scholarly journals La responsabilidad subsidiaria ex delicto derivada del art. 121 del Código Penal y la responsabilidad patrimonial de las administraciones públicas : breve aproximación jurisprudencial

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Cámara Mas
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Penal Code ◽  
Civil Action ◽  
The Public ◽  
Civil Responsibility ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Administrative Jurisdiction

El presente trabajo estudia las relaciones entre la responsabilidad civil ex delicto derivada del art. 121 del Código Penal y la responsabilidad patrimonial de las administraciones públicas especialmente en su vertiente procesal. Para ello, se parte del análisis de la jurisprudencia dictada por los tribunales del orden jurisdiccional civil, penal y contencioso-administrativo. La interpretación efectuada por las salas segunda y tercera del Tribunal Supremo ha contribuido a configurar ambas acciones como plenamente autónomas entre sí, admitiendo la posibilidad de su ejercicio simultáneo o sucesivo, doctrina que se aparta de la propia conceptualización de la acción civil ex delicto realizada por la sala primera del mismo tribunal.This article studies the relations between the civil responsibility ex delicto derivative from the article 121 of Penal Code and the patrimonial responsibility of the public administrations specifically in the procedural order. This study splits the analysis of the jurisprudence dictated by the courts of the civil, penal and contentious-administrative jurisdiction. The interpretation effected by the second and third chamber of the Supreme Court has helped for both actions to be fully autonomous, admitting the possibility of his simultaneous or successive exercise, doctrine that is separated of the own conceptualization of the civil action ex delicto realized by the first chamber of the same court.

¿Gracia vs. Justicia? El control contencioso-administrativo del indulto a partir de la Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo de 20 de noviembre de 2013

2014 ◽  
pp. 2935-2984
Author(s):  
Miren Jasone URKOLA IRIARTE
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Government Action ◽  
The Third ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Administrative Jurisdiction

LABURPENA: Auzitegi Gorenari indultu partzialaren gaian Gobernuak garatutako jardunaren izaera juridikoa zehazteko aukera eman dio bere Hirugarren Salaren Osokoak 2013ko azaroaren 20an adostutako Epaiak. Izaera juridiko hori oinarritzat harturik, administrazio-auzien jurisdikzioak gara dezakeen kontrola aztertuko du ondoren: bereziki, elementu arautuen teknikaren bidez gauza dezakeena [LJren 2(a) art.]. Eremu honetan, Indultu Legeari buruz Auzitegi berak egin izan duen interpretazioa iragazi, eta joera berria ezarriko du, gai berean jarraian argitaratutako epaietan berretsia dirudiena. RESUMEN: La Sentencia del Pleno de la Sala Tercera del Tribunal Supremo de 20 de noviembre de 2013 ofrece al Tribunal Supremo la oportunidad de precisar la naturaleza jurídica de la actuación del Gobierno en materia de indulto, para analizar posteriormente la extensión del control practicable en sede contencioso-administrativa, de modo especial, a través de la técnica de los elementos reglados [art. 2(a) LJ], un ámbito en el que tamiza la lectura de la Ley de Indulto que venía realizando el propio órgano judicial. Marca, así, una nueva tendencia que parece confirmada en sentencias posteriores. ABSTRACT: The judgment by the Third Section plenary of the of the Supreme Court from November 20th of 2013 gives the Supreme Court the chance to establish the legal nature of the Government action regarding the pardon, in order to analyze subsequently the extension of the control to be carried out by the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, specially by means of the technic of the regulated elements [art. 2(a) LJ], a field where it weights up the reading of the Act of Pardon that used to do the same judicial body. It marks therefore a new tendency that seems to be confirmed in later judgments.

Ustalenie właściwości organu administracji publicznej w zakresie prowadzenia egzekucji obowiązkowych szczepień ochronnych i występowania z wnioskiem o ukaranie za uchylanie się od tego obowiązku

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (70) ◽  
pp. 33-49
Author(s):  
Sebastian Czechowicz
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
The State ◽  
The Public ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Preventive Vaccination ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Legislative Changes

The article is devoted to determine the authority competent to carry out the execution of the obligation to vaccinate, as well as the authority competent to apply for punishment of those who persistently evade preventive vaccinations on the basis of the Code of Misdemeanours in Poland. After analysing the competencies of the public administration bodies and comparing them with the judicial decisions of the administrative courts and the Supreme Court issued in cases involving mandatory preventive vaccination, which present an inconsistent line of jurisprudence, the author concludes that the enforcement body is the province governor. However, it is necessary to postulate legislative changes, primarily in the area of the possible transfer of competencies from the province governor to the State Sanitary Inspection.

Cost Containment in the Health Care Field and the Antitrust Laws

1982 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 425-435
Author(s):  
David I. Shapiro
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Medical Society ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Antitrust Laws ◽  
Care Field ◽  
Antitrust Analysis ◽  
Care Costs

AbstractThe Supreme Court of the United States and other courts currently are considering the question of the extent to which the health care field should be subject to antitrust rules. This Article explores the special characteristics of the health care field, and the problems they create for antitrust analysis. Two current cases—Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society (awaiting decision by the Supreme Court) and Kartell v. Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. (pending in the District of Massachusetts)—illustrate the issues raised by efforts to contain health care costs through the setting of maximum fees. This Article suggests that traditional antitrust principles should and will prevail over arguments that such restraints are in the public interest.

A History of Public Mapping

2018 ◽  
pp. 16-28
Author(s):  
Michael P. McDonald ◽  
Micah Altman
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Open Source ◽  
General Public ◽  
High Speed ◽  
Public Access ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
Equal Population ◽  
The Web

This chapter discusses the history of public mapping. The earliest reform efforts in redistricting were made possible because districts were primarily drawn out of large geographic units such as counties, which greatly simplified the redistricting task. That task grew more complex in the early 1960s, when the Supreme Court ruled that districts had to be of roughly equal population: counties would now often have to be split between two or more districts. The increasing computational demands effectively shut the public out of redistricting, since redistricting could be performed only on extremely costly computer systems. The reemergence of public mapping began in the 1990s, when states began offering public access to computer terminals loaded with their redistricting software and data. Eventually, two technological innovations by 2010 made public mapping available to the general public. Organizations and individuals are now able to leverage high-speed internet and open-source software to disseminate easy-to-use redistricting systems through the Web.

The Supreme Court and Elites

2020 ◽  
pp. 15-58
Author(s):  
Neal Devins ◽  
Lawrence Baum
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Social Issues ◽  
Ronald Reagan ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Policy Positions ◽  
The Public ◽  
Highly Educated ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Good Policy

This chapter develops the argument that is summarized in chapter 1. One lesson of social psychology is that Supreme Court justices are not single-mindedly devoted to making good law or good policy. Rather, they have multiple goals that include a concern for their reputations, especially how they are regarded by the elite groups of which they are part. As a result, while the general public may have an impact on the justices, they respond primarily to fellow elites. Indeed, the Court’s decisions on most controversial social issues such as affirmative action and same-sex marriage are more consistent with the policy positions of highly educated people than the positions of the public as a whole. Starting with the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan, elites have become less homogeneous; over the past 25 years, today’s elites increasingly reflect the growing partisan divide among liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. Nonetheless, norms within the elite legal profession such as collegiality and legally oriented decision making shape the behavior of justices, sometimes counteracting the effects of ideology.

Neither the Purse Nor the Sword: Dynamics of Public Confidence in the Supreme Court

1986 ◽  
Vol 80 (4) ◽  
pp. 1209-1226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory A. Caldeira
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Cross Sections ◽  
Public Support ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
The Public ◽  
Political Events ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Presidential Popularity ◽  
And Shifts ◽  
High Bench

Systematic study of changes in support for the U.S. Supreme Court across time has not been undertaken. Armed with a time series of observations from 1966 through 1984, I provide a description of the ebb and flow of public esteem for the Court. Then I outline and test several plausible propositions about the dynamics of support. Statistical analyses compel the conclusion that apart from a relatively constant core of support, increases in judicial activism, inflation, and solicitude for the rights of the accused decreased confidence in the Court; the events surrounding Watergate and increases in presidential popularity and the public salience of the Court brought about increased popular esteem for the high bench. Previous scholars, based on cross-sections of individuals, have emphasized the public's ignorance of and disinterest in the Supreme Court and judicial policy making. The responsiveness of public support for the Court in the aggregate to political events and shifts in the behavior of the justices stands in stark contrast to the conventional image of United States citizenry as singularly out of touch with and unmoved by the Supreme Court.

scholarly journals We Can Thank Harvey Weinstein for Doing What Congress and the Supreme Court Failed to Do

2018 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 174-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Sherwyn ◽  
Paul Wagner
Keyword(s):  
Social Movements ◽  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Popular Press ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law

While the years 2017 and 2018 will be remembered for numerous geo political and social movements, any retrospective of this time will include the issue of sexual harassment and the corresponding “Me Too” movement. In this time, sexual harassment has transformed from a workplace legal concept to an issue that is defining the fabric of the country. While no one could persuasively argue that sexual harassment has not expanded from its legal roots to a movement that transcends the law, the fact is that the concept is rooted and adjudicated in law. Sadly, the commentators and the popular press often ignore or misstate the law. This creates a dangerous culture where the public is misinformed of their rights and responsibilities. More troubling, is the fact that there are serious problems with the law that need to be understand and, we contend, changed, in order for the entire problem to be eliminated, or, at least, mitigated. This paper explains the law with regard to what constitutes sexual harassment and when the employer is liable, identifies the problems, and proposes a fix so that we can create a future workplace where the authors’ five daughters (between them) and the rest of their generation will be able to honestly not raise their hands and not have to say: “Me Too!”

scholarly journals Advance Health Care Directives and “Public Guardian”: The Italian Supreme Court Requests the Status of Current and Not Future Inability

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Paolo Busardò ◽  
Stefania Bello ◽  
Matteo Gulino ◽  
Simona Zaami ◽  
Paola Frati
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Advance Directives ◽  
Critical Issue ◽  
Health Care Decisions ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Guardian

Advance health care decisions animate an intense debate in several European countries, which started more than 20 years ago in the USA and led to the adoption of different rules, based on the diverse legal, sociocultural and philosophical traditions of each society. In Italy, the controversial issue of advance directives and end of life’s rights, in the absence of a clear and comprehensive legislation, has been over time a subject of interest of the Supreme Court. Since 2004 a law introduced the “Public Guardian,” aiming to provide an instrument of assistance to the person lacking in autonomy because of an illness or incapacity. Recently, this critical issue has once again been brought to the interest of the Supreme Court, which passed a judgment trying to clarify the legislative application of the appointment of the Guardian in the field of advance directives.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document