The Gubernatorial Controversy in North Dakota

1935 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 418-432
Author(s):  
Roy L. Miller
Keyword(s):  
North Dakota ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal District ◽  
The State ◽  
District Court ◽  
Federal District Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Unique Experience ◽  
Political Conditions ◽  
The Right

Although many of our states have exhibited unsettled political conditions in recent months, North Dakota has passed through a unique experience in having four different governors occupy the executive office in six and one-half months. Twice during this period, the supreme court of the state has been requested to determine the right of the governor to hold office, and in each instance it has elevated the lieutenant-governor to the office. The first occasion resulted from the conviction of Governor William Langer of a felony after a trial in the federal district court, and the second involved the constitutional qualifications of Governor Thomas H. Moodie, elected last November.

The Right to Housing: Challenges Associated with the ‘Waiting List System’ Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality V Various Occupiers, Eden Park Extension 5 2014 3 SA 23 (SCA)

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-121
Author(s):  
Shamier Ebrahim
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Waiting Lists ◽  
The State ◽  
Waiting List ◽  
Allocation Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The right to adequate housing is a constitutional imperative which is contained in section 26 of the Constitution. The state is tasked with the progressive realisation of this right. The allocation of housing has been plagued with challenges which impact negatively on the allocation process. This note analyses Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Various Occupiers, Eden Park Extension 51 which dealt with a situation where one of the main reasons provided by the Supreme Court of Appeal for refusing the eviction order was because the appellants subjected the unlawful occupiers to defective waiting lists and failed to engage with the community regarding the compilation of the lists and the criteria used to identify beneficiaries. This case brings to the fore the importance of a coherent (reasonable) waiting list in eviction proceedings. This note further analyses the impact of the waiting list system in eviction proceedings and makes recommendations regarding what would constitute a coherent (reasonable) waiting list for the purpose of section 26(2) of the Constitution.

3 The Supreme Court and the Irish Free State

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dickson Brice
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Free State ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Irish Free State ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Way

This chapter considers the performance of the Irish Supreme Court during the life of the Irish Free State (1922–37). It charts the way in which the right to appeal from the Supreme Court to the Privy Council was abolished (comparing the position in other Dominions) and shows that, despite the rhetoric of Irish politicians at the time, the judges were keen to uphold the British approach to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The chapter then describes some of the emergency legislation enacted in the Free State to combat republican violence and examines how it was viewed by the Supreme Court, most notably in the very deferential (albeit split) decision in The State (Ryan) v Lennon. The chapter sums up the Court’s performance during the existence of the Irish Free State as disappointing and uninspiring.

Zee Films and the BCCI: The Award of Broadcasting Rights

2017 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Akhileshwar Pathak
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Judicial Interpretation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

The case discusses the issues related to Zee Tele Films Limited's claims that the Board of Cricket Control of India was “state” and could act arbitrarily in the award of telecasting rights. The “state” as defined in Article 12 includes “other authorities”, and these are subject to the constitutional limitations. The right to equality requires them to not act arbitrarily. A body which is an instrumentality or agency of the government is “other authority”. The term has been subject to judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court, by a majority judgement, in the Zee Tele Films Case ruled that the Board is not “other authorities” within Article 12 of the Constitution.

scholarly journals Legal Aid by the State as a Constitutional Right of the Poor: Problems and Challenges in Indonesia

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-196
Author(s):  
Ari Wibowo ◽  
Michael Hagana Bangun
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
The Poor ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

The provision of legal aid is one way to realize access to law and justice for the poor people provided by the state on the mandate of the constitution. Several regulations regarding legal aid have been issued by the state through the Act and its implementing regulations as well as from the Supreme Court or the Constitutional Court through the Supreme Court Regulations and the Constitutional Court's decisions. Legal aid is the constitutional right of every citizen to guarantee legal protection and guarantee equality before the law stipulated in Law Number 16 of 2011, the State is responsible for recognizing and protecting the human rights of every individual without differing backgrounds so that everyone has the right to be treated equally before the law is contained in Article 28D of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. For the poor who experience legal problems in the form of injustice, they can request legal assistance from legal aid institutions that are regulated in legislation. The purpose of providing legal aid is to guarantee and fulfill the right for Legal Aid Recipients to gain access to justice, to realize the constitutional rights of all citizens in accordance with the principle of equality in law, to ensure the certainty that the implementation of Legal Aid is carried out equally across the territory of the Republic of Indonesia. , and to create an effective, efficient and accountable court.

scholarly journals Upaya Hukum Banding Terhadap Putusan Verstek Yang Diajukan Oleh Pihak Tergugat Dikaitkan Dengan Asas Kepastian Hukum Dalam Tinjauan HIR/RBG

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 129
Author(s):  
Sherly Ayuna Putri ◽  
Achmad Syauqi Nugraha
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Research Method ◽  
The State ◽  
District Court ◽  
State Court ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Positive Law ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Case Number

The verdict of Verstek is the ruling that where the defendant, although called legitimately, does not come on a given day, and does not tell others to be facing his deputy, the claim is accepted with a decision without the presence (Verstek). Resistance is a legal effort against the verdict that was dropped outside the presence of the defendant. Essentially the resistance was provided for the defendant who (in general) was defeated. The Verzet is governed in article 125 paragraph (3) and 129 HIR, article 149 clause (3) Jo. 153 RBg. The research method which is conducted in this study is normative juridical research that emphasizes on the science of law and conduct an inventory of positive law relating to the effectiveness of statutory regulations in the fi eld of legal and descriptive analytical describing and analyzing the problems based on the legislation governing the law of civil proceedings regarding the legal efforts of Verstek decision. Based on the results of the study obtained fi rst problem of Verstek decision to be fi led by the defendant on the decision of the District Court of Bale Bandung Case Number: 37/PDT. G/2018/PN. BLB and the state court ruling of the Simalungun case number: 36/PDT. G/2013/PN. LICENSE does not conform to the norm in article 125 HIR and section 149 RBg. The two remedies that can be done by the plaintiff or the appeal is to apply for the appeal with the reasons set out in article 30 paragraph (1) of Law No. 5 of 2004 concerning the Supreme Court, among other things relating to the judge is not authorized or exceeds the limits of authority and or wrong in implementing or violating applicable laws.

“Earthquake”: Board of Regents v. NCAA

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard P. Chudacoff
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
National Collegiate Athletic Association ◽  
Federal District ◽  
College Football ◽  
District Court ◽  
University Of Oklahoma ◽  
Board Of Regents ◽  
Appeals Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The University

This chapter discusses the case of Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. Arguments in the case focused on whether the NCAA was acting illegally under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 by monopolizing all college football television contracts. In September 1982, Judge Juan Burciaga of the Federal District Court for Western Oklahoma decided in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the NCAA was a “classic cartel. ... exercising almost absolute control over the supply of college football which is made available to the networks, to television advertisers, and ultimately to the viewing public.” The judge concluded that the NCAA violated antitrust law by acting in restraint of trade in three ways: fixing prices of telecasts; creating boycotts of networks excluded from its contracts and threatening boycotts of its own members that might engage in alternative television contracts; and placing an artificial limit on televised college football. The NCAA took the case to the Supreme Court. However, on June 27, 1984, the Supreme Court upheld verdicts of the District and Appeals Courts.

The Maine Rx Prescription Drug Plan and the Dormant Commerce Clause Doctrine: The Case of the Missing Link[age]

2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-30
Author(s):  
Brannon P. Denning
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Prescription Drugs ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Pharmaceutical Research ◽  
Federal District ◽  
District Court ◽  
Commerce Clause ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Prescription Drug Plan ◽  
Drug Sellers

In the 2002 Term, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) v. Concannon, in which PhRMA, the plaintiff-appellant, will argue that the State of Maine's program to supply low-cost prescription drugs to its citizens (the Maine Rx Program) violates the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine. After the Program became law in 2000, PhRMA sought and obtained an injunction from a federal district court preventing the law from going into effect. Shortly thereafter, the First Circuit unanimously reversed the district court and lifted the injunction. In June 2002, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.This Article argues that the Maine Rx Program violates the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine because it links a facially nondiscriminatory tax with a subsidy in a way that, in combination, burdens out-of-state drug sellers. The Supreme Court has found similar programs to be invalid in past cases, most recently in the 1994 case West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy.

Canons of Evasion in Constitutional Criminal Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Dolovich
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
The State ◽  
The Other ◽  
State Action ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Face ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

In this chapter, Sharon Dolovich argues that the Supreme Court deploys three “canons of evasion” that undermine core constitutional principles: deference, presumption, and question substitution. The chapter shows how the Court on the one hand affirms basic constitutional principles—such as the right to counsel or the right against cruel and unusual punishment—that courts are to enforce against the state for the protection of individual penal subjects. Yet on the other hand, the doctrinal maneuvers of deference, presumption, and substitute question encourage judges in individual cases to affirm the constitutionality of state action even in the face of seemingly egregious facts. As a result, judicial review delivers almost automatic and uncritical validation of whatever state action produced the challenged conviction, sentence, or punishment. Dolovich identifies troubling questions raised by pervasive use of these canons for the legitimacy of the state’s penal power.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015

2021 ◽  
pp. 191-206
Author(s):  
Michael J. Rosenfeld
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The State ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
District Court ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The U.S

Chapter 14 tells the story of how Jim Obergefell, whose husband John Arthur was dying, sued the state of Ohio to try to force the state to list Obergefell as the husband on Arthur’s death certificate. Ohio was one of many states whose constitution explicitly rejected recognition of same-sex marriages, wherever they were originally celebrated. Obergefell won in federal district court, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated his case with DeBoer v. Snyder from Michigan and cases from two other states, and overturned them all. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision of 2015 made marriage equality the law of the U.S. After the Obergefell victory, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse were legally married in Michigan and then cross-adopted their children.

The right to freedom from discrimination in Rwanda

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 156-180
Author(s):  
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
National Unity ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

Discrimination is prohibited in different provisions of the 2003 Constitution of Rwanda (the Constitution), in different pieces of legislation and in international and regional human rights treaties ratified by Rwanda. According to the 2003 Constitution, one of the fundamental principles which have to be upheld by the State is the ‘eradication of discrimination and divisionism based on ethnicity, region or on any other ground as well as promotion of national unity’. Article 15 of the Constitution provides for equality before the law and Article 16 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination and it provides for the grounds on which a person shall not be discriminated against. Rwanda is also one of the very few African countries whose constitutions criminalise discrimination and different laws have been enacted to deal with the offence of discrimination. The Supreme Court of Rwanda, the highest court in the country, has handed down decisions on Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. The purpose of this article is to analyse these decisions and illustrate how the Supreme Court has dealt with the issues such as the definition of discrimination and the difference between discrimination and differentiation. The author also discusses the issues that the Rwandan judiciary and prosecutors are likely to face when dealing with the offence of discrimination.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document