Departures from Precedent

Rulemaking by Fiat in a Most Unsuitable Case: A Critique of the Texas Supreme Court's Creation of a Catchall Sham Affidavit Rule in Lujan v. Navistar, Inc. (Tex. 2018)

There are various case laws is available on the topic of nullity in a foreign marriage in India these are decided by the various High Courts and Supreme Court of India and foreign Courts also. In the case of Mrs. M. v. Mr. A where an appeal filed in the Bombay High Court by the wife appellant and had prayed for a decree of nullity, her marriage was solemnized at Huston, U.S.A. On the other hand, wife prayed for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. This petition was initially filed before the trial Court under the stipulations of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which applied to the spouses by virtue of the stipulations of Section 18 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969. The trial Court dismissed this petition on the ground that the Court was not vested with the mandatory jurisdiction, as this is an obligation of law that the petitioner must have been residing in India constantly for a period of three years without delay preceding the filing of the petition. Further, the High Court observed that this Section refers to a time of not less than three years without delay preceding the filing of the petition and that the learned trial Court was not reasonable in having grafted on the word ‘continuously.’ The complexity that had arisen in this case centered on the fact that the petitioner had left India in December, 1986 and returned in August, 1987 and the petition was presented on April, 1988. The Court also took into account the fact that the petitioner had not emigrated from India which was recognized by the fact that, she had gone out of the Country only on a ‘tourist visit’ and she did really come back and has been enduringly domiciled and resident in India all through. The Court said that in marital legislations in this Country, the law confers local jurisdiction on a Court if the party concerned is in fact resident there and not on the basis of casual short- term visits. The finding in the case of Neeraja Saraph v. Jayant Saraph, was decided in the following facts: the wife appellant who got married to a software engineer working in United States was still demanding to get her visa to join her husband, who had returned after the marriage, when she received the petition for annulment of marriage presented by her husband in the U.S. Court. She presented a suit for damages in such situations as she had suffered not just psychologically and spiritually but had also renounced her job in eagerness of her going away to the US. The trial Court passed a decree of Rs. 22 lakhs and the High Court in appeal stayed the execution of the decree pending concluding disposal on the stipulation of deposit of Rs 1 Lakh in the Court. On the appeal by the wife the Supreme Court customized the High Court’s order in favour of the wife by enhancing the deposit amount to Rs. 3 Lakh.

This article examines an oft-repeated yet untested assumption about judicial retention elections: appellate court elections and trial court elections are so similar that a single explanation will suffice. Reported herein is a comparison of appellate and trial court retention elections in 10 states over the 1964-1988 time period. Comparisons of both the affirmative vote and roll-off begin with the basic aspects of each and then are expanded to include the relationships with judicial district characteristics, such as population. We conclude that while a single successful model of voting behavior in judicial retention elections would probably explain considerable variation in both trial and appellate court retention elections, there are differences between the levels which should be built into the model. In terms of differences, the clear and unquestioned difference between trial court and appellate court retention elections involves inter-judge differences. Appellate judges who are on the same retention bal...

State intermediate appellate courts are a most important part of our legal system. They enable the state's highest court to concentrate on a few cases; they guide the trial courts; and they often point the way to needed changes in the law. But they are overworked, with resulting delays and dissatisfaction. To improve their performance, and to increase their usefulness to the highest court and the trial courts, the following should be done: their decisions should be made final, subject to review only in the discretion of the state's highest court; they should not be divided into regional divisions or into specialized courts; they should in every case file a written opinion; their judges should be nominated on merit and confirmed by the legislature; and their staffs should be reorganized. Given modern caseloads, this would involve delegating some judicial responsibility to staff. But on balance, the gain would be greater than the loss, for the judges would be enabled to spend more of their time deciding cases.

North Alamo Water Supply and Sharyland Water Supply are nonprofit Texas corporations. Property owners in areas served by these corporations who wish to receive water from them must pay a membership fee. The corporations also collect a connection charge and bill their members monthly for the water they receive. Both companies sought exemption from ad valorem taxes levied against their buildings and tangible personal property on the basis that each qualified as a purely charitable organization pursuant to the Texas constitution, which exempts institutions of purely public charity from paying property taxes. The requests were denied by the administrative agencies and the trial and intermediate appellate courts.

CHAPTER 1 - HISTORY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

* 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).

This article by Stephen Hardy (Professor of Law, University of Bolton) canvasses the issues and advocates reform of the present antiquated High Court of England & Wales. In making the case for the modernisation of the existing High Court, this article analyses the current workload of the High Court since 2011 and the need to modernise in pursuit of specialism and expectations of the harmonisation of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service landscape. In arriving at a reformist model, this article proposes the disbandment of the pre-existing Divisions and replacing them with specialised Chambers fit for 21st Century.

The Fact-Law Distinction and the Trial Courts

This article reviews electronic Pennsylvania legal research resources available to academic librarians and researchers, the structure of the Pennsylvania state government, and the types of information published by each branch of the government. The executive branch publishes the Pennsylvania Bulletin (the state’s administrative register) and the Pennsylvania Code (the state’s administrative code). The laws passed by the Pennsylvania state legislature are codified in two separate statutory codes: Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes and Pennsylvania Statutes. The legislature also publishes legislative history for statutes that can help to determine the intent of the legislature when the law was passed. The Pennsylvania courts consist of trial courts, two intermediate appellate courts, and a supreme court. All levels of courts publish case decisions and rules to govern court procedure. Citators help to determine whether a case decision is still valid.

HIS is a study of judicial retention elections for major trial court judges. Judicial retention elections differ from the more traditional partisan or nonpartisan elections in several respects. The absence of traditional voting cues including party labels, candidate appeals, incumbency, campaigns, and relatively fewer issues makes these plebiscites a most interesting topic for examination. One of the few traditional voting cues present in judicial retention elections is the cue of and neighbors, which has received little scholarly attention (Key 1949; Dubois 1979; Griffin and Horan 1982). This article will rectify this oversight by empirically examining the and effect in judicial retention elections. It is said that all politics are local politics. We found it surprising therefore, that one of the voting cues which has received very little attention is and neighbors. Voting on the basis of friends and neighbors is a Babbit-like calculated promotion of local interest. The candidate garners support (votes) not primarily for what he stands for or because of his capacities, but because of where he lives (Key 1949: 37). Studying the oneparty politics of the South, where many of the traditional voting cues were absent, Key called that appeal back the home-town boy irrelevant, but he was careful to point out that in the absence of traditional voting cues, such an appeal based on boosterism can exert no little influence over an electorate (Key 1949: 41). Trial court personnel were chosen as the subjects of this study because 90 percent of all court business of this nation takes place in the state trial courts. A very small percentage of cases are appealed and reviewed by higher courts.

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?

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.

A Realistic Theory of Law (Book Review)

Getting it Right this Time: Suggestions for an Improved Upcoming Indian FDI Policy