Federal Courts. Authority of State Law. Federal Law Held Controlling in Suit against the United States under the Tucker Act

1941 ◽  
Vol 54 (6) ◽  
pp. 1070
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Law ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
In Suit

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: A United States Perspective

2005 ◽  
Vol 7 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 29-85
Author(s):  
Joseph M. Kelly ◽  
David D. Kadue ◽  
Robert J. Mignin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Law ◽  
Hostile Environment ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Sexual Harassment Law

Sexual harassment litigation has increased significantly within the United States. It is a cause of action that was created by the judiciary to enable an employee to work in an atmosphere free from a sexually hostile environment. Some parameters of U.S. sexual harassment law are still unclear, but the law now applies to men and women, and the burden of proof has gradually been eased. Under judge-made law, an employer will always be liable when harassment culminates in a tangible employment detriment. The employer is also automatically liable when a supervisor creates a hostile environment, unless the employer can prove that it has taken reasonable steps to prevent or correct harassment and that the employee unreasonably failed to use the employer's anti-harassment procedures. Employers are also liable for harassment perpetrated by supervisors, co-workers and non-employees if the employer is negligent in failing to prevent or correct harassment. Employers are thus well advised to formulate and enforce an anti-harassment workplace policy that allows a complainant to have a thorough, impartial and prompt investigation of any allegation of harassment. Complainants can elect to use federal-law and state-law remedies for sexual harassment/discrimination. The state law, unlike the federal, may allow unlimited tort-like damages. A complainant may also allege common law causes of action such as infliction of emotional distress.

Cases Without Controversies

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
James E. Pfander
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Antebellum America ◽  
Article Iii Courts ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Over Time

Cases Without Controversies: Uncontested Adjudication in Article III Courts offers a new account of the power of federal courts in the United States to hear and determine uncontested applications to assert or register a claim of right. Familiar to lawyers in civil law countries as forms of voluntary or non-contentious jurisdiction, these uncontested applications fit uneasily with the commitment to adversary legalism in the United States. Indeed, modern accounts of federal judicial power often urge that the language of Article III of the U.S. Constitution limits federal courts to the adjudication of concrete disputes between adverse parties and rules out all forms of non-contentious jurisdiction. Said to rest on the so-called “case-or-controversy” requirement of Article III, this requirement of party contestation threatens the power of federal courts to conduct a range of familiar proceedings, such as the oversight of bankruptcy proceedings, the issuance of warrants, and the adjudication of applications for mandamus and habeas corpus relief. By recounting the tradition of naturalization and other uncontested litigation in antebellum America and coupling that tradition with an account of the important difference between cases and controversies, this book challenges the prevailing understanding of Article III. In addition to defending the power of federal courts to hear uncontested matters of federal law, this book examines the way the Constitution’s meaning has changed over time and suggests an interpretive methodology that would allow the U.S. Supreme Court to take account of the old and the new in defining the contours of federal judicial power.

scholarly journals La Constitución fue norma por ser Pacto Federal

2011 ◽  
pp. 179
Author(s):  
Paloma Biglino Campos
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
19Th Century ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Federal States ◽  
Siglo Xix ◽  
The 19Th Century

This article is an attempt to analyze the influence exerted by Federalism on the emergence of the normative idea of a Constitution. To this end, it begins by analyzing the curious way in which the Convention of Philadelphia introduced the reference to the Constitution in art.VI.2 of the fundamental charter of the United States, a precept that was born to ensure the new agreement on unity among states versus their tendency to pursue individual interests. Things were no different in Europe. In fact, the Constitution stops being a programmatic rule in the first federal states to appear on our continent in the 19th century. In these formations, it was enforceable law, at least with regard to the member states, as it was the part of the parameter used by the courts to measure the conformity of the legislation of member states to federal law. The idea of the Constitution as an applicable rule is perfected, on our continent, in the 1920 Austrian Constitution, when the concept of a constitution as «total order» forced the equivalence between the federation’s laws and those of the member states, equally subject to constitutional oversight. The last pages are devoted to the way in which the federal structure, by determining the concept of constitutions, influences the model for judicial review of legislation. In the United States, the superposition of a federation on top of the member states implied a dual structure in which the main topic of discussion was the jurisdiction of the federal courts to supervise the laws enacted by the States, first of all, and by the federation, secondly. The concentrated judicial review emerges, in Europe, in federal states that are the consequence of decentralization processes and, among other factors, of the mistrust caused by the fact that the judiciary is solely in the hands of the federation.Este artículo pretende subrayar la influencia que el federalismo ejerció en la aparición de la idea normativa de constitución. Por ello, comienza analizando la curiosa manera en que la Convención de Filadelfia introdujo la mención a la constitución en el art. VI.2 de la norma fundamental estadounidense, precepto que nació para asegurar el nuevo pacto de unión frente a las tendencias de los estados a perseguir sus intereses particulares. En Europa, las cosas no fueron muy distintas. En efecto, la constitución deja de ser norma programática en los primeros estados federales aparecidos en nuestro continente en el siglo XIX. En estas formaciones, era derecho aplicable, al menos en relación con los estados miembros, ya que encabezaba el parámetro que los tribunales utilizaban para medir la adecuación de las leyes de los estados miembros al derecho federal. La idea de constitución como norma aplicable se perfecciona, en nuestro continente, en Constitución austríaca de 1920, cuando la idea de constitución como «orden total», fuerza a equiparar las leyes de la federación y las de los estados miembros, sometidas en igual medida al control constitucional. En las últimas páginas se trata de la manera en que la estructura federal, al determinar la concepción de constitución, influye en el modelo de control de las leyes. En Estados Unidos, la superposición de la federación sobre los estados miembros implicó una estructura dual en la que el principal tema de discusión fue la competencia de la jurisdicción federal para controlar las leyes de los estados, primero, y de la federación, después. El control de constitucionalidad concentrado aparece, en Europa, en los estados federales que son consecuencia de procesos de descentralización, como consecuencia, entre otros factores, de la desconfianza que suscita el hecho de que el poder judicial quede en manos sólo de la federación.

Introduction

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
James E. Pfander
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Court System ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
Article Iii Courts

This book’s introduction poses the problem of uncontested adjudication in the federal court system of the United States by focusing on the 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor. While in that case, the Supreme Court reached the merits despite the absence of a continuing dispute between the parties, Justice Antonin Scalia objected that doing so violated the adverse-party requirement, which he viewed as a constitutional requirement imposed by the case-or-controversy language of Article III. In arguing that federal courts may not entertain uncontested claims of right, Scalia’s dissent in Windsor nicely poses the question at the heart of this book. But the book reaches a different conclusion, based on the text and history of the Constitution, and the early practice of Article III courts. Having set the stage, the introduction offers an overview of the book’s argument. Part I describes the early practice of the antebellum federal courts, Part II the rise of the case-or-controversy rule in the early twentieth century, and Part III the continuing relevance of uncontested forms of adjudication. Synthesizing these strands, the book concludes that Article III courts can entertain proceedings to hear and determine uncontested applications to assert or register a claim of right under federal law.

Unresolved Business: Federal Corporate Governance Enhancements

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc I. Steinberg
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Insider Trading ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Professional Conduct ◽  
State Law ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Tender Offers ◽  
Federal Level ◽  
Federal Statute

This chapter analyzes and recommends federal corporate governance enhancements that should be implemented. These enhancements, which should be adopted in a measured and directed manner, are necessary to remediate certain deficiencies that currently exist. Consistent therewith, this chapter focuses on several important matters that merit attention, including the undue deference by federal courts to state law, the appropriate application of federal law to tactics undertaken in tender offers, the need for a federal statute encompassing insider trading, and the propriety of more vigorous oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission (such as with respect to the “current” disclosure regime, the SEC’s Standards of Professional Conduct for Attorneys, and the Commission’s neglecting at times to invoke its statutory resources). Thus, the analysis set forth in this chapter identifies significant deficiencies that currently exist and recommends measures that should be implemented on the federal level to enhance corporate governance standards.

Review of form 483s and warning letters to pharmaceutical manufacturers issued by USFDA

2021 ◽  
pp. 174113432110235
Author(s):  
Chandan Saini ◽  
Ashish Miglani ◽  
Pankaj Musyuni ◽  
Geeta Aggarwal
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Regulatory Authority ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers ◽  
The World ◽  
Considerable Impact ◽  
A Company ◽  
Responsible Person

Regular inspections are carried out to ensure system conformity by the Food and Drugs Regulatory Authority (FDA) of the United States one of the most stringent regulatory authorities in the world. The inspectors send Form 483 to the management after the inspection, detailing the inappropriate conditions. Because the FDA guidelines are difficult to comply with, a company can contravene the regulations. If any significant infringements can affect the protection, quality, effectiveness, or public health of the drug is identified, the FDA issues advice to the company. Warning Letters (WL) shall be an official notification of non-compliance with federal law within a period to be issued by manufacturer, clinician, distributor, or responsible person in the company. The delivery of a letter has a considerable impact on the company's reputation and position in the market. Inadequate WL reactions could lead to a refusal, import denial, memorandum or even conviction and order. A brief study was conducted in this document of Form 483 and WL for four years (2017–2020) on an understanding the regulatory provisions.

Researching U.S. Federal Law: a Primer

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 158-175
Author(s):  
Marcia Singal Zubrow
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Information Search ◽  
The United States ◽  
Background Information ◽  
Basic Information ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Search Techniques

AbstractThis article is designed for law librarians based outside the United States. The paper, written by Marcia Zubrow, provides basic information about the United States legal system and its sources. This background foundation to the article is important in understanding how to effectively use the two major U.S. databases, Lexis and Westlaw. The author describes the contents of the two databases within the context of the background information. Search techniques, including advance searching strategies, are described.

Public hearings as an institution of deliberative democracy in major Russian and American cities

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-83
Author(s):  
Andrey Fursov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Regulations ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Hearings ◽  
The Russian Federation

Currently, public hearings are one of the most widespread forms of deliberative municipal democracy in Russia. This high level of demand, combined with critique of legal regulations and the practices for bringing this system to reality – justified, in the meantime, by its development (for example, by the Agency for Strategic Initiatives and the Public Chambers of the Russian Federation) of proposals for the correction of corresponding elements of the legal code – make both the study of Russian experiences in this sphere and comparative studies of legal regulations and practical usage of public hearings in Russia and abroad extremely relevant. This article is an attempt to make a contribution to this field of scientific study. If the appearance of public hearings in Russia as an institution of Russian municipal law is connected with the passing of the Federal Law of 6 October 2003 No.131-FZ, “On the general organisational principles of local government in the Russian Federation,” then in the United States, this institution has existed since the beginning of the 20th century, with mass adoption beginning in the 1960s. In this time, the United States has accumulated significant practical experience in the use of public hearings and their legal formulation. Both countries are large federal states, with their own regional specifics and diversity, the presence of three levels of public authority and different principles of federalism, which cause differences in the legal regulation of municipal public hearings. For this reason, this article undertakes a comparative legal analysis of Russian and American experiences of legal regulation and practical use of public hearings, on the example of several major municipalities – the cities of Novosibirsk, Nizhny Novgorod, Voronezh and New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. A comparison of laws influencing the public hearing processes in these cities is advisable, given the colossal growth in the role of city centers in the industrial and post-industrial eras. Cities in particular are the primary centers for economic growth, the spread of innovations, progressive public policy and the living environment for the majority of both Russian and American citizens. The cities under research are one of the largest municipalities in the two countries by population, and on such a scale, the problem of involving residents in solving local issues is especially acute. In this context, improving traditional institutions of public participation is a timely challenge for the legislator, and the experiences of these cities are worth describing. The unique Russian context for legal regulations of public hearings involves the combination of overarching federal law and specific municipal decrees that regulate the hearing process. There are usually two municipal acts regulating public hearings on general issues of the city district (charter, budget, etc.) and separately on urban planning. In the United States, the primary regulation of public hearings is assigned to the state and municipality level, with a whole series of corresponding laws and statutes; meanwhile, methodological recommendations play a specific role in the organisation of hearings, which are issued by the state department of a given state. It is proposed that regulating the corresponding relationships at the federal subject level will permit a combination of the best practices of legal administration with local nuances, thereby reinforcing the guarantee of the realization of civil rights to self-government. There are other features in the process of organizing and conducting public hearings in the United States, which, as shown in the article, can be perceived by Russian lawmakers as well in order to create an updated construct of public discussions at the local level.

Advanced Introduction to U.S. Environmental Law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Donald Elliot ◽  
Daniel C. Esty
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Environmental Governance ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Law ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Administrative Agencies ◽  
The Creation

Providing a comprehensive overview of the current and developing state of environmental governance in the United States, this Advanced Introduction lays out the foundations of U.S. environmental law. E. Donald Elliott and Daniel C. Esty explore how federal environmental law is made and how it interacts with state law, highlighting the important role that administrative agencies play in the creation, implementation, and enforcement of U.S. environmental law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document