scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Topic

Judicial opinion

About: Judicial opinion is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 5300 publications have been published within this topic receiving 64803 citations.


Papers
More filters
MonographDOI
01 Sep 2000
TL;DR: In this article, the International Court of Justice and the UN and ILO Administrative Tribunals were analyzed under the Statute of the UN Administrative Tribunal and the statute of the International Legal System.
Abstract: Note by the Series Editor. Preface. Table of Cases. Table of Abbreviations. Part One: General. I. Introduction. Part Two: Judicial Review in Municipal and International Law. II. The Meaning of Judicial Review. III. Significant Features of Judicial Review in Municipal Law. IV. Judicial Review in International Law: The International Court and the International Legal System. V. Judicial Review, Advisory Opinions and Contentious Proceedings: A Brief Outline. Part Three: Judicial Review of Judicial Action. VI. The International Court of Justice and the UN and ILO Administrative Tribunals: Preliminary Remarks. VII. Legal Bases of the Court's Powers. VIII. Analysis of the Court's Powers under the Statute of the UN Administrative Tribunal and the Statute of the ILO Administrative Tribunal. IX. The Abolition of the UN Administrative Tribunal Review Procedure. Part Four: Conclusions. X. Conclusions. Annexe I. Annexe II. Annexe III. Select Bibliography. Index.

19 citations

ReportDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors identify instances in the Maryland circuit court in which the case facts are not consistent with the final sentence recommendation, which appear to be the result of human error and exogenous to the preferences of downstream actors.
Abstract: The extent to which rules set by the legislature bind or influence decisions regarding sentence length is central to institutional design and to determining the practical impact of any proposed reform regarding criminal punishment. However, it is generally difficult to identify empirically the impact of sentencing recommendations because court actors may have preferences that are correlated with those outlined in the guidelines. In this article, we take advantage of a new source of identification to study how government actors interact and make decisions in the criminal sentencing process. We identify instances in the Maryland circuit court in which the case facts are not consistent with the final sentence recommendation—inconsistencies that appear to be the result of human error and exogenous to the preferences of downstream actors. We find that even an advisory guidelines system like the one in Maryland has a direct impact on judicial decision making in cases involving drugs and violent crimes. Judges appear eager to go along with an erroneous lesser sentence for violent offenses. In contrast, judges appear to discount mistakes that are too high. This asymmetry does not occur for property and drug offenses that are simpler and more frequently encountered. More generally, experience matters. Error rates are lower for more frequently occurring offense types and lower for those court professionals who complete more of the sentencing worksheets. The net effect of sentencing guidelines on time served appears to be small because parole boards counteract the remaining influence of the guidelines.

19 citations

Book
24 Oct 2012
TL;DR: In this article, the authors analyze and assess the legal regime in a variety of countries based upon legislation, judicial opinions, ethics opinions, and practitioner anecdotes describing the state of third-party funding in that jurisdiction.
Abstract: This welcome book, expertly revealing the nuances of third-party funding in international arbitration, examines the phenomenon in key jurisdictions around the world and provides a reliable resource for users and potential users that may wish to tap into and make use of this distinctive funding tool.The authors analyze and assess the legal regime in a variety of countries based upon legislation, judicial opinions, ethics opinions, and practitioner anecdotes describing the state of third-party funding in that jurisdiction. They describe how courts and legislative bodies around the world have thus far handled the major ethical issues and concerns that affect the practice of third-party funding. Among the issues raised and examined are the following: payment of adverse costs; “before-the-event” (BTE) and “after-the-event” (ATE) insurance; attorney financing, including contingency representation and conditional fee arrangements; loans; ethical doctrines influential to the continued existence and viability of the third-party funding industry; possible waivers of the attorney work-product doctrine or attorney-client privilege; potential encouragement of non-meritorious claims; possible future bundling, securitization, and trading of legal claims; risk that the funder may put its own interests ahead of the client’s interests; and whether the existence of a funding agreement must or should be disclosed to the decision-maker.The book concludes with observations regarding third-party funding in international investment arbitration and predictions regarding the future of the third-party funding industry worldwide.Focusing on the key jurisdictions that have well-developed third-party funding markets – Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, the Netherlands, Canada, and South Africa – and regional overviews for Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, this book ably creates a reference source for parties aiming to take advantage of the high values, speed, reduced evidentiary costs, outcome predictability, industry expertise, and high award enforceability characteristic of the third-party funding arrangements available in international arbitration.

19 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: The failure of Japanese judicial review is the product of interaction between the internal organization of the judiciary and the relatively conservative political environment in which the judiciary has long operated in Japan as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: There are two senses in which judicial review in Japan has failed. First, the Supreme Court of Japan strikes down laws so rarely that judicial review exists more in theory than in practice. Second, history demonstrates that the Court faces a very real risk of government noncompliance on the rare occasions that it does address politically important or sensitive constitutional issues. This Article critically evaluates a wide range of historical, cultural, political, and institutional explanations for the effective failure of judicial review in Japan. A number of the most frequently invoked explanations call for a considerable degree of skepticism. In particular, cultural explanations that emphasize the characteristics of “the Japanese” – such as their supposed penchant for group harmony and unwillingness to defy authority – tend to rest on inaccurate stereotypes, ignore the scope of social and political conflict in postwar Japan, and minimize the rationality and intelligence of individual judges. Meanwhile, historical explanations that emphasize such factors as the impact of the Cold War and the novelty of judicial review are increasingly difficult to maintain in light of both the passage of time and the counterexamples furnished by the experience of other countries. To a greater extent, the failure of Japanese judicial review is the product of interaction between the internal organization of the judiciary and the relatively conservative political environment in which the judiciary has long operated. For decades, an entrenched bureaucracy staffed by career judges has regulated the behavior of the judiciary, including the Supreme Court itself, in ways that have obviated more overt forms of political control. At least in the short to medium term, the Japanese Supreme Court is unlikely to discharge its responsibility for performing judicial review with greater vigor absent institutional reforms that reduce its dependence for essential resources upon this bureaucracy. The Article concludes by discussing a number of reforms that might have such a liberating effect on the Court.

19 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper applied a "courtroom workgroup" model of judicial decision making in order to understand how workgroup dynamics affect policy, using data from surveys of six groups of key decision makers in Kentucky coupled with more extensive data from five counties.
Abstract: The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 initiated major reform of court proceedings for children who enter into state care as a result of abuse, neglect, or dependency. Yet the implementation of reforms anticipated by the law has been uneven. Using data from surveys of six groups of key decision makers in Kentucky coupled with more extensive data from five counties, we apply a "courtroom workgroup" model of judicial decision making in order to understand how workgroup dynamics affect policy.

19 citations


Network Information
Related Topics (5)
International law
52K papers, 556.6K citations
81% related
Human rights
98.9K papers, 1.1M citations
79% related
Legitimacy
26.1K papers, 565.9K citations
78% related
Prison
25.1K papers, 470.4K citations
78% related
Democracy
108.6K papers, 2.3M citations
75% related
Performance
Metrics
No. of papers in the topic in previous years
YearPapers
202314
202242
202196
2020160
2019174
2018176