Charity Scott and ASLME.

Seminars in DialysisVolume 7, Issue 5 p. 347-350 Case Commentaries on Ethical Issues in Dialysis Deciding on Resuscitation Status with Dialysis Patients and Their Families Alvin H. Moss, Corresponding Author Alvin H. Moss Section of Nephrology, Department of Medicine (AHM and KM) and the Center for Health Ethics and Law (AHM), Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center of West Virginia University, Morgantown. West Virginia*Center For Health, Ethics and Law, Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center, West Vlrginia University, P.O. Box 9022, Morgantown WV 25606–9022Search for more papers by this authorKaren MacKuy, Karen MacKuy Section of Nephrology, Department of Medicine (AHM and KM) and the Center for Health Ethics and Law (AHM), Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center of West Virginia University, Morgantown. West VirginiaSearch for more papers by this author Alvin H. Moss, Corresponding Author Alvin H. Moss Section of Nephrology, Department of Medicine (AHM and KM) and the Center for Health Ethics and Law (AHM), Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center of West Virginia University, Morgantown. West Virginia*Center For Health, Ethics and Law, Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center, West Vlrginia University, P.O. Box 9022, Morgantown WV 25606–9022Search for more papers by this authorKaren MacKuy, Karen MacKuy Section of Nephrology, Department of Medicine (AHM and KM) and the Center for Health Ethics and Law (AHM), Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center of West Virginia University, Morgantown. West VirginiaSearch for more papers by this author First published: September 1994 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-139X.1994.tb00851.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 onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume7, Issue5September 1994Pages 347-350 RelatedInformation

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Additional informationNotes on contributorsRobin M White* Faculty of Law, University of Dundee, UK. Thanks for diverse assistance are due most particularly to Frankie Fook-Lun Leung (Partner, Lewis, d’Amato, Brisbois and Bisgaard, Los Angeles, USA; Adjunct Professor of Chinese Law, Loyola Law School; Lecturer, Stanford University Law School), to my colleagues David Hart (Dundee University Law Library) and Dr Zhiguo Gao (Dundee University Centre for Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy) and also to my former student Stephanie Chan, my colleague Alan Grant (Dundee University Library) and Dr Werner Menski (London University School of Oriental and African Studies). And, of course, to my wife, Cherry. I alone am responsible for the product.

* Any views or opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors in their personal capacities and do not represent the views of their organizations, including the Department of State or the U.S. Government. This report is jointly submitted on behalf of the International Environmental Law Committee of the ABA Section on International Law (SIL) and the International Environmental and Resources Law Committee of the Section on Environment, Energy, and Resources Law (SEER) by Vice-Chairs and Co-Editors Andrew Schatz, Associate with DLA Piper LLP (US), and Sara Vinson, Environmental Claims Associate at ACE Group. Stephanie Altman, Attorney Advisor in the Office of General Counsel, International Law Section, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), contributed on marine environmental protection. Derek Campbell, Attorney-Advisor, Office of General Counsel, International Law Section, NOAA, contributed on marine conservation and trade and the environment. Lee A. DeHihns, III, Senior Counsel with Alston & Bird LLP, and Ann Powers, Associate Professor of Law at Pace University Law School contributed on sustainability. Joseph W. Dellapenna, Professor of Law at Villanova University Law School, authored the section on water resources. Royal Gardner, Professor of Law and Director, Institute for Biodiversity Law and Policy, Stetson University College of Law, contributed on the Ramsar Convention. David Gravallese, Attorney-Adviser in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, contributed on ozone. Richard A. Horsch, a Partner with White & Case LLP, contributed on hazardous waste developments. Finance-related developments are incorporated throughout and were contributed by David Hunter, Professor, and Erika Lennon, Coordinator of the Program on International and Comparative Environmental Law, at American University Washington College of Law. Erica Lyman, Clinical Professor of Law at Lewis & Clark Law School, contributed on wildlife and biological resources. Thomas Parker Redick, with Global Environmental Ethics Counsel, contributed on international regulation of biotechnology. Andrew Schatz contributed on climate change. R. Justin Smith, Assistant Chief, Law and Policy Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, contributed on international environmental litigation. 1. For developments during 2011, see Andrew Schatz et al., International Environmental Law, 46 INT’L LAW. 419 (2012). For developments during 2010, see David R. Downes et al., International Environmental Law, 45 INT’L. LAW. 409 (2011).

"Mediating The Divide" - Challenges To Hemispheric Trade Posed By The Common Law / Civil Law Divide - Conference organised by the Louisiana State University (LSU) Law Center - Baton Rouge (United States of America) - 25-28 April 2006.

The Affordable Care Act 10 Years In: What Nursing Leaders Should Know

Carol E. Henderson, JD It was with great sadness that we learned of the unexpected passing of Carol Henderson on May 14, 2020, in her home in St. Pete Beach, Florida. It is truly a tragic loss for all of us. Carol was a compassionate, passionate, and inspiring person dedicated to her missions in life. As a member of the editorial board of WIREs Forensic Science journal, she committed herself to obtaining great authors from among her extensive “rolodex,” as she called it, of peers and colleagues literally from around the world. When not editing articles for WIREs and keeping her authors “on task,” she loved to cook, write Haiku, read, travel internationally, and snuggle with her cats, Holmes and Watson. But most important to her were her friends and colleagues. Frequently on the phone with them, she called to chat, discuss the future of forensics, check on their health and the well-being of their families. She was always there for them. Her passion was education, particularly law students and lawyers, focusing on the good and the bad of forensic science. She was a professor of law at Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad College of Law and then a tenured professor at Stetson University College of Law where she taught forensic science and ethics. Her approach to class was to make it a hands-on experience for the students using experts in the field to provide their insights. Carol took her passion to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences where she participated in many scientific sessions and committees focused on the future of forensic science. She rose to be the President of the Academy and later received the Distinguished Fellow Award. In addition to authoring or editing more than 100 books, articles, and encyclopedias, she was an innovator, becoming the founding director of the award-winning National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology and the Law, an interdisciplinary resource that provides education and information to scientists, legal professionals, law enforcement, academics, and the public worldwide. Since its inception, NCSTL has trained more than 14,500 legal and scientific professionals, and has the only comprehensive, searchable database of science, technology, and law in the world. Many know Carol because of her more than 300 lectures, webinars and workshops on scientific evidence and courtroom testimony on six continents. All she has done in her life leaves her with a legacy of significant contributions to the forensic sciences and the gratitude of all impacted by her work and friendship. Now is not a time for grief, but a time to celebrate and treasure all the good things she has given us.

ARTICLES CORPORATE GOVERNANCE FROM A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE: SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS OF THE DUTY OF LOYALTY IN KOREA Jae Yeol Kwon* I. INTRODUCTION A major concern in contemporary corporate law in the United States is the fiduciary obligations of corporate directors. 1 In the United States, corporate directors are fiduciaries who stand in a distinct legal relationship ' 2 with and thus owe cer- tain legally enforceable duties ' 3 to the corporation and its share- holders. 4 Although the concept of fiduciary duties is difficult to * Associate Professor of Law, College of Law, Soongsil University, Seoul, Ko- rea. LL.B. 1988, College of Law, Yonsei University; LL.M. 1990, The Graduate School, Yonsei University; LL.M. 1991, School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California at Berkeley; S.J.D. 1995, Georgetown University Law Center. Korean words have been romanized according to the McCune-Reischauer system. The ex- ceptions to this romanization system are found somewhere in this Article, because the few Koreans prefer their own romanization and thus their own English spellings are respected. All errors or other shortcomings are, of course, my own. 1. John C. Coffee, Jr., The Mandatory/Enabling Balance in Corporate Law: An Essay on the Judicial Role, 89 COLUM. L. REV. 1618, 1621 (1989) (stating that fiduci- ary duties are corporate law's most mandatory inner core in the United States). In the United States, for example, almost all textbooks on corporate law discuss the issues of fiduciary duties of corporate directors. See, e.g., WILLIAM L. CARY & MEL- VIN ARON- EISENBERG, CASES AND MATERIALS ON CORPORATIONS 647-809 (7th ed. 2. 2 ARTHUR W. MACHEN, A TREATISE ON THE MODERN LAW OF CORPORA- TIONS, WITH REFERENCE TO FORMATION AND OPERATION UNDER GENERAL LAWS 1162 (1908). See also Note, Liability of Directors for Negligent Mismanagement, 82 U. PA. L. REV. 364, 366 (1934); Rudolph E. Uhlman, The Legal Status of Corporate Directors, 19 B.U. L. REV. 12, 16 (1939). 3. Kenneth E. Scott, Corporation Law and the American Law Institute Corpo- rate Governance Project, 35 STAN. L. REV. 927, 927 (1983). 4. Justice Frankfurter stated that to say that a man is a fiduciary only begins analysis; it gives direction to further inquiry. To whom is he a fiduciary? SEC v.

This review essay (on Avishai Margalit’s new book On Compromise and Rotten Compromises) discusses the philosophical, moral, ethical and practical dimensions of negotiating with “evil” geo-political partners (those who would establish or maintain inhumane regimes) or those who would do evil things. Although compromise is often thought of as unprincipled and amoral, if not immoral, this essay discusses the moral justifications for some compromises, separating out different categories of permissible, justifiable, or immoral and unjustifiable promises. Although Margalit focuses primarily on macro, large geopolitical negotiations, this essay applies thinking about compromise and morality to more everyday and “micro” negotiations as well. Since compromises often give us some peace, if not full, justice, when are we justified in compromising? What does it mean to “compromise” with those who might be evil, or seek to do evil things? When should we walk away? When can't we walk away?

A Realistic Theory of Law (Book Review)

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

This chapter addresses a variety of theoretical and comparative issues relating to judicial departures from precedent under code, under statute, or under mere common law, but not under constitutions. A departure from precedent may or may not be overt. Explicit overruling is the most overt type of departure. Departures that are not overt but merely implicit may occur in trial courts, in intermediate appellate courts and in the highest courts. Overt forms of departure in all systems include decisions in which courts explicitly overrule, explicitly modify or explicitly 'whittle away' a precedent. Professors of law and other academics in universities and in research institutes can play major roles in the working of a system of precedent within their country. The following justifying grounds for departures from precedent play especially important roles in the upper courts of civil law countries in fields covered by code or statute.

Geoff Hoon was appointed Minister for Europe in May 2006, returning to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) where he was previously Minister in 1999. Prior to this appointment, Mr Hoon was Leader of the House of Commons and Secretary of State for Defence. A barrister by trade, before entering Parliament Mr Hoon lectured in law at Leeds University (1976–1982) and was Visiting Professor of Law at the University of Louisville, Kentucky in 1979 and 1980. Here, he is being interviewed by Vernon Bogdanor, Professor of Government at Oxford University and Professor of Law at Gresham College.

This special edition of JLME celebrates the life of Charity Scott, Professor Emerita and Founding Director of the Center for Law, Health & Society at Georgia State University College of Law.

Journal Article International Arbitral Practice and the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts Get access Klaus Peter Berger Klaus Peter Berger 1Klaus Peter Berger is S.J.D., University of Bielefeld; J.D., University of Cologne; LL.M., University of Virginia; Professor of Private, Commercial, Comparative and Private International Law; Director, Institute for International Business Law and Center for Transnational Law (CENTRAL), Münster University, Germany Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The American Journal of Comparative Law, Volume 46, Issue 1, Winter 1998, Pages 129–150, https://doi.org/10.2307/841080 Published: 01 January 1998

Religious litigants challenging COVID-19 restrictions on in-person worship services typically argue that these restrictions discriminate against religion in violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Demands for equal treatment have intuitive appeal, and they also fit with the Supreme Court’s current religion clause jurisprudence. However, there are a number of drawbacks to approaches that focus on equal treatment. It can be difficult to identify the appropriate secular benchmarks for determining whether discrimination has taken place, and religious congregations are usually not actually asking for equal treatment. What they really want is to maximize their ability to gather together safely in person.In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, the Supreme Court granted applications for emergency injunctive relief in two cases challenging 10- and 25-person limits on houses of worship in COVID-19 hotspots in New York. The Court found that New York’s rules favored secular activities over religious practice and failed to satisfy the strict scrutiny required of discriminatory action under the Free Exercise Clause. However, many of the examples of discrimination given by those in the majority seemed strained, and the justices appeared less interested in the threshold showing of discriminatory treatment than in applying heightened scrutiny to significant restrictions on religious worship. The Court’s shift in focus from discrimination to close scrutiny of worship restrictions is the right one, but those in the majority neither acknowledged this shift nor signaled a new framework or approach that would explain or guide it. In this short essay, I argue that the appropriate framework for analyzing restrictions on religious worship is the doctrine of church autonomy that has been emerging in the Court’s recent religion clause jurisprudence. Viewing conflicts over COVID-19 restrictions through this lens can better clarify what is at stake when clashes occur as well as better inform the scope and limits of institutional freedom in this context.This essay is based on a presentation for the International Conference on COVID-19 Pandemic & Religious Freedom: Reports from North America and Europe sponsored by Andrews University, Brigham Young University Law School Center for Law and Religion Studies, and University of Portsmouth (December 2-3, 2020) and a shorter presentation for the blog webinar Law, Religion, and Coronavirus in the United States: A Six-Month Assessment organized by Brigham Young University Law School, Emory University Law School, Notre Dame Law School, St. John’s University School of Law, and the Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (October 2, 2020).