3246 research outputs found
Sort by
The Thistle, the Rose, and the Palm: Scottish and English Judges in British East Florida
No full textThe National Archives (Kew) contain a small trove of court records from the province of East Florida. These records indicate at least eight separate courts were in operation during the British period from 1763 to 1784. Until now, these legal papers were thought to have been lost or destroyed. They reveal an unexplored world of British and colonial American legal history. St Augustine, East Florida, was a southern colonial legal hub in the British Empire before, during, and after North American independence. This chapter examines the judges of the province and their links to Scotland, England, and British colonies to the north of the province. Allocation of legal positions in East Florida reflected extant Scottish and English networks and connections found throughout the Empire.https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_books/1277/thumbnail.jp
Validez del Canon Arrendaticio en Moneda Extranjera y la Facultad de los Árbitros de Desaplicar su Prohibición
No full textPrivate Law Remedies and Public Law Standards: An Awkward Statutory Intrusion into Tort Liability of Public Authorities
Get PDF
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration: A Commentary
No full texthttps://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_books/1280/thumbnail.jp
Precedent, Non-Universal Injunctions, and Judicial Departmentalism: A Model of Constitutional Adjudication
Get PDFThis Article proposes a model of constitutional adjudication that offers a deeper, richer, and more accurate vision than the simple “courts strike down unconstitutional laws” narrative that pervades legal, popular, and political discourse around constitutional litigation. The model rests on five principles:1) an actionable constitutional violation arises from the actual or threatened enforcement of an invalid law, not the existence of the law itself;2) the remedy when a law is constitutionally invalid is for the court to halt enforcement;3) remedies must be particularized to the parties to a case and courts should not issue “universal” or “nationwide” injunctions;4) a judgment controls the parties to the case, while the court’s opinion creates precedent to resolve future cases; and5) rather than judicial supremacy, federal courts operate on a model of “judicial departmentalism,” in which executive and legislative officials must abide by judgments in particular cases, but exercise independent interpretive authority as to constitutional meaning, even where those interpretations conflict with judicial understanding.The synthesis of these five principles produces a constitutional system defined by the following features:1) the judgment in one case declaring a law invalid prohibits enforcement of the law as to the parties to the case;2) the challenged law remains on the books; and3) the challenged law may be enforced against non-parties to the original case, but systemic and institutional incentives weigh against such enforcement efforts and push towards compliance with judicial understandings
