Court Rulings Research Articles

The Execution of Family Law Court Rulings in Jewish Communities in Tunisia and Libya in the Early Twentieth Century: The Challenge of Enforcement Without Sustenance Ronel Atia

The article examines the enforcement of verdicts by Jewish courts in two early entiethcentury Jewish communities: in Tunisia, particularly the capital city of Tunis, as it transitioned from Muslim rule to an European protectorate, and in Libya during the last years of the Ottoman Empire. It analyzes three documents that reflect the ways in which various Jewish courts handled cases related to family law and used sanctions to uphold Jewish law. The situations described in these documents raise questions about the Jewish courts’ authority to execute judgments in matters under their immediate jurisdiction. This article may provide a basis for the study of similar issues in other Jewish communities in the Ottoman Empire and in other periods throughout history.

The role and significance of regulatory resolutions of the supreme court of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the current laws and regulations system

This article emphasizes the role and significance of Supreme Court rulings of Kazakhstan within the current system of laws and regulations of that nation. The authors explore their functional purpose and place in terms of sources of law while analyzing their relationship to legislation and other documents of law. Special focus is paid to aspects related to law-making activities by this body as well as any impact they might have on law enforcement practice and legislation development and potential ability of rulings of this court to clarify problematic areas related to understanding the law or enforcement thereof.The normative decisions of the Supreme Court serve to clarify norms of law and regulate their application in everyday society life, meeting all requirements established within legal framework. Judicial practice analysis yields useful results used as sources of law; each year more regulatory rulings of the Supreme Court become used in law enforcement practice to resolve major disputes more efficiently.This article reviews the key principles and criteria regulatory decisions must meet to successfully fill gaps in legislation and create an integrated law enforcement practice across Kazakhstan. The authors underscored the significance of regulatory rulings for eliminating ambiguities and disputes when it comes to interpretation of laws as well as creating an orderly legal environment that provides predictability.

The Rise or Decline of Social Acceptance? Perspective from U.S. Presidential Elections, 2012 to 2020

Recent acts of racial violence, the growing visibility of nationalized white power movements, and a drift toward a number of more restrictive laws and Supreme Court rulings have raised troubling questions about the significance and influence of social acceptance in the United States. Focusing on voters and elections, an important strain of scholarship has argued that declining acceptance of minority groups and marginalized communities contributed to the political rise of Donald Trump and his 2016 election to the presidency. However, the argument that low levels of social acceptance benefited Republican candidates is premised on a basic yet untested assumption: that social acceptance has decreased over the time period covered by the past several elections. In this study, we offer a new and systematic evaluation of this assumption through an analysis of change in the level of social acceptance within the American electorate and its political influence from the 2012 through 2020 elections. The analysis focuses on key target groups that include racial minorities, women, immigrants, and gay and lesbian individuals. We find that voters adopted more supportive and inclusive positions toward these marginalized social groups, resulting in a substantial increase in social acceptance over time. Contrasting further with much of the commentary regarding the rise of Donald Trump, our analysis indicates that these trends in social acceptance served to hurt Trump and to help his Democratic opponents. Supplemental analyses find little evidence that social desirability influences the measures of social acceptance or their estimated influence on voter choice.

Case Review and Discussion on One of the Strictest Court Ruling Recently on Construction Contract Notification Mechanism: Maeda Kensetsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v. Bauer Hong Kong Ltd [2020] 5 HKLRD 328

Case Review and Discussion on One of the Strictest Court Ruling Recently on Construction Contract Notification Mechanism: Maeda Kensetsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v. Bauer Hong Kong Ltd [2020] 5 HKLRD 328

The Higher Education Act 2005 in the Light of Supreme Court Rulings

The Higher Education Act 2005 in the Light of Supreme Court Rulings

The role and significance of regulatory resolutions of the supreme court of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the current laws and regulations system

. This article emphasizes the role and significance of Supreme Court rulings of Kazakhstan within the current system of laws and regulations of that nation. The authors explore their functional purpose and place in terms of sources of law while analyzing their relationship to legislation and other documents of law. Special focus is paid to aspects related to law-making activities by this body as well as any impact they might have on law enforcement practice and legislation development and potential ability of rulings of this court to clarify problematic areas related to understanding the law or enforcement thereof. The normative decisions of the Supreme Court serve to clarify norms of law and regulate their application in everyday society life, meeting all requirements established within legal framework. Judicial practice analysis yields useful results used as sources of law; each year more regulatory rulings of the Supreme Court become used in law enforcement practice to resolve major disputes more efficiently. This article reviews the key principles and criteria regulatory decisions must meet to successfully fill gaps in legislation and create an integrated law enforcement practice across Kazakhstan. The authors underscored the significance of regulatory rulings for eliminating ambiguities and disputes when it comes to interpretation of laws as well as creating an orderly legal environment that provides predictability.

Dolo eventual: considerações sobre a teoria de Ingeborg Puppe

Through the use of specialized literature as well as the main court rulings in the country of origin, this paper offers an analysis of the central components of the theory of intentional danger (Vorsatzgefahr), proposed by the German Criminal Law Professor Ingeborg Puppe, to characterize the cases in which possible dolus is attributed. The cognitive element is analyzed; the competence to assess the known risk; and the content of the intentional danger, as a rational strategy for producing the result. Finally, some considerations are also made about the distinction between dolus directus and dolus eventualis. Although the theory is positively evaluated, some incongruities are pointed out, particularly with regard to the possible reduction of the area of dolus directus.

Protecting “No Surprises” Journalism: Why Courts Should Preserve the Actual Malice Privilege for News Media that Include the Subject’s Response to Allegations of Misconduct

The recent onset of the “fake news” era has brought with it a wave of public discussion about the importance of ethical journalism. The sheer volume of misinformation from non-traditional online sources has had the corollary effect of also reducing the trust of many in traditional news sources. This is especially the case when the report involves alleged misconduct or scandal, which stands to potentially benefit opponents of the subject person or organization. Traditional news sources have fought vigorously to both differentiate “fake news” and reinstate public trust in sources committed to ethical journalism. But what exactly is “ethical journalism”? Do recognized legal protections relating to free speech and free press rights at all encourage ethical journalism over tactics used by those peddling fake news? The Society of Professional Journalists summarizes the concept well in providing simply that: “Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair.” A key tenet in ensuring both accuracy and fairness is the principle that a journalist should “diligently seek” out the person or organization that is the “subject” of a developing news report “to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.” This principle is referred to by many as the “no surprises rule” because it gives the subject a “fair chance to refute the facts” for publication. The Washington Post goes so far as to say in its current Policies and Standards that “[n]o story is fair if it covers individuals or organizations that have not been given the opportunity to address assertions or claims about them made by others.” It is this fundamental “discipline of verification” that “separates journalism from other forms of communication such as propaganda, advertising, fiction, or entertainment.” According to core principles established by the United States Supreme Court in a line of relevant cases, the free speech and free press rights guaranteed by the First Amendment should incentivize the “no surprises rule” and most often protect news media that include the subject person’s response to allegations of misconduct in the published report. Specifically, in most reports involving a public controversy, the news media defendant should be protected by the “actual malice privilege” in a subsequent libel lawsuit brought by the subject person because such person qualifies as a “limited purpose public figure.” However, a lingering dicta observation made in one Supreme Court opinion in this relevant line of cases has created the potential for confusion on this point. Perhaps even more problematic are two artificial self-defense-based exceptions to the actual malice privilege that have been established in two federal circuits, which remove protection of the news media in many relevant circumstances. These exceptions have only become more confused and conflated as they have spread. Given the increasing need to protect and encourage ethical journalism in the online age, and the recent interest from some members of the Supreme Court in reevaluating the scope of the actual malice privilege itself, consideration of the issue is critical at this time. This Article demonstrates that, in most circumstances involving a public controversy, a news media defendant should be protected by the actual malice privilege in a subsequent lawsuit brought by a libel plaintiff that responded to the alleged false statements in a published report. In sum, this Article shows why such a libel plaintiff should be considered a limited purpose public figure.

미국 연방대법원 Dobbs 판결과 그 함의에 대한 소고

The U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs ruling is a realization of concerns that had already been detailed in Justice Ginsberg's objection to the Gonzales v. Carhart ruling in 2007. Justice Ginsberg criticized the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Gonzales' ruling as eating away the great spirit of the U.S. Supreme Court, which approved the abortion ban, and pointed out the risk of returning to the result of denying the spirit of abortion freedom in the future, 15 years later, this concern became a reality. I would like to ask whether the argument of Roe's ruling, which gave women who had been in the role of sublime pregnancy and childbirth the basic value of freedom of choice or self-determination to resolve discrimination and oppression against women and break away from the framework of unjust control that had to force unwanted situations, was entirely denied. Not only in the United States, but also in Korea, efforts have been made to guarantee women's discrimination and rights for a long time, and those efforts have barely been paying off, and the Supreme Court has changed the precedent unfavorably by breaking the public's expectations, faith, and faith in women's right to choose, which have been maintained for nearly half a century. Nevertheless, we will have to firmly follow the flow of history, but it may be affected to some extent by the Dobbs ruling above. In this regard, this article emphasizes the injustice by critically analyzing the Dobbs ruling and highlighting the problems, and aims to lay the groundwork for the improvement legislation as a follow-up to the constitutional inconsistency decision made by the Constitutional Court of Korea.

공법과 사법의 대화

The legal domain has traditionally been segmented into public and private law. Private law is rooted in the principle of private autonomy that is premised on individual liberty. Conversely, public law centers on the adininistration and regulation of public authority. Despite these distinctions, public and private law overlap significantly in their research topics, methodologies, and goals. As such, collaboration and mutual learning between these spheres are crucial. Consequently, establishing a platform for dialogue among scholars from both fields is deemed valuable. 
 This paper delves into the criteria that differentiate public from private law, examining their interrelation through constitutional and civil law, alongside administrative and civil law. It scrutinizes the nexus between public and private law, with a focus on Supreme Court precedents concerning personality rights, the third party effect (Drittwirkung) of fundamental rights in private relationships, interpretations of law in alignment with the Constitution, the analogy of private law regulations to public contracts or public law contracts, the validity of a contract contravening administrative regulations, the liability for state compensation for unlawful administrative conduct, and the demarcation of jurisdiction between civil and administrative proceedings. Public and private law have evolved in tandem, influencing each other. Their dem邱ation is more a product of historical development and relativity than a priori or theoretical constructs. Recent Supreme Court rulings demonstrate an increasing interplay between public law, including constitutional provisions, and the interpretation and application of civil law, and vice versa. In this scenario, promoting an active dialogue between scholars of public and private law is anticipated to substantially enhance both disciplines, as well as the legal system as a whole.

A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE SUBCONSCIOUS COPYING DOCTRINE

The copyright law's notion of subconscious copying has generated a great deal of discussion and controversy. The concept of subconscious copying is evaluated critically in this article, which also explores the key arguments for and against it. The philosophy is essentially based on the notion that people may unintentionally produce works that are strikingly similar to works that already exist due to subconscious influences. Inconsistencies in court rulings result from variations in the doctrine's application and interpretation across various legal systems. 
 The article highlights the standards that courts apply to assess whether subconscious copying has taken place and explores significant court judgments that have developed the notion of subconscious copying. While some courts place a strong emphasis on the availability of the original work and the degree of likeness, other courts value time distance as a crucial consideration. The article also contrasts the techniques taken by various legal systems, including the strict liability system in the US and the necessity of a causal connection in the UK and Canada.
 In conclusion, the notion of subconscious copying is still a complicated and divisive topic in copyright law. Although it makes an effort to overcome the difficulties caused by unintentional impacts on creativity, its application and justification face considerable difficulties. The article advocates for a fair strategy that takes into account the needs of both the public and intellectual property rights' integrity.

대북전단등 살포행위에 대한 입법규제의 딜레마

On September 26, 2023, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the provisions regulating the distribution of anti-North Korea leaflets under the Act on the Development of Inter-Korean Relations. As a result, the issue of the sharp conflict at home and abroad surrounding the distribution of anti-North Korea leaflets and its regulations, which has gradually worsened since the 2000s, appears to be coming to an end. The government also appears to be taking various follow-up measures in line with the above Court's decision to find it unconstitutional. Meanwhile, the opinions of the above Court judges were divided on whether the regulation on the distribution of anti-North Korea leaflets was a restriction on the content of expression or a restriction on the method of expression. Depending on how you interpret it, the degree of restrictions on freedom of expression may vary. In particular, the seven people's unconstitutionality opinion viewed the regulation of the distribution of anti-North Korea leaflets as a restriction on the content of expression and argued that strict standards should be applied to such restrictions. At the same time, even if the distribution of leaflets against North Korea is not regulated by criminal punishment, freedom of expression is protected through the application of Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers or the introduction of a system similar to the reporting system under the Assembly and Demonstration Act. It was believed that there were less restrictive means available. In other words, it took the position that the provisions regulating the distribution of leaflets against North Korea violate the principle of minimal infringement. However, apart from the fact that the anti-North Korea leaflet regulations were declared unconstitutional, if leaflets continue to be distributed to North Korea in the future, tensions between North and South Korea will increase and safety issues for residents in the border area may continue to be raised. In addition, if a political or security environment is created in the future that actively supports regulation of the distribution of anti-North Korea leaflets, the removal of the matters presented by the above Court as reasons for its decision to be unconstitutional and then the possibility of attempting a new form of legislative regulation won’t be completely excluded. Therefore, a review of means that can less restrict freedom of expression suggested by the above Court's unconstitutionality opinion is required from a normative and realistic perspective. In this article, we examined the gist of the above Court’s decision and analyzed and evaluated the decision of the above Court, focusing on the normative and realistic limits of regulating acts such as the distribution of leaflets to North Korea - especially the application of Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers or the introduction of a system similar to the reporting system under the Assembly and Demonstration Act - and then drew implications.

Review of default judgment in civil proceedings

The article is devoted to the analysis of the procedure for review of a decision in absentia in a civil proceeding by a court of first instance and its procedural consequences.
 It is noted that there is a special and general procedure for reviewing a decision in absentia in a civil process, where submitting an application for review of a decision in absentia to the court that passed it is considered as a special procedure for reviewing it. It is indicated that this procedure can be considered in the context of self-control of the court of first instance in civil proceedings.
 The subjects of submitting an application for review of a decision in absentia, its form, content, terms and procedure of submission are analyzed. Attention is drawn to the attachments to the application for review of the decision in absentia. It is indicated that the defendant has the right to submit such an application even if the decision in absentia is passed in his favor.
 An application for review of a decision in absentia may not be considered by the court and returned to the person if he has not registered an electronic office in the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System. Until such a person registers an electronic account, he cannot demand the cancellation of a decision in absentia. The specified procedural consequences also occur if the interests of a person who has not registered an electronic account are represented by a lawyer who has a registered electronic account. This manifests a limitation in a person's ability to protect his rights, freedoms and interests in court.
 The procedure for considering an application for review of a decision in absentia is analyzed, and the grounds for court rulings on the satisfaction of such an application and cancellation of the decision in absentia or leaving the application unsatisfied are investigated. It is noted that the satisfaction of the application for review of the decision in absentia does not yet mean the adoption of the court decision automatically in favor of the defendant, since the consideration of the case starts from the beginning on general principles. The court will schedule a new court session to consider the merits of the case, informing all interested participants in the process.
 Attention is drawn to the peculiarity of the defendant's exercise of the right to appeal against a decision in absentia or a repeated decision in absentia, and it is also indicated under which conditions this is possible. It is noted what to do if an application for annulment of a decision in absentia by the defendant and an appeal by the plaintiff was filed at the same time.

Application of Ex Officio Rights Based on Gender Justice in Divorce Lawsuit in Surabaya Religious Court, Indonesia

The divorce rate of PA Surabaya in 2022 was recorded at 10,327 divorce applications, 5,802 cases were decided, 4,171 divorce cases compared to 1,631 cases. High number of divorce cases makes PA Surabaya must play role and be able to resolve Islamic family law problems fairly for the litigants. This research is text-based through the reading of court rulings from gender justice perspective. The purpose of the study: (1) to know the legal basis for the judge's consideration in the divorce lawsuit case Number:3950/Pdt.G/2023/PA.Sby. (2) How to apply Ex Officio rights based on gender justice in PA Surabaya for the fulfillment of wife's rights after divorce. The type of qualitative research is in the form of analysis of divorce case decisions, in-depth interviews, with judges who tried cases number (3950/Pdt.G/2023/PA.Sby). Using a gender approach with benefit indicators, not based on stereotypes (ridicule), don’t lead to the creation of marginalization (sex differentiation), don’t lead to gender-based violence and the absence of subordination (deviation of one gender). The results of this study show that PA Surabaya in legal products, especially in divorce lawsuits, is not accordance with the principles of gender justice, able to equalize gender by punishing husbands to pay muth'ah, iddah, hadhonah to ex-wives even though it’s not written in the lawsuit with Ex Officio rights and cooperates with the Surabaya City Government for the implementation of decisions and as a pioneer in the implementation of Book II article 41 C of Law Number 1 of 1974 and PERMA No.3 Year 2017.

Court rules against former adjunct professor

Case name: Klamrzynski v. Maricopa County Community College District, No. 22‐16752 (9th Cir. 09/20/23).

Court rules against former medical resident

Case name: Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center — El Paso v. Niehay, No. 22‐0179 (Texas 06/30/23).

A Comparative Case Study of Religious Identities and Civic Rights in Three Multi-Religious Societies

Religious diversity is increasing in many societies around the world. As more countries become multi-religious, there are growing challenges in how religious identities are defined and civic rights of religious groups are protected. This research examined approaches adopted in three diverse multi-religious societies – India, Nigeria and Canada – to balance religious identities and civic participation. Through analysis of government policies, court rulings and interviews with religious leaders, the study identified sources of tension between religious communities and evaluated different models employed. The findings suggested that while the separation of religion and State helps protect against religious domination, it does not adequately accommodate religious practices or minority rights. Equal treatment policies are valuable but may not sufficiently recognize cultural differences. Accommodation of religious norms provides inclusiveness but risks endorsing certain beliefs over others. Additionally, collective rights need to be balanced with individual freedoms to ensure full civic participation across communities. The research contributes new insights into conceptualizing and operationalizing inclusive models that harness religious diversity’s positive role in democratic societies. Keywords: Religious Identities, Civic Rights, Civic Community, Religious Freedom, Religious Diversity, Inclusive Institutions, Religious Tolerance.

Court rules against former professor

Case name: Rakhshandeh v. Texas Tech University, No. 23‐10201 (5th Cir. 08/30/23).

Court rules against former adjunct professor

Case name: Klamrzynski v. Maricopa County Community College District, No. 22‐16752 (9th Cir. 09/20/23).

Court rules against former employee

Case name: Mudie v. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, et al., No. 22‐2132 (3d Cir. 09/25/23).