Original Jurisdiction Research Articles

Justiciability

The purpose of this article is to discuss the problem of drawing a line between law and politics, as it presented itself to courts in Israel. Any such discussion must take as its starting point the judgment of the late President of the Supreme Court of Israel, Dr. M. Smoira, in Jabotinsky v. Weizmann So far as I know, it was here that the term “justiciable” was first used in this context in Israel. This was a case concerning the formation of a new government. The former government, headed by Mr. Ben-Gurion, had received a vote of non-confidence and resigned. The President of the State, after consulting the parties, asked Mr. Ben-Gurion to form a new government and, upon his refusal, had let the matter rest. The petitioner's complaint was that the President should have called upon each and every one of all the 120 members of the Knesset until one was found who succeeded in forming a new government. He applied to the Supreme Court, sitting in its original jurisdiction as a High Court of Justice, for a writ of mandamus against the President ordering him to do so. Two points were submitted by the Attorney General in opposing the grant of an order nisi. His first submission was that the Court should assume no jurisdiction over the President of the State. In this submission he failed, but he succeeded on his second ground, which concerns us here, namely that the matter, being “political”, was not justiciable.

Federal District Judges and Race Relations Cases in the South

A MONG THOSE NATIONS with federal arrangements of political power, the United States is one of the few maintaining a national judiciary through the states.' Unlike other federal systems where federal judges adjudicate only at the appellate level, United States district judges have a large and continuing area of original jurisdiction. They decide thousands of cases each year and hold court in every state in the union. The widespread location of a federal judicial power has important consequences for the operation of the American political process. In the first place, an important institution embodying national power is added to the political process at the state level. District courts initiate policy, they implement or may overrule policy made elsewhere in the political system. Further, political interests and factions in the several states may make political demands upon the federal courts as well as on federal legislators and administrators and all members of the state political system. Estimating their probable success, interested parties may choose to make claims in the first instance before the federal courts, or they may turn there as a last resort if efforts elsewhere in the political system have been unsuccessful. Despite its importance, we have little information concerning the political activities of the federal district courts. Although increasingly interested in the political functions of courts, political scientists have been more fascinated by the spectacular activities of the Supreme Court which they have studied in some detail. More studies of the basic federal judicial activities would increase our knowledge of the political functions of the courts and of the nature of the American political system. An excellent opportunity to study the district courts may be found in the quantity of race relations cases which have occurred

A Research Report on Consulado History

The Spanish consulado — or Catalan consolat de mar — emerged from the medieval economy of Mediterranean towns. From a simple maritime court, its prototype in thirteenth-century Valencia, the Consulado evolved into a permanent tribunal with appellate as well as original jurisdiction in mercantile disputes. Ultimately, the consular court constituted one of three divisions of the guild merchant. The matrícula, or guild membership, comprised resident merchants who met various qualifications of age, property, and vocation. In annual assemblies the guildsment elected the judges of their court, usually a prior and two consuls. The prior and consuls were at once judges, active merchants, and members ex-officio of an executive council or junta. This governing body represented the merchant class in negotiating with other groups, especially public officials. It administered customs and taxes, enforced trade regulations, carried out public works projects, and in many other ways intervened in the economic life of the community.

Re Cano

Diplomatic Immunities — Staff of Embassy — Secretaries — Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court of Argentina — Refusal of Embassy to Waive Immunity

Re Ruiz.

Consuls — Position of — Honorary Consuls — The Law of Argentina.Consuls — Privileges and Immunities of — Immunity from Jurisdiction — Honorary Consuls — Whether Within Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court of Argentina.

Segura et al. v. Consulate of Brazil at Bahía Blanca.

Consuls — Privileges and Immunities of — Immunity from Jurisdiction of Courts of Receiving State — Acts of a Private Law Nature — Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court of Argentina.

The Original Jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court

The Original Jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court

Federal Procedure. Process. Substituted Service Pursuant to State Nonresident Motorist Statute Held Sufficient for Original Jurisdiction and Not Limited by Rule 4(f)

Federal Procedure. Process. Substituted Service Pursuant to State Nonresident Motorist Statute Held Sufficient for Original Jurisdiction and Not Limited by Rule 4(f)

Unfair Competition. Lanham Act Held to Confer Original Jurisdiction on Federal District Courts over Actions for Unfair Competition Involving Interstate Commerce

Unfair Competition. Lanham Act Held to Confer Original Jurisdiction on Federal District Courts over Actions for Unfair Competition Involving Interstate Commerce

The Trial of Peers in Great Britain

THE British House of Lords at present is a final appellate court.1 Until I948 it also had sole original jurisdiction over peers2 and peeresses' charged with treason, felony, or misprision thereof, with the exception of Irish peers in the House of Commons.4 This jurisdiction, while including persons unable to sit in the House of Lords,' applied to all its members with the exception of the bishops. The origin of the jurisdiction was in the relationships of political feudalism, whereby vassals owed suit of court to their lord and were triable only by their co-suitors.6 The absence of political feudalism in Anglo-Saxon England precluded the existence of the procedure there, where the witan tried great offenders only when they had flouted the concurrent jurisdictions of shire and hundred court.7 In the rather minute legal descriptions of classes before io66 significantly lacking is a group triable only by the witan, an omission in great contrast to the precise term in contemporary eleventh century Normandy of pares curiae,8 denoting men triable only by co-suitors of the same lord. This procedure was part of the political feudalism introduced into England by the Normans, whose presence in England after the Con-

Children and Youth in the Criminal Court

SPECIAL consideration of the law violator based upon his immaturity has ancient roots in our legal system. Until the present century, however, issues of juvenile recalcitrance were litigated in the same courts where adult crimes were prosecuted. To some extent the youngster received there the mitigations of procedure and penalty which foreshadowed the juvenile court. The extenuating circumstance of age was predicated upon presumed incapacities of the child's mind and will to commit crime, but it is reasonable to assume that humanitarian sentiments underlay the legal rationalizations to a large extent. The juvenile court is similarly a product of concern for child welfare today. It has integrated the informal and administrative character of equity with other fairly well-established precedents of judicial and correctional technique, such as suspension of sentence, probation, and partial segregation in institutions. Ideas of nonresponsibility for crime, educative redirection rather than punishment of the offender, and treatment based on an understanding of the individual-these predecessors of the juvenile court have become co-ordinated in a partial but widely variant degree in the tribunals which specialize in handling the young. In addition, the age at which criminal liability begins has been increased generally from the old common law rule 1 as the upper age of original jurisdiction for juvenile courts has been es-

The California Youth Authority

Previous articleNext article No AccessThe California Youth AuthorityDorothy FreemanDorothy Freeman Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Social Service Review Volume 22, Number 2Jun., 1948 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/636821 Views: 3Total views on this site PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Federal Courts. Suits to Which a State Is a Party. Action by State to Enjoin Conspiracy in Restraint of Interstate Commerce Held to Present a Justiciable Controversy within Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court

Federal Courts. Suits to Which a State Is a Party. Action by State to Enjoin Conspiracy in Restraint of Interstate Commerce Held to Present a Justiciable Controversy within Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court

Farnsworth v. Sanford, Warden.

Diplomatic Immunities — Duration of — Immunity after Termination of Mission — Prosecutions indirectly Affecting Diplomatic Representatives — Whether Inconsistent with Diplomatic Immunity — Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States in Matters Concerning Diplomatic Immunities — Whether Excluding Jurisdiction of Other Courts — Distinction between Ambassadors and Other Representatives.

Original Jurisdiction of Federal Questions

Original Jurisdiction of Federal Questions

Federal Courts. Removal Jurisdiction. Employee Suits under FLSA Held Not Removable despite Original Jurisdiction in Federal Courts

Federal Courts. Removal Jurisdiction. Employee Suits under FLSA Held Not Removable despite Original Jurisdiction in Federal Courts

Carrizosa v. Meyers.

Diplomatic Privileges — Staff of Envoy — Secretary of Legation — The Law of Argentina — Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Selective Service Examinations

HomeRadiologyVol. 35, No. 6 PreviousNext Bulletin of the Inter-Society Committee for RadiologySelective Service ExaminationsPublished Online:Dec 1 1940https://doi.org/10.1148/35.6.743bMoreSectionsPDF ToolsImage ViewerAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked In AbstractThe following bulletins were sent by the American College of Radiology to its list of State representatives and the secretaries of regional radiological societies last month. They are published herewith for the information of all radiologists.Selective Service Examinations (Oct. 29,1940).—This bulletin is to advise you concerning procedures adopted for the examination for physical qualifications of registrants under the Selective Service Act. Some details in this procedure have not yet been completed and, as a consequence, the information contained herein may be supplemented or revised in future bulletins. Vincent W. Archer, M.D., Chairman of the Board of Chancellors, has authorized this office to disseminate all pertinent information of special interest to radiologists in connection with Selective Service as subsequent regulations are adopted.The basic responsibility of determination as to physical qualifications of registrants will rest on local draft boards in some 6,500 communities. Local boards under Selective Service Regulations have original jurisdiction with respect to physical qualifications of registrants, subject to appeal. Each local board will have one or more examining physicians who will examine all registrants sent to them by the local board. Standards of physical examinations will be furnished them. It is estimated that there will be about 90 men per local board requiring physical examination. Examining physicians will be appointed by the President upon recommendation of the Governors of the respective States. They will serve without pay.Provision has been made to furnish the supplies required in physical examinations and to pay on a cost basis for those procedures necessary for the determination of a draftee's physical fitness, such as laboratory or x-ray examinations. A subcommittee of the Committee on Medical Preparedness has been appointed to establish a schedule of charges on the basis of which pathologists, radiologists, and other special examiners will be reimbursed for the costs incurred in making examinations referred to them. This schedule has not yet been completed.As provided in the Selective Service Act (Section VII-146), Medical Advisory Boards “shall be appointed by the Governor of each State to assist local boards in determining the physical qualifications of registrants. The Board shall, if practicable, consist of internists; eye, ear, nose, and throat specialists; orthopedists; surgeons; psychiatrists; clinical pathologists; radiographers, and dentists. In the event that a Medical Advisory Board cannot be made available to a local board, the Governor shall appoint individual specialists who shall act as a Medical Advisory Board.”The chairman of each Medical Advisory Board shall authorize such special examinations and laboratory tests as he may deem necessary and shall cause to be forwarded to the State Procurement officer for payment the bill for such examinations (Section VII-529).Article HistoryPublished in print: Dec 1940 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRecommended Articles RSNA Education Exhibits RSNA Case Collection Vol. 35, No. 6 Metrics Altmetric Score PDF download

Constitutional Law: Original Jurisdiction of United States Supreme Court: Availability as a Procedural Remedy to Avoid Multiple Taxation

Constitutional Law: Original Jurisdiction of United States Supreme Court: Availability as a Procedural Remedy to Avoid Multiple Taxation

Federal Courts. Suits to Which State Is a Party. Exercise of Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court Held Discretionary

Federal Courts. Suits to Which State Is a Party. Exercise of Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court Held Discretionary