This study explored the legal parameters of sovereign immunity and its waivers for employees of public institutions of higher education in the state of Texas. This empirical study examined the decisions of the Texas Judiciary concerning public university litigation in the area of sovereign immunity, with a review of major state court decisions. Legal research methodology was used in this study. The data for this study included case study review of six cases decided by the Texas judiciary. Information about each of the cases and the important legal inferences from the cases was discussed. A review of the history of sovereign immunity and the current status of the application of the Texas Tort Claims Act was also included. Based on the review of the relevant case law and scholarly commentary, the study findings suggest that a) Texas courts recognize and apply the doctrine of sovereign immunity, unless the application of the doctrine is restricted by the Texas Tort Claims Act; b) the Texas Tort Claims Act establishes limited waivers to sovereign immunity applicable only under specified circumstances and subjects; c) Texas courts were consistent in applying the circumstances by which an institution or its actors waived sovereign immunity. Practice recommendations are included for education professionals at Texas state institutions of higher education.

Darbe analizuojamas arbitražo procesas, konkretizuojant jį, kai viena iš proceso šalių tampa valstybė. Aptariami esminiai arbitražo, kaip alternatyvaus teismui ginčų sprendimo bruožai tam, kad suvokti paties proceso prigimtį. Gilinamasi į procedūrinius skirtumus, kai atsiranda valstybinė dalyvaujančioji šalis. Aptariamas Lietuvos ir kitų valstybių teisinis reglamentavimas, susijęs su valstybės dalyvavimu arbitražiniame susitarime ir arbitražo procese. Aktualus arbitruotinumo klausimas, su tuo susijusi teismų praktika. Gilinamasi į rizikas, atsirandančias valstybei įsitraukiant į procesą. Taip pat siūlomi šių rizikų sprendimo variantai, nurodomi skirtingų šalių doktrinoje. Plačiau analizuojama suverenaus imuniteto doktrina. Tai yra vienas iš dažniausiai pasitaikančių būdų, kuriuo valstybė stengiasi išvengti atsakomybės ir įsipareigojimų tiek dėl paties arbitražinio susitarimo sudarymo ir galiojimo, tiek dėl priimto sprendimo vykdymo ir pripažinimo. Darbo eigoje aptariami Lietuvos teisės aktai ir tarptautiniai bei kitų valstybių nacionaliniai teisės aktai, aktualūs nagrinėjamiems klausimams. Darbo tikslas – išanalizuoti ir pristatyti proceso bruožus, kai jame dalyvauja valstybė. Tikslo siekiama darbo eigoje analizuojant užsienio teoretikų ir praktikų darbus, teismų praktiką ir norminius teisės aktus. / The analysis of arbitration process, when one of participating parties is a State, is given in this paper. It consists of different parts, each of which examines different features. It beggins with acquiring basic knowledge about arbitration process itself. Presentation of procedural issues and differencies is followed by covering Lithuanian and other countries legal base on questions related to State participation and capacity to enter into arbitration agreement. One of important questions is arbitrability. The analysis of risks when a State participates in an arbitration process is given. Also severeal different approaches, how these risks could be minimised or decreased. The doctrine of sovereign immunity is presented as it is an often excuse of a State party either to respect arbitration agreement or to approve and execute the award. The main object of this paper is to analyse and present features of an arbitration, when a State party participates in it. It is reached by summarising doctrine on these questions as well as case law and national and international legal acts.

This dissertation analyzed court decisions in injuries on school grounds cases under the Louisiana Governmental Claims Act. The question addressed was: How have the Louisiana courts interpreted the Louisiana Governmental Claims Act in litigation against Louisiana school districts and their employees? The intent of this study was to show how Louisiana's legal system has evolved, and how that evolution affected tort cases involving school boards and school board employees. Doctrinal legal research was the methodology used to answer the research question. To limit the number of cases analyzed, this study only focused on tort claims involving injury on school property. In order to gain a broad perspective, tort claims cases filed prior to the 1974 Louisiana Constitution, cases filed after the 1974 Louisiana Constitution, and cases filed after the 1995 Louisiana Liability Limits Amendment, and the Louisiana Governmental Claims Act of 1996 were analyzed. By analyzing the tort claims brought against Louisiana school districts and employees during the various time-periods, it was clear to see how the case rulings reflected the frequent changes of the Louisiana Constitution and its' laws. In the end, the state continued to control who could sue them and how much they would pay in damages.

Les enjeux présentés par la puissance financière des fonds souverains et les réactions politiques des pays d’accueil appellent naturellement à s’interroger sur la façon dont la fiscalité appréhende ces questions. La réponse nécessite de se placer tant sur le plan du droit interne français que sur celui de la fiscalité internationale. La présente étude procède à une analyse comparée de la fiscalité directe applicable aux fonds souverains en France et aux Etats-Unis. Cette analyse se poursuit à travers l’examen de conventions fiscales conclues par la France mais aussi par des Etats étrangers détenteurs de fonds souverains. La question de l’application des conventions fiscales aux fonds souverains est évoquée à travers l’exposé des modèles de conventions fiscales de l’OCDE et des Etats-Unis. Le statut fiscal des fonds souverains est confronté à celui des apporteurs de capitaux privés au regard de la distorsion de concurrence fiscale entre investisseurs. En l’absence de dispositions législatives précises, de doctrine administrative et de jurisprudence, ces travaux sont principalement fondés sur une interprétation des faits et du droit positif. Les solutions proposées tentent de remédier aux problématiques ainsi dégagées. / The growing number of investments made by sovereign wealth funds and the reactions of host countries has raised questions regarding the tax treatment of those public financial entities. Answering these questions implies to analyze the tax legislation on both a national and international level. In this respect this paper compares the direct taxation of sovereign wealth funds investments in France and in the United States. It is then followed by an analysis of some tax treaties signed by France as well as tax treaties signed by countries owning sovereign wealth funds. Questions related to the application of tax treaties to sovereign wealth funds are examined through the presentation of the OECD model tax convention and the United States income model tax convention. We then compare the tax status of sovereign wealth funds and private investors regarding tax competition and portfolio choices. We will see through the lack of tax regulations, guidance and the absence of court decision that this study is mainly based on an interpretation of the facts and the law as a consequence. The solutions provided in this paper aim at clarifying the issues we have identified. Hopefully this will raise further interrogations and will be followed by other studies.