Suchergebnisse

Lawsuit against the law based on the provisions of Article 1365 BW, is a concept of dispute resolution in the scope of civil law, which functions to recover rights and losses suffered by subjects of private law. From the concept of internal political party disputes associated with the concept of unlawful acts out of sync, but several decisions related to the management of GOLKAR party disputes and the decision of civil lawsuit interchange of time (PAW) members of the Malang Regency DPRD used the argument of acts against the law and the judges in their decisions at all not criticizing the unsynchronization of the two legal concepts. Based on a brief description of the problem above, this article intends to examine the characteristics of tort actions against the law in the context of internal political party disputes. The research method used in this study is the normative legal research method or commonly called doctrinal law research. The doctrinal legal research goes to the analysis of the concept of disputes, acts against the law, and internal disputes of political parties. As for matters that make the argument against an act against the law inappropriate to be used as the basis in internal political party disputes, Article 1365 BW requires that there be material losses borne by the injured party, whereas internal political party disputes are actually disagreements with political party decisions that are not directly impact to cause harm to other parties.

This article examines the opening proceedings of a lawsuit against Chevron‐Texaco filed on behalf of 30,000 Ecuadorians for industrial contamination in the country's Amazonian region. It asks what are the legal and ethical regimes at play in defining (and denying) corporate sovereignty and impunity, corporate entanglements and accountabilities. Sawyer argues that while the notion of the corporation as a sovereign embodied entity ("natural person") serves ChevronTexaco management and legal counsel in sidestepping culpability for environmental degradation in Ecuador, the same notion of embodied corporate sovereignty situated in another discursive imaginary serves as foundational to the plaintiffs and their demands for exacting accountability.

We test the importance of the three 'p factors' (performance, process and probity) to explain the evolution of political trust in Spain between 1997 and 2019. To this end, the study analyses two longitudinal datasets, namely, a repeated cross-sectional dataset from the Spanish samples of Eurobarometer and an individual-level panel survey conducted during a period of economic recovery in 2015. The study finds that perception about corruption and political process matter greatly in shaping political trust and to a lesser extent economic performance. Although the Great Recession is likely responsible for the sharp decline in trust towards political parties and the parliament between 2008 and 2012, the analysis suggests that trust in representative institutions remains low even after the Recession because of a series of devastating incidents regarding corruption and perceived shortcomings of the political process. In contrast, the study finds certain indications that trust in the judicial system might have been mainly affected by perceptions of corruption.

Like courts in democratic regimes, courts under authoritarianism play an important role in the regulation of complex economies. In particular, scholars suggest that authoritarian judiciaries are commonly encouraged to provide independent adjudication in the context of economic disputes between firms. Yet because regime insiders are often connected to firms, judges have strong incentives to consider the political implications of their decisions even in areas of the law where they are allegedly more independent. In this article, I propose a new theory about the role of corporations' political background in commercial lawsuits. Using a data set on the litigation outcomes of firms in China, I find that the composition of a firm's board membership is a significant predictor of its lawsuit outcomes. A higher percentage of corporate board members with political connections leads to a higher probability of lawsuit success. The results point to the limitations of the selective judicial independence theory.

The widespread ennoblement of the Spanish bourgeoisie in the sixteenth century has been traditionally considered one of the main causes of Iberian decline. I document and quantify the surge in ennoblement through a new time series of nobility cases preserved in the Archive of the Royal Chancery Court of Valladolid and use the insights provided by lawsuits from several localities to model the rent seeking mechanisms at work in a game theoretical framework. I then validate the game against the data and use it to draw inferences about the unobserved redistributive activity in local politics. Contrary to established scholarship, I find that: 1) the tax exemptions granted to nobles cannot alone explain the flight to privilege, since ennoblement was more costly than the present value of the future tax benefits; 2) the central motivation behind ennoblement was to gain control of local governments and acquire decision-making power over common resources; 3) while ennoblement reflected a high level of redistributive activity, there is no evidence in the archival record linking it to the stagnation and decline of Spain.

"The material challenged in the plaintiff's complaint cannot be understood by a reasonable person as anything but substantially, if not literally, true."

The widespread ennoblement of the Spanish bourgeoisie in the Early Modern period has been traditionally considered one of the main causes of the "crisis of the seventeenth century." Using a new time series of nobility cases I provide the first quantitative assessment of Castilian ennoblement. Contrary to established scholarship, I find that the tax exemptions cannot alone explain the flight to privilege. My data show that the central motivation behind ennoblement was to gain control of local governments. Although ennoblement reflected a high level of redistributive activity, there is no evidence linking it to economic stagnation in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: This is the sixth article in a series that explores the historical events surrounding the Wilk v American Medical Association (AMA) lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the AMA, the American Hospital Association, and other medical specialty societies violated antitrust law by restraining chiropractors' business practices. The purpose of this article is to provide a brief review of the plaintiffs, lead lawyer, and the events immediately before the lawsuit was filed. METHODS: This historical research study used a phenomenological approach to qualitative inquiry into the conflict between regular medicine and chiropractic and the events before, during, and after a legal dispute at the time of modernization of the chiropractic profession. Our methods included obtaining primary and secondary data sources. The final narrative recount was developed into 8 articles following a successive timeline. This article, the sixth of the series, explores the plaintiffs' stories. RESULTS: Because of the AMA's boycott on chiropractic, chiropractors were not able to collaborate with medical physicians or refer patients to medical facilities, which resulted in restricted trade and potential harm to patients' well-being. The plaintiffs, Patricia Arthur, James Bryden, Michael Pedigo, and Chester Wilk, came from different regions of the United States. Each had unique experiences and were compelled to seek justice. The lead lawyer, Mr George McAndrews, was the son of a chiropractor and had witnessed the effect that the AMA's attacks on chiropractic had on his father. It took several years to gather enough resources to file the suit, which was submitted in 1976. CONCLUSION: The conflicts that the plaintiffs experienced stimulated them to pursue a lawsuit against the AMA and other organized political medicine groups.

Introduction -- Part I. Holy Roman Empire -- Political language in the Holy Roman Empire 1500-1700 -- Jülich: pamphlets and Cologne get-togethers (1640s-1650s) -- Hesse-Cassel: alleged sedition and law-suits (1640s-1650s) -- Part II. Kingdom of France -- Patriots' in France, political talks between 1500-1700 -- Brittany: pay d'états and don gratuit (1648-1652) -- Part III. Conclusion -- Comparison of the cases.

This article examines the state lawsuits against the tobacco industry as an example of policy diffusion across the American states. A review of the history of the lawsuits highlights the prominent role of state attorneys general. Multivariate analysis explores the influence of political factors, socioeconomic forces, region, & the problem environment on the timing of a state's lawsuit against the tobacco industry. The results reveal that Democratic attorneys general filed lawsuits sooner than did their Republican counterparts. Tobacco-producing states were least likely to file lawsuits against "big tobacco." Regional influences & the problem environment did not have a consistent & powerful impact on the timing of state lawsuits. The results suggest that diffusion theory can help to shed light on the policy innovations made by state attorney's general. 2 Tables, 29 References. Adapted from the source document.