DOCSLIB.ORG

H:\YB XXXV 2010 15 Oct\Title Page Fr.Wpd

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

NEW YORK CONVENTION OF 1958 INTRODUCTION The principal multilateral arbitration Conventions are reported on in Part V – A through V – D of the Yearbook. Part V – A contains the reporting on the 1958 New York Convention. Part V – B reports on the 1961 European (Geneva) Convention, Part V – C reports on the 1965 Washington (ICSID) Convention and Part V – D reports on the Inter-American (Panama) Convention of 1975. Court decisions in which more than one of these Conventions have been applied are included in the reporting on the Convention which has played the principal role in the decision. Thus, court decisions reported in Part V – A on the 1958 New York Convention may also contain references to the 1961 European (Geneva) Convention or the 1975 Inter-American (Panama) Convention. Likewise, court decisions in Part V – B, Part V – C or Part V – D may also contain a reference to the 1958 New York Convention. The list of subject matters will include the relevant Convention. This Volume reports on 86 New York Convention decisions rendered in 25 countries, bringing the total to 1,666 decisions from 62 countries and 2 jurisdictions. According to the Treaty Section of the United Nations, there are, as of 1 November 2009, 145 Contracting States (and 28 extensions) to the New York Convention. As of this Volume, the Summary of each decision, prefaced by a short recap, is published in print; a detailed Excerpt of the decision is available online at <www.kluwerarbitration.com>. A code provided with the Yearbook allows readers to access the relevant Volume online, as well as the preceding Volume. Readers who have purchased Volume XXXV (2010) can therefore access materials from both this Volume and Volume XXXIV (2009). Information on how to access the online materials is provided in a Note to the Reader at the beginning of this Volume (p. xv). In addition to publishing court decisions and up-to-date lists of Contracting States to these Conventions, the Yearbook also includes Commentaries. An updated version of the “Commentary on the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration” by Mr. Dominique Hascher was published in Volume XX (1995). Volume XVIII (1993) contains in Part V – C the contribution by Dr. Aron Broches, “Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States of 1965, Explanatory Notes and Survey of its Application”. Yearbook Comm. Arb’n XXXV (2010) 285 COURT DECISIONS ON THE NEW YORK CONVENTION 1958 A Consolidated Commentary on the 1958 New York Convention (Volume XXII (1997) – Volume XXVII (2002)) by Prof. Albert Jan van den Berg was published in Volume XXVIII (2003) of the Yearbook. This Commentary may be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Commentary on the 1958 New York Convention Volume XX (1995) – Volume XXI (1996) published in Volume XXI (1996). An extensive commentary of court decisions applying the 1958 New York Convention will appear in 2012 as the second edition of Prof. van den Berg’s 1981 treatise The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958: Towards a Uniform Judicial Interpretation. The present Volume contains as usual an Index of Cases, which facilitates research by both article and subject matter. A Consolidated Index of Cases reported in Volumes XXII (1997) – XXVIII (2003) was published in Volume XXVIII (2003). An Index of Cases was also provided in Volume XXIX (2004), Volume XXX (2005), Volume XXXI (2006), Volume XXXII (2007), Volume XXXIII (2008) and Volume XXXIV (2009). A Consolidated Index of Cases reported in the Yearbook since 1976 is available online on the ICCA website at <www.arbitration-icca.org>. The ICCA website also contains lists of all court decisions and arbitral awards published in the Yearbook since Volume I in 1976. In order to present the widely varied material contained in the Yearbook in a consistent manner, all decisions have been translated into English. The headings in the excerpts in some cases have been slightly modified or headings may have been added or deleted. The paragraphs of the excerpts are numbered to facilitate consultation and reference to the Commentary. Also, minor editorial changes have been made in the texts which in no way affect the substance of the decision. As mentioned, over 1,660 court decisions on the New York Convention have been reported in the Yearbook since its inception. It is important to emphasize the essential role played by the readers of the Yearbook in reaching this extraordinary number, by drawing our attention to, or sending copies of, new court decisions on the New York Convention. Our thanks go to all of them for their invaluable assistance. The names of the contributors to this Volume are listed below according to the country on which they have informed us. Argentina: Federico Godoy (Buenos Aires) Austria: Martin Platte (Vienna) Brazil: Dr. João Bosco Lee (Curitiba) British Virgin Islands: Dr. Dirk Otto (Frankfurt am Main) 286 Yearbook Comm. Arb’n XXXV (2010) INTRODUCTION Canada: Michael Marks Cohen (New York) Cayman Islands: Dr. Dirk Otto (Frankfurt am Main) PR China: Xing Xiusong (Beijing) Germany: Dr. Stefan Kröll (Cologne) Hong Kong: Michael Marks Cohen (New York) India: Dr. Dirk Otto (Frankfurt am Main) Israel: Dr. Daphna Kapeliuk (Tel Aviv) Alessandro Ethan Naschitz (Tel Aviv) Italy: Chamber of National and International Arbitration of Milan Benedetta Coppo (Milan) Malaysia: Cecil Abraham (Seremban) Netherlands: Dr. Gerard Meijer (Rotterdam) Russian Federation: Roman Zykov (Moscow) Singapore: Michael Marks Cohen (New York) Spain: José Alejandro Carballo Leyda (Madrid) Maribel Rodriguez (Madrid) Sweden: Jeanette Björk (Stockholm) Dr. Gisela Knuts (Stockholm) Uganda: Dr. Dirk Otto (Frankfurt am Main) United States: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (New York) Judith A. Freedberg (Miami) Michael Marks Cohen (New York) Chris Paparella (New York) The General Editor would like to call upon readers to assist him by sending copies of relevant court decisions, published or unpublished, for reporting in the forthcoming volumes of the Yearbook. Copies can be sent to either of the following addresses. ICCA Publications Prof. Dr. Albert Jan van den Berg c/o International Bureau of the c/o Hanotiau & van den Berg Permanent Court of Arbitration IT Tower, 9th Floor Carnegieplein 2 480 Avenue Louise, B.9 2517 KJ The Hague, The Netherlands 1050 Brussels, Belgium E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Yearbook Comm. Arb’n XXXV (2010) 287 NEW YORK CONVENTION OF 1958 LIST OF CONTRACTING STATES (as of 1 November 2010)1 State Ratification, Reservation2 Accession (a), Succession (s) Afghanistan 30 Nov. 2004a 1 - 2 Albania 27 June 2001a – Algeria 7 Feb. 1989a 1 - 2 American Samoa3 3 Nov. 1970 1 - 2 Antigua and Barbuda 2 Feb. 1989a 1 - 2 Argentina4 14 Mar. 1989 1 - 2 Armenia 29 Dec. 1997a 1 - 2 Australia 26 Mar. 1975a – Australian Antartic Territory5 26 Mar. 1975a – 1. This list is compiled by the Editorial Staff of the Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, in consultation with the United Nations Treaty Section. Countries that have acceded to the Convention in the course of the reporting year are indicated in boldface type. Extensions are indicated in italics. 2. Two reservations are contained in Art. I(3). The 1st reservation is the so-called “reciprocity reservation” (at present made by 99 States including extensions). On 25 February 1988, the Government of Austria withdrew its reciprocity reservation; on 23 April 1993, the Government of Switzerland withdrew its reciprocity reservation; and on 31 August 1998, the Government of Germany withdrew its reciprocity reservation. The 2nd is the so-called “commercial reservation” (at present made by 56 States including extensions). On 27 November 1989, the Government of France withdrew its commercial reservation. 3. Extension made by the United States of America upon acceding to the Convention. 4. Argentina declared that the present Convention should be construed in accordance with the principles and rules of the National Constitution in force or with those resulting from reforms mandated by the Constitution. In addition, upon signature, Argentina declared that “If another Contracting Party extends the application of the Convention to territories which fall within the sovereignty of the Argentine Republic, the rights of the Argentine Republic shall in no way be affected by that extension.” 5. Extension made by Australia upon acceding to the Convention. 288 Yearbook Comm. Arb’n XXXV (2010) LIST OF CONTRACTING STATES Austria 2 May 1961a – Azerbaijan 29 Feb. 2000a – Bahamas 20 Dec. 2006a – Bahrain 6 Apr. 1988a 1 - 2 Bangladesh 6 May 1992a – Barbados 16 Mar. 1993a 1 - 2 Belarus6 15 Nov. 1960 1 Belgium 18 Aug. 1975 1 Belize7 24 Feb. 1981 1 Benin 16 May 1974a – Bermuda7 12 Feb. 1980 1 Bolivia 28 Apr. 1995a – Bosnia and Herzegovina8 1 Sep. 1993s 1 - 2 Botswana 20 Dec. 1971a 1 - 2 Brazil 7 June 2002a – Brunei Darussalam 25 July 1996a 1 Bulgaria6 10 Oct. 1961 1 Burkina Faso 23 Mar. 1987a – Cambodia 5 Jan. 1960a – Cameroon 19 Feb. 1988a – Canada9 12 May 1986a 2 Canton Island3 3 Nov. 1970 1 - 2 Cayman Islands7 24 Feb. 1981 1 Central African Republic 15 Oct. 1962a 1 - 2 Chile 4 Sep. 1975a – China, PR10 22 Jan. 1987a 1 - 2 Christmas Island5 26 Mar. 1975a – 6. With regard to awards made in the territory of non-Contracting States, State will apply the Convention only to the extent to which these States grant reciprocal treatment. 7. Extension made by the United Kingdom on the date indicated in the List. 8. State will apply the Convention only to those arbitral awards which were adopted after the coming of the Convention into effect. 9. The commercial reservation does not apply to the province of Quebec. 10. Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, China gave notice that the Convention with the reservations made by China (“reciprocity” and “commercial”) will also apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Recommended publications
  • The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies 2009 Annual Report

    The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies 2009 Annual Report

    The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies 2009 Annual Report “The Courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise will instead of JUDGMENT, the consequences would be the substitution of their pleasure for that of the legislative body.” The Federalist 78 THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY aw schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a L form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society. While some members of the academic community have dissented from these views, by and large they are taught simultaneously with (and indeed as if they were) the law. The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities. This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, law students and professors. In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community.
  • EUROPEAN COMMUNITY, Acting on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of The

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY, Acting on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of The

    European Cmty. v. RJR Nabisco, Inc. (2nd Cir., 2015) EUROPEAN COMMUNITY, acting on its own behalf and on behalf of the Member States it has power to represent, KINGDOM OF BELGIUM, REPUBLIC OF FINLAND, FRENCH REPUBLIC, HELLENIC REPUBLIC, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, ITALIAN REPUBLIC, GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG, KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS, PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC, KINGDOM OF SPAIN, individually, KINGDOM OF DENMARK, CZECH REPUBLIC, REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA, REPUBLIC OF MALTA, REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY, REPUBLIC OF IRELAND, REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA, REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA, REPUBLIC OF LATVIA, REPUBLIC OF POLAND, REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA, KINGDOM OF SWEDEN, REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, SLOVAK REPUBLIC, ROMANIA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. RJR NABISCO, INC., R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO INTERNATIONAL, INC., RJR ACQUISITION CORP., FKA NABISCO GROUP HOLDINGS CORP., RJR NABISCO HOLDINGS CORP., R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO HOLDINGS, INC., NABISCO GROUP HOLDINGS CORP., R.J. REYNOLDS GLOBAL PRODUCTS, INC., REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, a North Carolina Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. 11-2475 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT April 13, 2015 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 13th day of April, two thousand fifteen. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, DENNIS JACOBS, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, REENA RAGGI, RICHARD C. WESLEY, PETER W. HALL, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, GERARD E. LYNCH, DENNY CHIN, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., SUSAN L. CARNEY, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges. Page 2 For Plaintiffs-Appellants: John J.
  • A View from the Bench Municipal Appellate Judge Remembers (Almost) Playing Basketball for UTEP the Year They Won It All by Ki R K Co O P E R

    A View from the Bench Municipal Appellate Judge Remembers (Almost) Playing Basketball for UTEP the Year They Won It All by Ki R K Co O P E R

    www.elpasobar.com Spring 2017 A View from the Bench Municipal Appellate Judge Remembers (Almost) Playing Basketball for UTEP the Year They Won It All BY KIR K COOPER PAGE 6 YOUNG LAWYER SPOTLIGHTS SENIOR LAWYER INTERVIEWS Felix Valenzuela Dean Hester BY CARLOS MALDONADO BY KIR K COOPER PAGES 12 PAGE 10 Fall 2016 3 TABLE OF CON T EN T S President´s Page .................................................. 4 Making A Difference On Indifference ............. 14 A View From The Bench .................................... 6 Program Helps Non-Custodial Parents Senior Lawyer Interview: Dean Hester ............ 10 in El Paso County ............................................. 16 Young Lawyer Spotlight: Felix Valenzuela ....... 12 JUSTICE FOR ALL: Putting Words El Paso’s Drug Courts Celebrate National Into Action ........................................................ 17 Impaired Driving Prevention Month ............... 13 2017 General Memberships Meetings ............. 18 DWI Courts Unite for National Impaired Tribute box ........................................................ 20 Driving Prevention Month ............................... 13 The editors ......................................................... 22 Mediations - Aggressive and creative Arbitrations - Evidence based awards HardieMediation.com Bill Hardie See our online calendar Wells Fargo Bank Plaza / 915.845.6400 / [email protected] Spring 2017 4 PRESIDEN T ’S PAGE State Bar of Texas Awards s I reflect on this past year as your Bar Association president, I keep Award of Merit
  • Members by Circuit (As of January 3, 2017)

    Members by Circuit (As of January 3, 2017)

    Federal Judges Association - Members by Circuit (as of January 3, 2017) 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Bruce M. Selya Jeffrey R. Howard Kermit Victor Lipez Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson Sandra L. Lynch United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby George Z. Singal John A. Woodcock, Jr. Jon David LeVy Nancy Torresen United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs Denise Jefferson Casper Douglas P. Woodlock F. Dennis Saylor George A. O'Toole, Jr. Indira Talwani Leo T. Sorokin Mark G. Mastroianni Mark L. Wolf Michael A. Ponsor Patti B. Saris Richard G. Stearns Timothy S. Hillman William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. Joseph N. LaPlante Landya B. McCafferty Paul J. Barbadoro SteVen J. McAuliffe United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Daniel R. Dominguez Francisco Augusto Besosa Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. Jay A. Garcia-Gregory Juan M. Perez-Gimenez Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez United States District Court District of Rhode Island Ernest C. Torres John J. McConnell, Jr. Mary M. Lisi William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Barrington D. Parker, Jr. Christopher F. Droney Dennis Jacobs Denny Chin Gerard E. Lynch Guido Calabresi John Walker, Jr. Jon O. Newman Jose A. Cabranes Peter W. Hall Pierre N. LeVal Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Reena Raggi Robert A. Katzmann Robert D. Sack United States District Court District of Connecticut Alan H. NeVas, Sr. Alfred V. Covello Alvin W. Thompson Dominic J. Squatrito Ellen B.
  • Visiting Judges

    Visiting Judges

    Visiting Judges Marin K. Levy* Despite the fact that Article III judges hold particular seats on particular courts, the federal system rests on judicial interchangeability. Hundreds of judges “visit” other courts each year and collectively help decide thousands of appeals. Anyone from a retired Supreme Court Justice to a judge from the U.S. Court of International Trade to a district judge from out of circuit may come and hear cases on a given court of appeals. Although much has been written about the structure of the federal courts and the nature of Article III judgeships, little attention has been paid to the phenomenon of “sitting by designation”—how it came to be, how it functions today, and what it reveals about the judiciary more broadly. This Article offers an overdue account of visiting judges. It begins by providing an origin story, showing how the current practice stems from two radically different traditions. The first saw judges as fixed geographically, and allowed for visitors only as a stopgap measure when individual judges fell ill or courts fell into arrears with their cases. The second assumed greater fluidity within the courts, requiring Supreme Court Justices to ride circuit—to visit different regions and act as trial and appellate judges—for the first half of the Court’s history. These two traditions together provide the critical context for modern-day visiting. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38ZK55M67 Copyright © 2019 California Law Review, Inc. California Law Review, Inc. (CLR) is a California nonprofit corporation. CLR and the authors are solely responsible for the content of their publications.
  • Texas Law Judicial Clerks List

    Texas Law Judicial Clerks List

    Texas Law Judicial Clerks List This list includes Texas Law alumni who reported their clerkships to the Judicial Clerkship Program – or whose names were published in the Judicial Yellow Book or Martindale Hubbell – and includes those who clerked during the recent past for judges who are currently active. There are some judges and courts for which few Texas Law alumni have clerked – in these cases we have listed alumni who clerked further back or who clerked for judges who are no longer active. Dates following a law clerk or judge’s name indicate year of graduation from the University of Texas School of Law. Retired or deceased judges, or those who has been appointed to another court, are listed at the end of each court section and denoted (*). Those who wish to use the information on this list will need to independently verify the information being used. Federal Courts U.S. Supreme Court ............................................................................................................. 2 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals ............................................................................................. 3 First Circuit Second Circuit Third Circuit Fourth Circuit Fifth Circuit Sixth Circuit Seventh Circuit Eighth Circuit Ninth Circuit Tenth Circuit Eleventh Circuit Federal Circuit District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Courts of Limited Jurisdiction ...................................................................................... 9 Executive Office for Immigration Review U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces U.S. Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims U.S. Court of Federal Claims U.S. Court of International Trade U.S. Tax Court U.S. District Courts (listed alphabetically by state) ............................................................ 10 State Courts State Appellate Courts (listed alphabetically by state) ........................................................ 25 State District & County Courts (listed alphabetically by state) ..........................................
  • Discovery Gone Bad

    Discovery Gone Bad

    DISCOVERY GONE BAD Sponsor: Young Lawyers Division CLE Credit: 1.0 Thursday, June 19, 2014 10:50 a.m. - 11:50 a.m. Ballroom B Northern Kentucky Convention Center Covington, Kentucky A NOTE CONCERNING THE PROGRAM MATERIALS The materials included in this Kentucky Bar Association Continuing Legal Education handbook are intended to provide current and accurate information about the subject matter covered. No representation or warranty is made concerning the application of the legal or other principles discussed by the instructors to any specific fact situation, nor is any prediction made concerning how any particular judge or jury will interpret or apply such principles. The proper interpretation or application of the principles discussed is a matter for the considered judgment of the individual legal practitioner. The faculty and staff of this Kentucky Bar Association CLE program disclaim liability therefore. Attorneys using these materials, or information otherwise conveyed during the program, in dealing with a specific legal matter have a duty to research original and current sources of authority. Printed by: Evolution Creative Solutions 7107 Shona Drive Cincinnati, Ohio 45237 Kentucky Bar Association TABLE OF CONTENTS The Presenters ................................................................................................................. i Report of the Parties' Planning Meeting .......................................................................... 1 Court Orders Regarding Discovery Disputes ................................................................... 5 Appendix Links to Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules ........................................................ 15 THE PRESENTERS Robert M. Croft, Jr. Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP 7620 Beech Spring Court Louisville, Kentucky 40241 (502) 540-2352 [email protected] ROBERT M. CROFT, JR. is an associate in Dinsmore’s Louisville and Lexington offices, where he is a member of the Product Liability and Toxic Tort Practice Groups.
  • Lower Courts of the United States

    Lower Courts of the United States

    66 U.S. GOVERNMENT MANUAL of Decisions, the Librarian, the Marshal, Court Term The term of the Court the Director of Budget and Personnel, begins on the first Monday in October the Court Counsel, the Curator, the and lasts until the first Monday in Director of Data Systems, and the Public October of the next year. Approximately Information Officer. 8,000 cases are filed with the Court in Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate the course of a term, and some 1,000 jurisdiction has been conferred upon the applications of various kinds are filed Supreme Court by various statutes under each year that can be acted upon by a the authority given Congress by the single Justice. Constitution. The basic statute effective at this time in conferring and controlling Access to Facilities The Supreme Court jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may is open to the public from 9 a.m. to 4:30 be found in 28 U.S.C. 1251, 1253, p.m., Monday through Friday, except on 1254, 1257–1259, and various special Federal holidays. Unless the Court or statutes. Congress has no authority to Chief Justice orders otherwise, the change the original jurisdiction of this Clerk’s office is open from 9 a.m. to 5 Court. p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Rulemaking Power Congress has from Federal legal holidays. The library is time to time conferred upon the open to members of the bar of the Court, Supreme Court power to prescribe rules attorneys for the various Federal of procedure to be followed by the departments and agencies, and Members lower courts of the United States.
  • The Ali Reporter Spring 2021 3

    The Ali Reporter Spring 2021 3

    THE QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER OF THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE VOLUME 43 NUMBER 2 SPRING 2021 THE DIRECTOR’S LETTER BY RICHARD L. REVESZ The Continuing Support of Our Founding Donor The preparations underway for our 100th anniversary give us a welcome opportunity to take stock of the many contributors who have enabled our extraordinary successes over the past century. Our very first benefactor was January and February the Carnegie Corporation, the philanthropic organization established by Andrew Carnegie 2021 Council Meetings to “promote the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and understanding.” A century ago, the Carnegie Corporation’s backing Update underwrote the first Restatement series. This year, the Carnegie Corporation made a generous At its meetings on January 21, 22, and February 25, 2021, the Council donation of $1 million in support of our work reviewed and discussed Council Drafts of eight projects and approved as we prepare to officially launch our 100th drafts and portions of drafts as listed below. All approvals are subject to the Anniversary campaign. discussion at the meeting and the usual editorial prerogative. All projects except Torts: Concluding Provisions are on the agenda for the Institute’s The story of the Carnegie Corporation and 2021 virtual Annual Meeting scheduled on May 17-18 and June 7-8. See ALI actually begins prior to the Institute’s pages 6-9 for additional details on this year’s Annual Meeting. founding. Believing that much of American law was unnecessarily complicated, uncertain, and Compliance and Enforcement for Organizations antiquated, leading legal academics, judges, At its January meeting, the Council approved Council Draft No.
  • Panel Assignment in the Federal Courts of Appeals Marin K

    Panel Assignment in the Federal Courts of Appeals Marin K

    Cornell Law Review Volume 103 Article 2 Issue 1 November 2017 Panel Assignment in the Federal Courts of Appeals Marin K. Levy Duke University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Marin K. Levy, Panel Assignment in the Federal Courts of Appeals, 103 Cornell L. Rev. 65 (2017) Available at: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol103/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\C\CRN\103-1\CRN102.txt unknown Seq: 1 17-NOV-17 13:58 PANEL ASSIGNMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALS Marin K. Levy† It is common knowledge that the federal courts of appeals typically hear cases in panels of three judges and that the composition of the panel can have significant consequences for case outcomes and for legal doctrine more generally. Yet neither legal scholars nor social scientists have focused on the question of how judges are selected for their panels. Instead, a substantial body of scholarship simply assumes that panel assignment is random. This Article provides what, up until this point, has been a missing account of panel assignment. Drawing on a multiyear qualitative study of five circuit courts, including in-depth inter- views with thirty-five judges and senior administrators, I show that strictly random selection is a myth, and an improb- able one at that—in many instances, it would have been im- possible as a practical matter for the courts studied here to create their panels by random draw.
  • Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure

    Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure

    COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Phoenix, AZ January 3, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS AGENDA ........................................................................................................................................5 1. OPENING BUSINESS A. Welcome and Opening Remarks ..................................................................23 B. Status of Rules Amendments Chart Tracking Proposed Rules Amendments ........................................27 September 2018 Report of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure to the Judicial Conference of the United States .....................35 C. Draft Minutes of the June 12, 2018 Meeting of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure .............................................................................69 2. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON APPELLATE RULES A. Report of the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules (December 5, 2018) ......................................................................................95 B. Draft Minutes of the October 26, 2018 Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules ...................................................................109 C. Proposed Amendments to Rules 35 and 40 Published for Public Comment (August 2018).............................................................................125 3. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON BANKRUPTCY RULES A. Report of the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules (December 3, 2018) ....................................................................................133 B. Draft Minutes of the September
  • The Judicial Power and US Foreign Affairs

    The Judicial Power and US Foreign Affairs

    Fordham University School of Law’s International Law Journal presents The Judicial Power and US Foreign Affairs Friday, February 21, 2020 10:45 a.m. – 4:45 p.m. Fordham Law School Costantino Room | Second Floor COURSE MATERIALS Table of Contents 1. Speaker Biographies (view in document) 2. CLE Materials Panel 1: Scholarly Debate: Proper Role of the Supreme Court in Foreign Affairs Benish, K. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. (view in document) Effron, R. Doctrinal Redundancy and the Two Paradoxes of Personal Jurisdiction. (view in document) Panel 2: Evolving Judicial Intervention on U.S. Foreign Policy United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. et. Al. (view in document) Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, et al, v. Amnesty International USA et al. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. (view in document) Rosalie Simon, et al., Individually, for themselves and for all others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. Republic of Hungary, et al, Defendants. Civil Action No. 10-1770 (BAH). (view in document) Rosalie Simon, et al., Appellants v. Republic of Hungary and Magyar Allamvasutak Zrt., Appellees No. 17-7146. (view in document) Panel 3: How Modern International Relations Impact the Supreme Court: Trends and Prospects Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha et al Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (view in document) Trump President of the United States, et al v. Hawaii et al. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (view in document) SPEAKERS faculty in 2015, Professor Arato served as an numerous US courts.