Federal Courts. Ascertainment of State Law. Matter Mentioned in Briefs and Referred to Indirectly in State Court Decisions Is Decided by Implication and Binding on Federal Courts. Pennsylvania v. Brown, 373 F.2d 771 (3d Cir. 1967)

1968 ◽  
Vol 81 (4) ◽  
pp. 899 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
State 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.

Public Perceptions of State Court Impartiality and Court Legitimacy in an Era of Partisan Politics

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-80
Author(s):  
Corey Barwick ◽  
Ryan Dawkins
Keyword(s):  
Public Perceptions ◽  
State Court ◽  
Partisan Politics ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
State Supreme Courts ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Political World ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
Citizen Perceptions ◽  
Original Survey

Why do some people evaluate state supreme courts as more legitimate than others? Conventional academic wisdom suggests that people evaluate courts in nonpartisan ways, and that people make a distinction between how they evaluate individual court decisions and how they evaluate the court’s legitimacy more broadly. We challenge this idea by arguing that people’s partisan identities have a strong influence on how people evaluate the impartiality of courts, just as they do other aspects of the political world. Using original survey experiments, validated by existing observational survey data, we show that people perceive state supreme courts as being more impartial when courts issue decisions that match the ideological preferences of their preferred political party, while court decisions at odds with their party’s policy goals diminish people’s belief that courts are impartial arbiters of the law. We also show that the effects of citizen perceptions of impartiality erode evaluations of state court legitimacy, which makes them want to limit the independence of judicial institutions.

From Rogers to Rivers: The Rights of the Mentally Ill to Refuse Medication

1987 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-52
Author(s):  
Ellen Wright Clayton
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Psychotropic Drugs ◽  
Mentally Ill ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Marked Contrast ◽  
Patients Rights ◽  
Treatment Refusals

AbstractMany individuals with mental illness wish to avoid psychotropic drugs, a type of treatment that may relieve their symptoms only at the risk of unpleasant, even permanent, side effects. In marked contrast to the widely-held view that most patients may refuse any treatment and that even patients with mental illness may reject other psychoactive interventions such as electroconvulsive therapy and psychosurgery, the courts and legislatures have been slow to recognize any right to refuse psychotropic drugs. This Article demonstrates that many of the justifications offered for forcing patients to take unwanted medications are inadequate and that unless treatment refusals are reviewed outside mental institutions, patients’ rights will rarely receive appropriate deference. The author analyzes the federal and state litigation to determine whether the courts have fashioned meaningful relief for the mentally ill. The Article concludes that two recent United States Supreme Court decisions have made it impossible for the federal courts to provide adequate protection. By contrast, several state courts have responded to the needs and rights of patients with mental illness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document