Notes, abstracts, papers, exams and problems of Law & Jurisprudence

Uniform Civil Code in India

A common civil code, popularly known as the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), is a long-standing unresolved debate in independent India. This debate stems from Article 44 of the Indian Constitution, contained in Part 4 (Directive Principles of State Policy), which states the state shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India. Here, the term Uniform Civil Code (UCC) implies a set of common laws governing marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance, and other such familial matters which would be applicable to all Indians, irrespective of their religion. Today, the members of each religious community follow their own respective sets of civil laws based on their religious history... Continue reading "Uniform Civil Code in India: History and the Shah Bano Case" »

Death Row Demographics and Trends

• Southern states account for 55% of death row inmates.
• Approximately 3,300 individuals are on death row.
• Over 100 death sentences are issued each year.
• More than 25 executions occur annually.
• Executions declined between 1935 and 1970.
• Inmate riots have remained stable over the past 30 years.
• About 56% of those executed are white, while 35% are Black.
• The percentage of Black Americans on death row is disproportionately high.
• The race of the victim is the largest factor in death penalty cases.
• 30 states have the death penalty.
• Electrocution is still used in Nebraska.
• Executing mentally ill individuals is considered cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment.
• As of 2020, only 9% of inmates have a college education.

Legal Comparisons

Negligence vs. Intentional Tort

Negligence and intentional torts differ primarily in the mindset of the individual causing harm. Negligence occurs when someone fails to exercise reasonable care, often resulting in unintentional harm. In contrast, intentional torts, like assault or battery, involve deliberate actions intended to harm another person.

Strict Liability vs. Negligence

Strict liability and negligence share the goal of holding individuals accountable for harm caused, but their requirements for proving fault differ. Negligence requires proving that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care, while strict liability does not require any proof of fault.

Defamation vs. Nuisance

Defamation and nuisance are distinct torts... Continue reading "Key Legal Concepts: Torts, Dismissal & Offenses" »

Jurisdiction in the European Union

1. Relation with Other Legal Instruments

1.1 Other Specific EU Legal Instruments

Does not affect specific matters.

1.2 Brussels Convention

Superseded by the Brussels Regulation. References to the Convention should be to the Regulation.

1.3 International Conventions

Supersedes existing treaties, but treaties retain validity where not superseded. The Brussels Regulation (Regulation 44/2001) does not affect specific treaties. The Regulation shall not affect treaties prior to its entry into force.

2. Scope of Application

2.1 Time

March 2002

2.2 Geographical Scope

All EU members except Denmark (Denmark joined in 2005).

2.3 Material Scope

Civil and commercial matters (excluding revenue, customs, and administrative matters). Does... Continue reading "Jurisdiction in the European Union: A Comprehensive Summary" »

Difference Between Preliminary and Provisional Measures

Preliminary Measures

Preliminary measures allow the future plaintiff to gather information needed to establish the facts of the case. The main requirement is demonstrating the necessity of specific information for the proceeding to establish the case in the complaint.

Two types of information-gathering measures exist:

• Testimony and Oral Testimony of a Person: To obtain knowledge held by someone.
• Submission of Documents: To access relevant documents.

To request such measures, one must demonstrate a just cause and relevance to the case.

Provisional Measures

Provisional measures, requested by a future plaintiff, aim to prevent risks of a future positive judgment not being enforced. The purpose is... Continue reading "Preliminary vs. Provisional Measures in Litigation" »

Inchoate Crimes: An Overview

Definition

Inchoate crimes, also known as incomplete crimes, are actions that are not crimes in themselves but occur in conjunction with other crimes. Examples include attempted murder and conspiracy to commit robbery.

Types of Inchoate Crimes

Conspiracy

Conspiracy is the oldest inchoate crime. It involves an agreement between two or more people to commit an unlawful act. The purpose of conspiracy laws is to prevent and punish criminal partnerships from attempting substantive offenses.

Elements of Conspiracy:

1. Agreement between two or more people
2. Intent to commit a crime
3. Overt act by any co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy

The overt act need not be criminal but only needs to carry the project forward.

Conspiracy... Continue reading "Inchoate Crimes: Conspiracy, Attempt, Solicitation, and More" »

The Rule of Law in Democratic States

Diamond and Morlino highlight the rule of law as the cornerstone of any democratic state. A robust legal system prevents exploitation and protects citizens from government overreach. In states where the law is respected, citizens enjoy free and fair elections, participate in shaping laws and policies, and hold their government accountable. A law-abiding government, in turn, respects public opinion, protects equal rights for all, and remains answerable for any misconduct across its executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Conversely, without the rule of law, democratic institutions weaken, citizen participation diminishes, and corruption flourishes. Many developing nations struggle to establish a... Continue reading "Rule of Law and Sovereignty in Democratic States" »

Counterclaims in Legal Proceedings

Counterclaim: A claim asserted by the defendant against the plaintiff, serving as both a defense and a counter-attack. It involves the defendant's pleadings against the claimant, within their competence.

Requirements for a Counterclaim

• Connection between the defendant's pleadings and the plaintiff's initial claims.
• The Court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the counterclaim.
• The counterclaim is filed against the initial plaintiff.

Consequences of a Counterclaim

It is another claim within the same proceeding, discussed and judged alongside the original claim. The counterclaim defendant (original plaintiff) has the right to defend themselves.

Counterclaim Defenses

Types of allegations between the counterclaim... Continue reading "Counterclaims and Default Declarations in Legal Proceedings" »

Free and Legal Evaluation of Evidence

Free and legal evaluation is the mental activity by which the Judge decides which fact is true or false. The Judge shall interpret and then evaluate.

• Interpretation: To comprehend the meaning of evidentiary results. You can’t assess anything if you don’t understand the meaning of an evidentiary result; you need to understand in order to evaluate.
• Evaluation: Assuming the Judge has understood the objective meaning, to which rules should the Judge adhere, to decide if a fact is true or false?

The general rule is the free evaluation of the evidence; the Judge is free to choose the rule of logic.

Free evaluation is a system in which the Judge is left to choose among the rules of human criteria and reason. The... Continue reading "Understanding Evidence Evaluation in Legal Proceedings" »

Mistakes in Procedendo and In Iudicando

In procedendo (mistakes committed before the judgement): when upholding an appeal, the Court finds a mistake before the First Instance judgement. The judgement upholding the appeal will order the case to be referred back to the Court of First Instance at the point where the mistake/procedural infringement occurred.

In iudicando (mistakes done when adjudicating): if the Court finds that the mistake was committed at the First Instance, it will rule on the matter of the case for a second time and substitute the judgement given by the First Instance Court.

The Court shall rule on the merits of the case.

Judgements Subject to Appeal in Cassation

There are strict limitations on what proceedings can be subject to... Continue reading "Procedural and Judgment Errors & Cassation Appeals" »