Suchergebnisse

Aliens — Treatment of — Bequest to non-resident alien — Restrictions under state statute on distributions from estates to aliens who might not have benefit or use of funds — Requirement of reciprocity between forum State and State of alien — Competence of state and Federation with regard to treatment of aliens in Federal States — The law of the United States of America.

446State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Plaintiff kidnapped from Canada — Criminal charges brought in Florida — Plaintiff alleging tortious conduct on the part of officials of State of Florida — Whether officials can claim State immunity — Canadian State Immunity Act — Whether functionaries of foreign State — Whether acting within scope of duties — Whether alleged acts of illegality and malice disallowing claim to State immunity — Application for stay of proceedings on ground of forum non conveniens — Whether Florida thereby waiving immunity — Claim for personal injury — Whether Section 6 of State Immunity Act applicableJurisdiction — Executive — Abduction of wanted person from territory of foreign State — Whether abduction involving officials of State in which person wanted for trial — The law of Canada

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Functionaries of the State — Plaintiff kidnapped from Toronto — Criminal charges brought in Florida — Kidnapping before the enactment of the State Immunity Act 1985 — Whether defendants entitled to claim immunity — Whether a commercial transaction — The law of Canada

Miller v. Alabama appeared to strengthen constitutional protections for juvenile sentencing that the United States Supreme Court recognized in Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida. In Roper, the Court held that executing a person for a crime committed as a juvenile is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. In Graham, the Court held that sentencing a person to life without parole for a nonhomicide offense committed as a juvenile is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. In Miller, the Court held that a mandatory sentence of life without parole for a homicide offense committed by a juvenile is also unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. When Miller was decided, "nearly 2,500 prisoners [were] presently serving life sentences without the possibility of parole for murders they committed before the age of 18," with over 2,000 of them sentenced under a mandatory sentencing scheme. But with no explicit pronouncement regarding retroactivity, states were left to determine whether Miller applied to persons whose sentences were already final by the time Miller was decided. States that considered Miller retroactive then had to determine how those persons should be resentenced. There was also a prospective problem: aside from knowing that certain mandatory sentencing schemes were unconstitutional, states were left to apply the Court's observations regarding the differences between youth and adults for purposes of sentencing. In the three years since Miller, states have responded with a variety of approaches; some state legislatures responded proactively, while others let their courts decide. Some states have been faithful to the premise that juveniles should be sentenced differently from adults, while others have resisted it. The result is a patchwork of sentencing regimes that has benefited some juveniles, but has left thousands of others languishing in prison with no meaningful change to their sentences. Commentator Mary Berkheiser notes: "The worst of it is that those who were sentenced to die in prison ...

612State immunity — Jurisdiction — Waiver of immunity — Requirement that waiver be express — Distinction between choice of law and submission to jurisdiction — Employment — Contract of employment — Embassy employee — State Immunity Act 1978, Sections 1, 4 and 16 — The law of England

International law in general — Relation to municipal law — Treaties — Status as part of United States law — Whether conferring rights of action upon individuals in absence of legislation — The law of the United StatesInternational law in general — International comity — Duty of court to take account of comity in deciding whether to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction — Antitrust actions — The law of the United StatesStates as international persons — In general — Recognition of acts of foreign States and governments — Act of State doctrine — Nature and scope of — Distinction between cases involving private rights alone and cases with public interest element — Antitrust proceedings — Whether grant of patent by foreign State an act of State — Defence of foreign sovereign compulsion — The law of the United StatesJurisdiction — In general — Territorial and Personal — Personal jurisdiction Over nationals abroad — Antitrust proceedings — Whether United States antitrust laws applicable to acts of United States nationals abroad — International comity — Duty of court to take account of comity in deciding whether to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction — The law of the United StatesJurisdiction — In general — Territorial and personal — Over territory in general — Territorial limits of jurisdiction — United States antitrust law — Whether applicable to acts of United States nationals abroad — Whether applicable to any conduct having direct and substantial effect upon United States commerce — International comity and judicial restraint — Relevance in determining whether to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction — Duty of court to balance United States and foreign interests — Public interest element in antitrust — Act of State doctrine — Foreign sovereign compulsion — Whether grant of patent an act of State — Nature and scope of act of State doctrine — Treaties — Status in United States law — Whether conferring rights of action upon individuals — Whether implementing legislation necessary — The law of the United States

Aliens — Admission of — Alien entering on non-immigrant visa and seeking permanent admission — Whether alien becomes immigrant and entitled to have his admissibility determined or whether he may be deported immediately — The law of Canada.

'Rights and Territories: A Reply to Nine, Miller, and Stilz' defends the Lockean theory of states' territorial rights (as this theory was presented in Boundaries of Authority) against the critiques of Nine, Miller, and Stilz. In response to Nine's concern that such a Lockean theory cannot justify the right of legitimate states to exclude aliens, it is argued that a consent-based theory like the Lockean one is flexible enough to justify a wide range of possible incidents of territorial rights – importantly including, though not necessarily including, the sort of right to exclude aliens that is familiar from actual political practice. Miller's criticisms are more wide-ranging. In response, the article argues that Lockean labor-based property rights are both stronger and more enduring than Miller suggests and that nationalism's resources for dealing with concerns about rights-supersession and trapped minorities are importantly overstated by Miller. Against Stilz's Kantian, 'presentist' account of states' authority over persons and territories, it is argued that the rectification of past (historical) wrongs remains morally crucial even in the context of otherwise-just societies and that Stilz's Kantian/Rawlsian position unconvincingly privileges the rights to autonomy of territorially concentrated groups over those of dissenting individuals or wrongfully dispersed groups.