The Politics of Federal Courts: Lower Courts in the United States. By Richard J. Richardson & Kenneth N. Vines. (Boston: Little Brown & Co., 1970. Pp. 180. $3.50.)

1971 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 814-815
Author(s):  
George F. Cole
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Lower Courts

The Politics of Federal Courts: Lower Courts in the United States.

1972 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 257
Author(s):  
Edward W. Haurek ◽  
Richard J. Richardson ◽  
Kenneth N. Vines ◽  
James R. Klonoski ◽  
Robert I. Mendelsohn
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Lower Courts

scholarly journals Sosa v Alvarez-Machain and The Alien Tort Claims Act

2006 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Hugh King
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
First Time ◽  
Tort Claims

Since the seminal case of Filartiga v Pena-Irala in 1980, the controversial Alien Tort Claims Act has regularly been invoked in United States federal courts to sue foreign perpetrators of international human rights violations. In Sosa v Alvarez-Machain, decided in 2004, the United States Supreme Court for the first time ruled on the Act’s proper application. This article, after first identifying three different approaches taken towards the Act by federal courts over the last 25 years, examines the Supreme Court decision. While welcoming the Court’s affirmation of the Act as a mechanism for addressing certain international law violations, it critiques the Court’s conservative and problematic test to determine the extent of the international law violations falling within the Act’s ambit, and highlights many ambiguities in the decision with which lower courts will have to grapple.

scholarly journals Notes Procedural Fencing in Retiree Benefits Disputes: Applications of the First-Filed Rule in Federal Courts

2007 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Vanneman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
West Virginia ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Phone Call ◽  
District Court ◽  
Health Coverage ◽  
Southern District ◽  
Maximum Benefit

Basil Chapman retired from ACF Industries, a railroad-car maker, after thirty-eight years of service. In December 2003, he received an unexpected phone call at his West Virginia home from a union representative, who informed him that an ACF executive wanted to speak with him. When they spoke, the executive informed Mr. Chapman that ACF was planning on changing its retirees’ health coverage plan. The ACF plan would now have a lifetime maximum benefit cap on hospital and surgical expenses for each participant and would require retirees to make monthly contributions. According to court papers filed later, Mr. Chapman responded, “We have a contract. You can’t do that.” Then, he said that he would “file in federal court” against ACF. The next business day, ACF filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri asking the court to rule that retiree benefits were not vested and that ACF accordingly could alter benefits unilaterally. On January 26, 2004, Mr. Chapman, other named plaintiffs, and their union sued ACF in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

Micula and Others v. Government of Romania

2021 ◽  
Vol 196 ◽  
pp. 678-708
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
Content Type ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
Arbitration Award

678Arbitration — Arbitration award — International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) — ICSID Convention, 1965 — Article 54 — Enforcement proceedings — Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Act 1966 giving ICSID Convention domestic effect in United StatesJurisdiction — Subject matter jurisdiction over enforcement of an ICSID Award — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Act of State doctrine — Foreign sovereign compulsion doctrine — Whether act of State doctrine or foreign sovereign compulsion doctrine barring enforcement of an ICSID AwardState immunity — Jurisdiction — Petition to enforce arbitration award — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Exceptions to sovereign immunity — Arbitration exception — Romania’s agreement to arbitrate — Whether Romania’s agreement to arbitrate nullified by Romania’s accession to European Union — Whether United States court having jurisdiction to enforce arbitration awardTreaties — ICSID Convention, 1965 — Sweden–Romania Bilateral Investment Treaty, 2002 — Romania’s agreement to arbitrate — Romania acceding to European Union in 2007 — Whether Romania’s agreement to arbitrate nullified by Romania’s accession to European Union — Whether United States court having jurisdiction to enforce arbitration awardRelationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — ICSID Convention, 1965 — Obligations of the State under ICSID Convention — United States law — Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Act 1966 — Section 3 — Jurisdiction of federal courts to enforce an ICSID award whilst award subject of review by a foreign sovereign — The law of the United States

United States Supreme Court Rules on Expert Testimony

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 95 (6) ◽  
pp. 934-936 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary N. McAbee
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Us Supreme Court

Many medical and legal commentators have expressed concern about the validity of scientific evidence that is proffered by expert witnesses at depositions and in courts of law.1,2 The sparse research that is available on the testimony of medical expert witnesses suggests that it is frequently flawed and erroneous.3 On June 28, 1993, the United States (US) Supreme Court ruled on the proper standard for admissibility of scientific evidence in the courtroom.4 Although the ruling establishes guidelines that are binding only in federal courts, it is expected that many state courts will follow the Court's ruling. This commentary reviews the Court's guidelines for admissibility of expert testimony, and expresses concern about their applicability in future cases involving scientific testimony.

The New Federal Arbitration Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 203-206
Author(s):  
Julius Henry Cohen ◽  
Kenneth Dayton
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Commercial Activity ◽  
Business World ◽  
The Law ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction ◽  
And Control ◽  
At Will

This article focuses on the federal arbitration law. On February 12, 1925, President Calvin Coolidge signed the United States Arbitration Law, which became effective on January 1, 1926. This act reversed the hoary doctrine that agreements for arbitration are revocable at will and are unenforceable, and in the language of the statute itself, they are made “valid, enforceable and irrevocable” within the limits of federal jurisdiction. There are three evils which arbitration is intended to correct: (1) the long delay usually incident to a proceeding at law, in equity or in admiralty, especially in recent years in centers of commercial activity, where there has arisen great congestion of the court calendars; (2) the expense of litigation; and (3) the failure, through litigation, to reach a decision regarded as just when measured by the standards of the business world. The article then argues that the proposed law rests upon the constitutional provision by which Congress is authorized to establish and control inferior federal courts. It also contends that sound public policy demands specific enforcement of arbitration agreements by the law.

The First Federal Question Case

1985 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wythe Holt
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts

What is a ‘federal question’? Section two of article three of the Constitution grants jurisdiction to federal courts over, among other items, ‘all cases in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made … under their authority’. This has become generally known as the grant of ‘federal question’ jurisdiction. The present statute giving such jurisdiction to federal courts dates only from 1875; not only has it been restrictively construed, but existing federal schemes of benefits, rights, and regulations provide us with a familiar, pat, confining notion of the nature of federal questions. What sorts of matters might have been expected to constitute federal questions in 1787, when the Constitution was written, and when such schemes were not contemplated much less established?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document