Topic
Common law
About: Common law is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 30135 publications have been published within this topic receiving 280701 citations. The topic is also known as: judicial precedent & judge-made law.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
Posted Content•
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors consider the standing of the victim within the criminal trial against the backdrop of such changes, and examine the arguments for a more radical course of reform that would allow victims to participate actively in criminal hearings as they are able to do in many European jurisdictions.
Abstract: Victims in common law jurisdictions have traditionally been unable to participate in criminal trials for a number of structural and normative reasons. They are widely perceived as 'private parties' whose role should be confined to that of witnesses, and participatory rights for such third parties are rejected as a threat to the objective and public nature of the criminal justice system. However, recent years have witnessed both a major shift in attitude in relation to the role of victims within the criminal justice system and a breakdown in the public/private divide in criminal justice discourse. This article considers the standing of the victim within the criminal trial against the backdrop of such changes, and examines the arguments for a more radical course of reform that would allow victims to participate actively in criminal hearings as they are able to do in many European jurisdictions.
65 citations
Book•
19 Mar 1992
TL;DR: In this paper, an account of the law surrounding the Treaty of Waitangi is given, which not only considers the constitutional nature of the relationship between Maori and Parliament, but also describes the legislative activities of the New Zealand Parliament regarding Maori, the role of the Waitingi Tribunal, and the laws affecting Maori land tenure.
Abstract: This account of the law surrounding the Treaty of Waitangi not only considers the constitutional nature of the relationship between Maori and Parliament, but also describes the legislative activities of the New Zealand Parliament regarding Maori, the role of the Waitangi Tribunal, and the laws affecting Maori land tenure. It addresses basic issues of constitutional law and theory including the legal aspects of the Crown's colonization of New Zealand, progressing to consider issues of contemporary relevance, such as common law aboriginal title, the developing rules of international law and the legal doctrine of the Crown's fiduciary duty.
65 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: The German Law of Contract as discussed by the authors is a well-known source of information on German law and comparative law, especially in the area of consumer protection. But it has not yet been translated to the English language.
Abstract: Recently the contract section of the German Code was radically amended after one hundred years of un-altered existence. "The German Law of Contract," radically recast, enlarged, and re-written, now details and explains for the first time these changes for the benefit of Anglophone lawyers. Along with its companion work, "The German Law of Torts," the two volumes provide, in a total of some 2,000 pages, one of the fullest accounts of the German Law of Obligations available in the English language. One hundred and twenty translated contract decisions, coming from the pens of distinguished academics such as F. H. Lawson, Kurt Lipstein, Tony Weir and Raymond Youngs, added to the one hundred and fifty tort cases already published in the companion tort volume, make this work a unique source-book for students, practitioners, judges and academics wishing to have access to prime sources. Through its method of presentation of German law, the book also represents an original contribution to the art of comparison. An additional feature of the Contract volume is the way in which it reveals the growing impact which European Directives are having upon the traditional, liberal, contract model, thereby bringing German and English law closer to each other, especially in the area of consumer protection. The book will be of use to law students reading contracts and comparative law, practitioners, judges and businessmen.
65 citations
TL;DR: In the United States, the common law tort system remains, with the exception of job-related injuries, a principal means of compensating victims of environmental pollution, and the federal Superfund legislation uses the court system to assign liability for the clean-up of dangerous hazardous waste sites as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Deterring environmental degradation and compensating victims of environmental harms are among the most important and difficult problems facing modern industrial societies. The choice of regulatory institutions to control environmental risks—whether courts, administrative agencies, markets or some combination—significantly determines the achievement of these objectives. For a variety of historical and political reasons, the United States relies heavily upon courts, through traditional decentralized adjudication, to assign responsibility for environmental harms. The common law tort system remains, with the exception of job-related injuries, a principal means of compensating victims of environmental pollution. In addition, the federal Superfund legislation uses the court system to assign liability for the clean-up of dangerous hazardous waste sites. When viewed through the micro lens and simplifying assumptions of traditional law and economics, court adjudication appears to address both the incentives—efficient deterrence of environmental degradation—and compensation objectives. By identifying the cause of environmental harms, assessing the behavior of the actors responsible for such harms, and quantifying the harm to plaintiffs, individual assignment of liability through courts, in theory, provides compensation to victims while internalizing the social costs of harmproducing activities (Calabresi, 1970; Landes and Posner, 1987; Shavell, 1987). When viewed from a macro perspective with a richer appreciation of the limitations of legal institutions (relative to other regulatory institutions), however, the desirability of relying upon case-by-case adjudication as a principal
64 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: A survey of the employment policies and practices of 41 small (fewer than 500 employees) and 59 larger firms was conducted by Stieber et al. as mentioned in this paper, who found that only 6 percent of small businesses employing fewer than 25 are unionized; the corresponding figures for larger firms are: 14.5 percent of firms employing 25-99, and 21.9 percent for those employing 100-499.
Abstract: EMPLOYMENT AT WILL: AN EMERGING ISSUE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES A U.S. work force more educated about employment rights has resulted in small business becoming increasingly vulnerable to legal suits which could have adverse effects on the profitability and life of the business. The traditional employment-at-will doctrine states that because the employer and the employee freely enter into the employment relationship, both retain the right to sever the relationship at any time. In other words, the employee can leave the organization at will and the employer can terminate the employee at will. Under the employment-at-will doctrine, common law bars employees from suing employers to recover damages for what the employee considers to be a wrongful discharge action. While courts have not abandoned the employment-at-will doctrine, judges have allowed modifications and exceptions in order to rectify perceived inequities and to correct imbalances.1 1 Laurence Z. Lorber, "Basic Advice on Avoiding Employment-at-Will Troubles,' Personnel Administrator (January 1984), p. 59. Small businesses would appear to be particularly vulnerable to potential wrongful discharge law suits filed by employees. Only 6 percent of firms employing fewer than 25 are unionized; the corresponding figures for larger firms are: 14.5 percent of firms employing 25-99, and 21.9 percent for those employing 100-499. Since small firms are unlikely to be unionized, terminated employees are less likely to submit their cases for independent review such as arbitration. And since small businesses employ nearly half of the nation's work force,2 one-half of the estimated two million employees discharged each year without the right to appeal to an external review board could form a large pool of potential litigants alleging wrongful discharge. Undoubtably, most of these employees are terminated for good reasons; nevertheless, thousands of suits are brought in state and federal court each year. In California alone, 51 wrongful discharge cases went to court between October 1979 and January 1984. Of this number, 70 percent were won by the plaintiffs, with an average jury award of $178,184 (the nineteen highest averaged $553,318).3 2 The State of Small Business (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984), p. xv. 3 Jack Stieber, "Recent Developments in Employment-at-Will,' Labor Law Jounral (August 1985), pp. 557-559. Many wrongful discharge suits are filed by prefessional, managerial, and technical employees, perhaps because the perceived amount or duration of economic or personal loss resulting from termination is high. These employees may also possess the financial resources needed to pursue a legal challenge. This article reports on exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine and reports the results of a survey of the employment policies and practices of 41 small (fewer than 500 employees) and 59 larger firms (more than 500 employees). Recommendations are made concerning how small business owner/managers can prevent being sued for wrongful discharge. EXCEPTIONS TO THE EMPLOYMENT-AT-WILL DOCTRINE Exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine can be classified into three categories: (a) public policy, (b) implied contract, and (c) good faith and fair dealing. However, the fifty U.S. states differ in the number and type of employment-at-will exceptions which have been recognized. (See exhibit 1.) Public Policy Exception The most common limitation to the employment-at-will doctrine is the public policy exception. This exception means that an employer may not terminate an employee for any reason that contravenes any fundamental principle of public policy. Examples include fring an employee for such reasons as: refusing to commit perjury in a court trial or before a legislative committee; serving on a jury; reporting illegal conduct by an employer; filing a worker's compensation claim; refusing to take a polygraph test; refusing to lobby for a law favorable to the employer; or refusing to violate a professional code of ethics. …
64 citations