Court went beyond interstate government tort and seemed to say that the Constitution prohibits litigation against a state in all cases, whether to enforce state or federal law, whether in state or federal courts. It is argued that the Court’s originalist and structural arguments cannot withstand scrutiny. Moreover, the Court’s position, if firmly established, would balk the actual interests even of a state as defendant. The states typically do see a need to meet their tort responsibilities. Real damage has been done, but it is argued that conservative and liberal views on judicial review of government action in time may well converge to put an end to judicial abnegation of the duty to place government at all levels under the rule of law.

The Federal Constitutional Court in Germany and the “Southwest Case”

1952 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 723-731 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerhard Leibholz
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Federal Constitution ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
German Constitution ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Constitutional Tribunal ◽  
The Republic

The new German Constitution, the Basic Law for the German Federal Republic of May 23, 1949, provides in Article 92 that the highest judicial power shall be vested in a Federal Constitutional Court. Although the Bonn Basic Law thus created a new institution, it is an institution with a precedent in the former Weımar Constitution of 1919. In accordance with the latter, the Constitutional Tribunal (Staatsgerichtshof) had jurisdiction over constitutional controversies within any Land which had no tribunal of its own for the adjustment of such controversies, as well as over controversies, other than civil law matters, among the various Laender or between the Reich and one of the Laender. And the Supreme Court (Reichsgericht), as the highest authority, could establish finally whether disputed Land statutes were compatible with the federal Constitution.The Basic Law, however, grants the new Federal Constitutional Court considerably wider jurisdiction than that accorded either to the Constitutional Tribunal or to the Supreme Court under the Weimar Constitution. The Federal Constitutional Court must, above all, arbitrate both disputes which may arise among the constitutional organs of the Republic, the so-called “federal constitutional” cases, and the so-called “conflicting rules” (Normenkollisionen) cases—the latter designating disputes involving the compatibility of the written federal law or Land law with the Basic Law, as well as the compatibility of the Land law with the federal law.

Certain issues of the formation of the administrative and legal status of the Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 70-76
Author(s):  
ELENA A. LESNYKH ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Effective Work ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Full Independence ◽  
The Russian Federation

The subject of this article is the administrative and legal status of the Judicial Department under the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. A critical analysis of some provisions of the Federal law ‘On the Judicial Department’, which are not quite successful, in the author’s opinion, reveals a trend in the development of the legal status of the Department, which does not go beyond the narrowly utilitarian implementation of the functions of financial, material, technical and personnel support for real access to justice. Based on the analysis of scientific and practical literature, normative material, the author reveals a contradiction between the recognized in the literature some uncertainty of legal status, on the one hand, and adequate and effective work that corresponds to the tasks facing the Department, on the other. There are obvious contradictions and gaps in the legal regulation of the Department’s activities that require correction. Thus, the definition of the Department ‘under’ the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation puts it formally and legally, in terms of literal interpretation of the law, in direct administrative subordination. To ensure full independence of the Judicial Department as ‘non-systemic’ beyond the branches of government, public authority proposed to withdraw it from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in personnel matters with the appointment of the Head of Department by the decree of the President of Russia on representation of the Council of judges.

scholarly journals Affordable Care Act Litigation: The Standing Paradox

2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 410-444
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Weeks Leonard
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Affordable Care Act ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Legal Challenge ◽  
Patient Protection ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Minimum Requirements ◽  
Federal Laws

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA or the “Act”) litigation presents a standing paradox. In the current posture, it appears that states lack standing to challenge the federal law on behalf of individuals, while individuals possess standing to challenge the federal law on behalf of states. This Article contends that there is no principled reason for this asymmetry and argues that standing doctrine should apply as liberally to states as to individuals, assuming states allege the constitutional minimum requirements for standing and especially where the legal challenge turns on the allocation of power between the federal government and the states. While states may have no greater claim to judicial review of federal laws than individuals, they should not have any less.The Supreme Court will not have to reach this particular procedural conundrum to decide the merits of the Florida lawsuit on which it granted certiorari because the particular constellation of plaintiffs before the Court covers all fronts.

On some Issues of the Practice of Dispute Resolution in the Field of Insurance Bank Deposits

2021 ◽  
pp. 17-24
Author(s):  
Svetlana S. Tropskaya ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Deposit Insurance ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Bank Deposits ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article analyzes the practice of applying the federal law «On Deposit Insurance in Banks of the Russian Federation», defines the categories of cases in the field of deposit insurance, highlights the circumstances and facts that the court pays special attention to when considering certain categories of cases. As a result, it is concluded that the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation should issue an act summarizing the practice of considering disputes in the field of mandatory deposit insurance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document