Handbook of Federal Jurisdiction and Procedure

1928 ◽  
Vol 76 (7) ◽  
pp. 884
Author(s):  
William J. Hughes ◽  
Armistead M. Dobie
Keyword(s):  
Federal Jurisdiction

Der Wald im Lichte der neueren bundesgerichtlichen Rechtsprechung | Forest legislation in the recent jurisdiction of the Federal Supreme Court

2009 ◽  
Vol 160 (9) ◽  
pp. 263-274
Author(s):  
Alois Keel ◽  
Willi Zimmermann
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Large Scope ◽  
Forest Law ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction ◽  
Forest Legislation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Forest Status ◽  
Area Planning ◽  
Federal Supreme

With the entry into force of the new Swiss Federal Law on Forests on the 1st of January 1993, the basis of decision-making for the Federal Supreme Court concerning forestry issues has, at least formally, fundamentally changed. This article depicts the development of the Federal Supreme Court's jurisdiction during 2000–2008 concerning the legislation on forests. The analysis of about 100 decisions reveals that the federal jurisdiction has, with regard to contents, barely changed in comparison to that of the federal law on supervision of the forest police of 1902. The most frequent causes of dispute are assessments of forest status, authorizations for deforestation, and forest distance regulations. The Federal Supreme Court merely refined the jurisdiction; it did not, or did not need to disclose fundamentally new lines [benchmarks]. It rather adheres to the restrictive definition of forest and the strict conservation of forests, while the cantons do not dispose of a large scope for the deforestation jurisdiction or the definition of the term “forest”. The Federal Supreme Court grants the cantons more freedom to regulate and implement the forest distance. Obvious changes can be observed concerning the number of forest law cases that have been dealt with by the Federal Supreme Court. Compared to the 1980ies and early 1990ies, they have decreased by more than half. Among others, reasons for this decrease are the cantons' obligation to appoint courts only as last cantonal resort, the improvement of the formal and material coordination of the proceedings, and the introduction of the “static forest term” with respect to building zones in the sense of the federal law on area planning.

Pro-Arbitration Policy in the Australian Courts — the End of Eisenwerk?

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 299-331
Author(s):  
Benjamin Hayward
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Policy Context ◽  
Australian Case ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Policy Attention

International arbitration is an important area of federal jurisdiction and federal legislative competence, and has attracted significant policy attention in Australia. This paper undertakes a study of pro-arbitration judicial policy in recent arbitration-related Australian case law which touches upon the continuing applicability of the controversial 1999 Eisenwerk decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal. Against this pro-arbitration judicial policy context, this paper reviews five Eisenwerk-related cases handed down between 2010 and 2012. It concludes that despite pro-arbitration judicial policy being embedded as a requirement of reasoning in decisions under the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth), there is mixed evidence of such policy in the cases surveyed. This paper concludes that the extent to which this policy is evidenced largely corresponds with the degree to which contemporary decisions have departed from Eisenwerk.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document