Common Law Remedies Research Articles

Physicians' Conflicts in Patient Referrals

Representative Stark, author of the Ethics in Patient Referrals Act (HR 939), argues for the need for federal oversight of the physician practice of referring patients to health facilities in which the physician has a financial interest. He takes issue with some of the conclusions reached by E. Haavi Morreim in her article in the same issue of JAMA on the problem of physician self referral. She proposes physician disclosure of interests, utilization review, quality assurance, and a judicially fashioned, common law remedy to discourage referral abuses. Stark argues that these approaches cannot effectively address the problem, and that the federal government, as an informed purchaser of health services through Medicare, should not pay for self referral.

Preemption of State Common Law Remedies by Federal Environmental Statutes: International Paper Co. v. Ouellette

Preemption of State Common Law Remedies by Federal Environmental Statutes: International Paper Co. v. Ouellette

Common Law Remedies for Wrongfully Discharged Employees

Common Law Remedies for Wrongfully Discharged Employees

The Implications of Apology: Law and Culture in Japan and the United States

The significance of apology after serious injury depends on social and cultural factors that appear to be understood differently in Japan and America. As a consequence, what is considered a sincere apology is not the same in the two societies. Moreover, the role of an apology as an ingredient in the formal resolution of legal disputes diverges. Salient legal aspects of apology are discussed, along with the possibilities that an apology may be a defense to a claim, that it may be an admission of another's claim, and that an apology may be a legal remedy for injury. The role in Japan of the formal letter of apology, shimatsusho, is described. It is suggested that apology may be an underdeveloped aspect of dispute resolution in America. There are some injuries when an apology alone surely is inadequate compensation, but there are other injuries when traditional common law remedies are unsatisfactory and an apology may be a crucial element in the recognition and restoration of human relationship.

A Common Law Remedy for Forcible Medication of the Institutionalized Mentally Ill

A Common Law Remedy for Forcible Medication of the Institutionalized Mentally Ill

Legal aspects of acidic precipitation

Acid rain has been discovered to be a serious problem in Eastern Canada. The legislative competence of the Federal Parliament to deal with air pollution is not well established, but recent cases interpreting the federal general power indicate that the scope of general power has been established. Canadian common law remedies are not likely to be successful, for a variety of reasons. The Canadian Clean Air Act, especially with the 1980 amendments lays the basis for possible adoption of emission standards for acid rain as an international pollutant. Ontario's Environmental “ Protection Act of 1971 may offer a basis for control of emissions resulting in acid rain though regulation of major sources and control orders of medium sized and small sources. One such regulation has already been adopted to apply to the Inco Plant emissions of sulfur oxides.

A common law action for discrimination

May a worker bring a common law action against an employer who refuses him employment on racial grounds? The established view is that the answer is an emphatic ‘no’. The clearest enunciation of this view has been made by Hepple who explains the alleged absence of a common law remedy for discrimination in employment on both ‘doctrinal’ and ‘practical’ grounds. This article examines these doctrinal and practical underpinnings of the established view and suggests that they may not be as secure as is commonly believed. It is suggested that, while the weight of academic opinion denies the availability of a common law action based on a tort of discrimination, there may be theoretical and empirical grounds for the alternative view that, in appropriate circumstances, a plaintiff might successfully raise in an English court a common law action for racial discrimination in hiring. This is of particular importance in view of the weaknesses of the statutory remedies documented by Lustgarten.

Legislative Reform of Judicial Review of Commonwealth Administrative Action

Over the last three years the Commonwealth has enacted four statutes with the aim of overcoming some of the deficiencies which exist at common law in the reviewing of administrative action. These are the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Amendment Act 1977 (Cth), the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth) and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). This article examines in detail the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) in order to determine whether the common law rights and remedies have been improved.

Common Law Remedy of Recovering Reparations for Unreasonable Routing by Motor Carrier Held Abrogated by Motor Carrier Act

Common Law Remedy of Recovering Reparations for Unreasonable Routing by Motor Carrier Held Abrogated by Motor Carrier Act

Adjudication of Water Rights Claimed by the United States. Application of Common-Law Remedies and the McCarran Amendment of 1952

Adjudication of Water Rights Claimed by the United States. Application of Common-Law Remedies and the McCarran Amendment of 1952

Adjudication of Water Rights Claimed by the United States--Application of Common-Law Remedies and the McCarran Amendment of 1952

Adjudication of Water Rights Claimed by the United States--Application of Common-Law Remedies and the McCarran Amendment of 1952

Trade-Marks & Trade Names. Infringement. Suits in State Court Cannot Be Removed to Federal Court on Ground That Registration under Lanham Act Precludes Common-Law Remedies. M. & D. Simon Co. v. R. H. Macy & Co. (S. D. N. Y. 1957)

Trade-Marks & Trade Names. Infringement. Suits in State Court Cannot Be Removed to Federal Court on Ground That Registration under Lanham Act Precludes Common-Law Remedies. M. & D. Simon Co. v. R. H. Macy & Co. (S. D. N. Y. 1957)

Workmen's Compensation Acts: Denial of Common Law Remedy for Associated Injuries Not Covered by Act

Workmen's Compensation Acts: Denial of Common Law Remedy for Associated Injuries Not Covered by Act

Pennsylvania's Clarifying Amendment for Declaratory Judgments

Sec. 6: Relief by declaratory judgment or decree may be granted in all civil cases where an actual controversy exists between contending parties, or where the court is satisfied that antagonistic claims are present between the parties involved which indicate imminent and inevitable litigation, or where in any such case the court is satisfied that a party asserts a legal relation, status, right, or privilege in which he has a concrete interest and that there is a challenge or denial of such asserted relation, status, right, or privilege by an adversary party who also has or asserts a concrete interest therein, and the court is satisfied also that a declaratory judgment or decree will serve to terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding. Where, however, a statute provides a special form of remedy for a specific type of case, that statutory remedy must be followed; but the mere fact that an actual or threatened controversy is susceptible of relief through a general common law remedy, or an equitable remedy, or an extraordinary legal remedy, whether such remedy is recognized or regulated by statute or not, shall not debar a party from the privilege of obtaining a declaratory judgment or decree in any case where the other essentials to such relief are present; but proceeding by declaratory judgment shall not be permitted in any case where a divorce or annulment of marriage is sought.2

Use of Common-Law Techniques and Remedies in Statutory Enforcement. A Study in Judicial Behavior

Use of Common-Law Techniques and Remedies in Statutory Enforcement. A Study in Judicial Behavior

Workmen's Compensation Common Law Remedies and The Beveridge Report

The Modern Law ReviewVolume 7, Issue 1-2 p. 13-25 Free Access Workmen's Compensation Common Law Remedies and The Beveridge Report A. Russell-Jones, A. Russell-JonesSearch for more papers by this author A. Russell-Jones, A. Russell-JonesSearch for more papers by this author First published: April 1944 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1944.tb00966.xCitations: 1AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume7, Issue1-2April 1944Pages 13-25 RelatedInformation

Workmen's Compensation. Construction. Denial of Common Law Remedy Although No Action under Compensation Law

Workmen's Compensation. Construction. Denial of Common Law Remedy Although No Action under Compensation Law

The Effect of the Shipping Act on Prior Common Law and Statutory Remedies

The Effect of the Shipping Act on Prior Common Law and Statutory Remedies

Admiralty. Common Law Remedy Applicable to Stevedores. Stevedore as Seaman within Federal Statute Giving Injured Seamen Rights of Railway Employees

Admiralty. Common Law Remedy Applicable to Stevedores. Stevedore as Seaman within Federal Statute Giving Injured Seamen Rights of Railway Employees

Admiralty Jurisdiction: "Saving a Common Law Remedy"

Admiralty Jurisdiction: "Saving a Common Law Remedy"