North eastern reporter.

Includes the decisions of the Supreme Courts of Massachusetts, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and Court of Appeals of New York; May/July 1891-Mar./Apr. 1936, Appellate Court of Indiana; Dec. 1926/Feb. 1927-Mar./Apr. 1936, Courts of Appeals of Ohio.

The commerce clause of the United States Constitution /

Mode of access: Internet.

The United States patents quarterly.

Subtitle varies.

The Southwestern reporter.

At head of title, v. 11-300; 2nd ser., v. 1-52: Permanent edition.

Canadian Railway Cases

"Containing a selection of cases affecting railways recently dedided by the judicial committee of the Privy Council, the Supreme Court and the Exchequer Court of Canada, and the courts of the provinces of Canada, including decisions of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada"

Judicial (in)activism in Australia's secular commonwealth

his article addresses two aspects of Australia's soft secular government. The first aspect explains how, and asks why, judges have been inactive in helping to draw the contours of secular government in Australia. The principal reason is that much of the social regulation that provokes the interest of faith-based groups is the constitutional concern of the States, and no State Constitution claims to coordinate relations between church and state. Moreover, the electorate has twice refused to pass referenda, in 1944 and 1988, for extending a constitutional demand of secular governance to the States. However, this is not so for the Commonwealth. It falls under the restrictions of section 116 of the federal Constitution, which states: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion ('the establishment clause') or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion ('the free exercise clause'), and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. As will be explained, while methods of legal interpretation suggest that section 116's establishment clause could place mild demands of non-discrimination on the federal Parliament, judicial inactivity in policing such demands on the Commonwealth, paradoxically, has arguably been secured by judicial activism in the High Court. A second aspect of secular government addressed is the High Court's disposal of 'the separation of church and state' as a constitutional principle in Australia. The contrast, of course, is to the United States, where for sixty years 'separation' has been given uneven recognition as a rule of constitutional law, and has undoubtedly driven the development of hard forms of secular governance in that country. The centrepiece of American secular government is the 1971 decision in Lemon v Kurtzman, where the US Supreme Court held that valid legislation had to pass three tests, ie: First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion .. . finally, the statute must not foster 'an excessive government entanglement with religion. The third 'entanglement' prong of Lemon is the modern, less ambitious, form of the 'wall of separation', prohibiting too close an engagement between church and state. As this paper will demonstrate, 'entanglement's' destiny shows how unlikely it is that 'separation' can survive as a meaningful constitutional principle in the USA. And, it will also be argued that 'separation' has even poorer prospects for import to Australia.

A JUSTIÇA EM PAUTA: O Poder Judiciário Brasileiro na Mídia Impressa

Pesquisa realizada nos principais veículos da mídia impressa nacional, entre os meses de julho e dezembro de 2007, com o objetivo de verificar qual é a imagem do Poder Judiciário Brasileiro divulgada pelos veículos, interpretando os principais temas abordados nas publicações e a angulação das matérias. Utilizou-se a análise de conteúdo e a ferramenta da auditoria de imagem na mídia. Concluiu-se na pesquisa que o Poder Judiciário Brasileiro é foco da mídia impressa principalmente quando analisa processos relativos a pessoas públicas, especialmente parlamentares. Também por esse motivo, observou-se que a maior parte das matérias citava a atuação do Supremo Tribunal Federal, órgão máximo da justiça brasileira e responsável pelo julgamento de senadores, principais focos das matérias e autoridades com di-reito a foro privilegiado. Além disso, chegou-se à conclusão de que a maioria das matérias re-fere-se a processos ainda em curso, evidenciando-se que não há um acompanhamento fre-qüente das decisões e sentenças dos órgãos do judiciário. Embora a análise seja referente a um período delimitado, evidenciaram-se falhas na comunicação do judiciário e foram apresenta-das sugestões para aprimorar essa comunicação. (AU)

Co-ownership and severance after Stack

Considers if and how a beneficial joint tenancy arising under the presumption of joint beneficial entitlement following the Supreme Court rulings in Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott can come to be severed.

Case Comment : Jones v Kernott:which road to Rome?

Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 (SC) Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17; [2007] 2 A.C. 432 (HL). Casenote explores the implications of the ruling in Jones v Kernott by the Supreme Court and assesses its implications for English Property Law. Building on the commonwealth experience the casenote calls for the intorduction of a statutory scheme so as to allow courts to reallocate property rights to unmarried cohabitants in the event of relationship breakdown.

A kiskereskedelmi árrögzítés versenyfokozó hatása (The competition-enhancing effect of retail price maintenance)

A kiskereskedelmi árrögzítés évtizedek óta vitatott kérdés a közgazdasági elméletben. Az Egyesült Államok legfelsőbb bíróságának közelmúltbeli döntése - megszüntetve az ilyen típusú árkorlátozások önmagában törvénytelennek ítélését - ismételten felhívta a figyelmet az adott problémakörre. Cikkünkben az árrögzítés eddig mellőzött versenyfokozó hatásával foglalkozunk. A megszokott statikus modellek helyett dinamikus környezetet feltételezve, arra a következtetésre jutunk, hogy egy profitmaximalizáló termelőnek számos esetben célszerű kiskereskedelmi árrögzítést alkalmazni egy esetlegesen kialakuló forgalmazói kartell megelőzésére, amelynek egyértelműen pozitív hatása van nemcsak a termelő profitjára, hanem a kialakuló fogyasztói többletre nézve is. Amellett érvelünk, hogy indokolatlan a még mindig uralkodó, a legtöbb ország versenyszabályozásában tetten érhető, önmagában törvénytelennek minősített megítélés a vertikális árkorlátozásokkal kapcsolatban. / === / Retail price fixing has been a disputed issue in theoretical economics for decades, to which attention was drawn again by a recent decision by the US Supreme Court ending the illegality of such price restrictions as such. Assuming a dynamic environment instead of the customary static model leads to the conclusion that it is frequently advantageous to a profit-maximizing producer to use retail price maintenance to avert the possible appearance of a reseller cartel. This will have a clearly positive effect on producer profits, and also in terms of increasing consumption. It is also argued in the study that it is unjustified to qualify such vertical pricing restrictions as essentially illegal, after the manner of the competition rules in most countries.

Factors predicting recommendations for civil commitment of sexually violent predators under Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act

This study investigated the factors considered by forensic examiners when evaluating sexually violent predators (SVP) for civil commitment under Florida's “Jimmy Ryce Act.” The project was funded by a pre-doctoral research grant awarded by the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA). ^ This study proposed two specific research questions. First, what is the direct relationship between actuarial risk assessment scores and recommendations for sex offender civil commitment? Second, which other variables are likely to influence SVP commitment decisions, and to what degree? The purpose of the study was to determine if risk assessment practices are evidence-based, and whether offenders selected for commitment meet statutory criteria. ^ The purposive sample of 450 SVPs was drawn from the population of sex offenders evaluated for civil commitment in Florida between July 1, 2000 and June 30, 2001. Data were extracted from SVP evaluations provided by the Florida Department of Children and Families. Using multivariate logistic regression, this correlational research design examined the relationship between the dependent variable, commitment decision, and several sets of independent variables. The independent variables were derived from a review of the literature, and were grouped conceptually according to their degree of correlation with sex offense recidivism. Independent variables included diagnoses, actuarial risk assessment scores, empirically validated static and dynamic risk factors, consensus based risk factors, evaluator characteristics, and demographics. This study investigated the degree to which the identified variables predicted civil commitment decisions. ^ Logistic regression results revealed that the statistically significant predictors of recommendations for sex offender civil commitment were actuarial risk assessment scores, diagnoses of Pedophilia and Paraphilia NOS, psychopathy, younger age of victim, and non-minority race. Discriminant function analysis confirmed that these variables correctly predicted commitment decisions in 90% of cases. ^ It appears that civil commitment evaluators in Florida used empirically-based assessment procedures, and did not make decisions that were heavily influenced by extraneous factors. SVPs recommended for commitment consistently met the criteria set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hendricks v. Kansas (1997): they suffered from a mental abnormality predisposing them to sexual violence, and risk assessment determined that they were likely to reoffend. ^

Evaluating and improving the opposing expert safeguard against junk science

In Daubert, the Supreme Court opined that opposing expert testimony is an effective safeguard against junk science in the courtroom. Although jurors maybe unable to identify flaws in scientific research without some assistance, social psychological research suggests that people can be trained to make more sophisticated judgments about scientific quality. Further, previous research demonstrated that an opposing expert who addresses the methodology of proffered expert testimony may not enable jurors to evaluate scientific validity. In three studies, I tested why this safeguard was ineffective using a variety of stimulus materials. In the first study, I examined the mediating effect of attitudes on juror decisions within the context of a sexual harassment trial. In the second study, I examined the moderating effect of the presentation of expert credentials on participant decisions regarding child suggestibility literature. In the third study, I tested several improvements to the safeguard using improvements designed to correct for the effects of attitudes and credential presentation on juror decisions within the context of a first-degree murder trial. I found that while opposing expert testimony may have potential as a safeguard, in its current form it is ineffective. That is, a traditional opposing expert caused jurors to be skeptical of all expert testimony rather than sensitizing them to the validity of the research presented at trial. Further, while the improvements tested in this study may have potential to assist jurors in making scientifically sound decisions, more research is needed to further test and refine these improvements. ^

"Unfair'' Restaurant Reviews:To Sue Or Not To Sue

In their discussion entitled - “Unfair” Restaurant Reviews: To Sue Or Not To Sue - by John Schroeder and Bruce Lazarus, Assistant Professors, Department of Restaurant, Hotel and Institutional Management at Purdue University, the authors initially state: “Both advantages and disadvantages exist on bringing lawsuits against restaurant critics who write “unfair” reviews. The authors, both of whom have experience with restaurant criticism, offer practical advice on what realistically can be done by the restaurateur outside of the courtroom to combat unfair criticism.” Well, this is going to be a sticky wicket no matter how you try to defend it, reviews being what they are; very subjective pieces of opinionated journalism, especially in the food industry. And, of course, unless you can prove malicious intent there really is no a basis for a libel suit. So, a restaurateur is at the mercy of written opinion and the press. “Libel is the written or published form of slander which is the statement of false remarks that may damage the reputation of others. It also includes any false and malicious publication which may damage a person's business, trade, or employment,” is the defined form of the law provided by the authors. Anecdotally, Schroeder and Lazarus offer a few of the more scathing pieces reviewers have written about particular eating establishments. And, yes, they can be a bit comical, unless you are the owner of an establishment that appears in the crosshairs of such a reviewer. A bad review can kneecap even a popular eatery. “Because of the large readership of restaurant reviews in the publication (consumer dining out habits indicate that nearly 50 percent of consumers read a review before visiting a new restaurant) your business begins a very dangerous downward tailspin,” the authors reveal, with attribution. “Many restaurant operators contend that a bad review can cost them an immediate trade loss of upward of 50 percent,” Schroeder and Lazarus warn. “The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a restaurant owner can collect damages only if he proves that the statement or statements were made with “actual malice,” even if the statements were untrue,” the authors say by way of citation. And that last portion of the statement cannot be over-emphasized. The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution does wield a heavy hammer, indeed, and it should. So, what recourse does a restaurateur have? The authors cautiously give a guarded thumbs-up to a lawsuit, but you better be prepared to prove a misstatement of fact, as opposed to the distinguishable press protected right of opinion. For the restaurateur the pitfalls are many, the rewards few and far between, Schroeder and Lazarus will have you know. “…after weighing the advantages and disadvantages of a lawsuit against a critic...the disadvantages are overwhelming,” the authors say. “Chicago restaurant critic James Ward said that someone dumped a load of manure on his yard accompanied by a note that read - Stop writing that s--t! - after he wrote a review of a local restaurant.” Such is a novel if not legally measurable tack against an un-mutual review.

School segregation and educational performance in a multicultural society: The case of Miami -Dade County, Florida

One of the most important goals of American educational institutions over the past 47 years has been the desegregation of pubic schools. This goal reflected the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education that segregated schools are inherently unequal and deny segregated minority students equal educational opportunities as mandated by the United States Constitution. This study examined the extent, nature, and causes of segregation in the Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the effects of segregation on the educational performance of minority students. ^ Research questions were analyzed using demographic data from the United States Census Bureau, the Metro-Dade County Planning Department, the United States Commission on Civil Rights, the United States Department of Education, and the Miami Dade County Public Schools. The extent of residential and school segregation in MiamiDade County was measured using the Dissimilarity Index. Historical and sociological literature were analyzed to explain the causes of school segregation, the socioeconomic characteristics of segregated minority students, and the relationship between school segregation and equal educational opportunities. A causal-comparative research method was chosen because it is the most appropriate method to compare the educational performance of minority students in segregated schools with the educational performance of minority students in desegregated schools. ^ The results of this study demonstrates that there is a high degree of residential and school segregation in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Furthermore, the Miami-Dade County Public Schools are characterized by a high degree of socioeconomic segregation. This is significant considering that the socioeconomic status of a student's peers is, after the student's family background, the most influential factor in determining academic performance. Clearly, schools and other social institutions must continue efforts to throughly desegregate the school district and improve minority student academic performance. A racially and economically desegregated school system would constitute an important component in Miami-Dade County's efforts to provide equal educational opportunities to all students. ^