This study isolates the impact of certain factors upon the decision making of the United States Supreme Court. Selected group theory methodology is applied to the Court's decisions from 1969 through 1973. The group structure of the Court, the impact of personnel change, and the effect of judicial attitudes on public policy are explored and statistically measured with a chisquare. Schubert's bloc analysis and a Guttman scale are used to order the data. Conclusions include that two stable blocs existed on the Court during these years. Personnel change is demonstrated as causative of alterations in judicial behavior. Seven of eight groups of cases are shown to stimulate values of the Justices. Suggestions are made for further research.

In this study, I examined the Supreme Court's agenda from 1801 to 1993 to determine the composition and dynamics of the issues that have dominated the business of the Court. Specifically, I set out to test empirically Robert G. McCloskey's (now standard) characterization of the Supreme Court's history, which sees it as dominated by nationalism/federalism issues before the Civil War, by economic issues just after the War through the 1930s, and by civil rights and liberties since the 1930s. The question that drove my investigation was "Is McCloskey's interpretation, which appears to be based on the great cases of Supreme Court history, an accurate description of the agenda represented in the Supreme Court's total body of reported decisions?" To test McCloskey's historical theses I employed concepts adapted from Richard Pacelle's (1991) important work on the agenda of post-Roosevelt Court and used the methods of classical historical analysis and of interrupted time-series analysis. Data for my research came from existing datasets and from my own collection (I coded the manifest content of thousands of Supreme Court's decisions from 1887 back to 1801). The most important finding from my analyses is that McCloskey not withstanding, the pre-Civil War Supreme Court's agenda was clearly dominated by economic issues of various sorts, not by nationalism/federalism as previously believed. Another key finding is that partisanship had a pronounced impact on the Court's attention to this category of issueseven in the periods when the Supreme Court had very little control of its docket. These results suggest that Supreme Court scholars should reassess or rethink their previous notion of the Court's pre-Civil War agendathe now well-established view that nation-state issues dominated the business of the Court in its formative yearsand the idea (often expressed implicitly) that the Court's mandatory jurisdiction suppressed attitudinal factors on the Court in the earlier eras.

Historically, the locality Benešova located on the edge of the medieval city of Brno in the former site of the Baroque fortification. In the nineteenth century, after the demolition of the fortifications were being built ring road block with mostly public buildings and park areas. The newly designed structure of the buildings are trying to complete Brno Ring in the unfinished part and continues the tradition of major public buildings on ring road.

The theme running through this dissertation is intended to prove that the Supreme Court has a role to play in the promotion, enforcement and sustenance of a proper democratic system of government, good governance and fundamental human rights and freedoms in Ghana. The Study would therefore address the role of the Supreme Court in the development of Constitutional Law in Ghana, with particular emphasis on the court's contribution to the underlying concepts of the Fourth Republican Constitution of 1992; the guiding principles of constitutional interpretation and the vexed issue of whether the court should adopt a mechanical and literal approach to the interpretation of the Constitution or adopt a liberal, beneficent and purposive approach. The Supreme Court has asserted in the locus classicus decision: Tuffuor v Attorney-General [1980] GLR 637 that the 1979 Constitution as the supreme law, must be construed as a living political document capable of growth. Is there any evidence now to support that claim? The study shall also investigate the question of the power of the Supreme Court to review legislative and executive action. We shall also examine the role of the Supreme Court in the interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution and Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms in relation to the rights and obligations of the individual and the State with the view to achieving good governance. The 1992 Constitution itself is founded on the premise that there are limitations to the enjoyment of fundamental human rights and freedoms. What is the extent of such limitations as determined by the Supreme Court? What has been the Supreme Court's contribution to the sustenance of political stability and democratic governance and, especially, in matters relating to coup d'etats and to enforcement of the Constitution itself as distinct from the enforcement of fundamental human rights and freedoms? Has the Supreme Court power to enforce the Constitution and the existing law where there is proven case of injustice and illegality? Has the Supreme Court power to enforce Directive Principles of State Policy as formulated in chapter 6 of the 1992 Ghana Constitution? / Jurisprudence / LL.D.

The theme running through this dissertation is intended to prove that the Supreme Court has a role to play in the promotion, enforcement and sustenance of a proper democratic system of government, good governance and fundamental human rights and freedoms in Ghana. The Study would therefore address the role of the Supreme Court in the development of Constitutional Law in Ghana, with particular emphasis on the court's contribution to the underlying concepts of the Fourth Republican Constitution of 1992; the guiding principles of constitutional interpretation and the vexed issue of whether the court should adopt a mechanical and literal approach to the interpretation of the Constitution or adopt a liberal, beneficent and purposive approach. The Supreme Court has asserted in the locus classicus decision: Tuffuor v Attorney-General [1980] GLR 637 that the 1979 Constitution as the supreme law, must be construed as a living political document capable of growth. Is there any evidence now to support that claim? The study shall also investigate the question of the power of the Supreme Court to review legislative and executive action. We shall also examine the role of the Supreme Court in the interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution and Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms in relation to the rights and obligations of the individual and the State with the view to achieving good governance. The 1992 Constitution itself is founded on the premise that there are limitations to the enjoyment of fundamental human rights and freedoms. What is the extent of such limitations as determined by the Supreme Court? What has been the Supreme Court's contribution to the sustenance of political stability and democratic governance and, especially, in matters relating to coup d'etats and to enforcement of the Constitution itself as distinct from the enforcement of fundamental human rights and freedoms? Has the Supreme Court power to enforce the Constitution and the existing law where there is proven case of injustice and illegality? Has the Supreme Court power to enforce Directive Principles of State Policy as formulated in chapter 6 of the 1992 Ghana Constitution? / Jurisprudence / LL.D.

This thesis provides a comprehensive history of Supreme Court Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence from 1879 until the present day. It describes how a jurisdictional approach to free exercise dominated the Court’s rulings from its first Free Exercise Clause case in 1879 until Sherbert v. Verner in 1963, and how Sherbert introduced an accommodationist precedent which was ineffectively, incompletely, and inconsistently defined by the Court. This thesis shows how proponents of accommodationism furthered a false narrative overstating the scope and consistency of Sherbert’s precedent following the Court’s repudiation of accommodationism and return to full jurisdictionalism with Employment Division v. Smith (1990). It then shows how this narrative inspired a massive bipartisan coalition in favor of codifying accommodationism, and how this coalition succeeded in passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993. The RFRA coalition eventually fractured, as RFRA’s implications began to conflict with principles and objectives of liberal interest groups and the Democratic Party. This thesis posits that the fracture of the RFRA coalition can be traced back directly to confusions over Sherbert’s precedent.

The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, established by the first state constitution (1812) as the only appellate court in the judicial system, commenced its work on March 1, 1813. The Court's jurisdiction was limited to civil cases. It also had control over admissions to the bar and the rules for the administration of its own business. Created in the wake of the conflict between proponents of Louisiana's traditional civil law system and the promulgators of the federal government's territorial policy of common law imposition, the Supreme Court reinforced the ultimately accepted continuance of civil law within the limitations of the United States Constitution and Statutes. The First Minute Book of the Supreme Court is a small, yet significant, part of the documentation of the Court's past. It is a segment of the extensive Louisiana Supreme Court records housed in the Department of Archives and Manuscripts of the Earl K. Long Library at the University of New Orleans. Dating from March, 1813 to May, 1818, the 340-page manuscript details the business of the Court's sessions at New Orleans, the seat of the eastern appellate district. Daily entries include the judges present, the cases before the Court, the disposition of cases, Court rules, and admissions to the bar. The purpose of this edition is to provide a readable, accessible, and comprehensible document for use by the scholarly and research community. With the addition of missing docket numbers which serve as access points to Supreme Court case records and the annotation of persons, cases, and legal terms, the manuscript becomes an important guide for further investigation. The rendition of the text conforms to modern practices of historical editing recommended in the Harvard Guide to American History. No attempt was made to produce a facsimile of the original.

Bakgrund: Under 2000-talet har ett antal skandaler skakat om revisionsbranschen, både inom den privata och den offentliga sektorn. Detta har väckt ett intresse för att undersöka hur revisionen går till inom dessa två sektorer. Tidigare forskning som jämför revision inom den privata sektorn med statlig revision är begränsad, vilket motiverar den här undersökningen då en sådan jämförelse kan ge större kunskap kring huruvida företag och myndigheter är föremål för samma nivå av granskning. Vidare är granskningsprocessens påverkan på revisionskvaliteten ett relativt outforskat område, vilket motiverar undersökningen ytterligare. Syfte: Undersökningen jämför granskningsprocessen för revision inom den privata sektorn med granskningsprocessen för statlig revision, i en svensk kontext. Syftet är att undersöka huruvida det finns skillnader eller likheter i hur granskningsprocessen är utformad mellan de två sektorerna, och vidare vad eventuella skillnader eller likheter kan ha för påverkan på revisionskvaliteten inom respektive sektor. Metod: Undersökningen har en induktiv utgångspunkt, och utförs i form av en innehållsanalys bestående av en dokumentgranskning och intervjuer. I dokumentgranskningen ställs relevant lagstiftning, gransknings-standarder, och styrdokument för kvalitetskontroll för de två sektorerna mot varandra. Ett antal intervjuer görs även med revisorer från KPMG och Riksrevisionen, som representerar revision inom den privata respektive den offentliga sektorn. Slutsats: Resultatet visar att granskningsprocessen till stor del ser likadan ut, men att det finns ett antal skillnader som framför allt har att göra med mer långtgående krav på rapportering för myndigheter. Detta kan förklaras med att agent-problematiken är större inom den offentliga sektorn, vilket i sin tur leder till en mer omfattande granskning för den statliga revisionen. God revisionskvalitet kommer av efterföljelse av lagar och regler, samt revisionsstandarder. Den privata sektorn har mer detaljerad lagstiftning, och därmed fler aspekter att beakta för att uppnå god revisionskvalitet. Vad gäller revisionsstandarder är dessa likartade, varför båda sektorerna har samma utgångsläge för att uppnå revisionskvalitet och undvika revisions-misslyckanden. / Background: During the 21st century, a number of scandals have shaken the audit industry - both within the private and the public sector. There is an increasing interest in knowing how the audit process is designed within these two sectors. Previous research comparing private sector audits to public sector audits is scarce; this motivates an investigation such as this one, because a comparison could provide insight into whether corporations and government agencies are subject to the same level of scrutiny. Further, the impact of the audit process on audit quality is a relatively unexplored area of research, which motivates the study even more. Purpose: The investigation compares the review process of private sector audits with the review process of public sector audits, within a Swedish context. The purpose is to find out whether there are differences or similarities in the review process between these two sectors, and if these potential differences could affect the audit quality of the sectors respectively. Method: The investigation has an inductive starting point, with a content analysis of a document review and interviews. The document review compares relevant laws, standards for the review process, and regulations of quality control, for each of the sectors. A number of interviews are carried out with auditors from KPMG and Riksrevisionen (Swedish NAO). The participants are representatives for auditors in the private sector and the public sector respectively. Conclusion: The findings show that the review process overall is very similar, but that there are a number of differences that mostly have to do with the more extensive reporting requirements for the public sector. This could be explained by the fact that the principal-agent problem is more complex within the public sector, which, in turn, leads to a more extensive review in the public sector audit. Audit quality comes from following laws and regulations, as well as audit standards. The private sector has more detailed audit laws, and thereby more aspects to consider in order to achieve good audit quality. The audit standards are similar in the private and the public sector, indicating that they have the same starting ground for achieving audit quality and avoid audit failures.

O ativismo judicial é um fenômeno complexo estudado no Brasil e nos Estados Unidos, geralmente designado como a interferência dos Tribunais nas políticas públicas. Este fenômeno, aparentemente se contradiz com a separação dos poderes e a vontade legislativa democrática expressa em suas Constituições e leis. A presente dissertação visa comparar como o ativismo judicial se manifesta no Supremo Tribunal Federal brasileiro e na Suprema Corte estadunidense, avaliando suas diferenças e semelhanças. O poder de controle de constitucionalidade, realizado sobre cláusulas constitucionais abertas, permitiu que ambas as Cortes proferissem decisões de natureza política em inúmeras oportunidades, sendo difícil (ou até mesmo impossível) asseverar se elas se distanciaram da correta interpretação da Constituição, haja vista seus preceitos flexíveis e abstratos. Os presentes juízes da Suprema Corte têm atuado com autocontenção nas últimas décadas, diminuindo os impulsos ativistas atribuídos às Cortes de Warren e Burger. Ao contrário do Brasil, onde a Constituição de 1988 e as leis recentes aumentaram significativamente o poder do Supremo Tribunal Federal, e seus membros tem utilizado-os sem hesitação. / Judicial activism is a complex phenomenon studied both in Brazil and in the United States of America, which usually means court´s interference in public policies. Such phenomenon apparently contradicts to the separation of powers and the democratic legislative will set forth by the Brazilian and American Constitutions and statutes. This dissertation compares how the judicial activism manifests itself in the Brazilian Supreme Federal Tribunal and in the American Supreme Court, examining its differences and similarities. Judicial review based on constitutional open clauses allowed such Courts to make polemic decisions and of political nature in many cases. However it is difficult (rather impossible) to affirm whether such decisions depart from the correct interpretation of both Constitutions due to their flexible and abstract norms. The current Supreme Court´s justices have acted with self-restrained in the late decades, easing the activists impulses accredit to the Warren and Burger´s Courts. In contrast the 1988 brazilian Constitution and its subsequent statutes increased the powers of the Supreme Federal Tribunal and its members are exercising them with no hesitation.

This paper will attempt to explore the history and function of judical disagreement behaviour using information from both the Canadian Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court. The evolution of national high court decision making, highlights the changing role of courts within the political and public spheres, as well as the increasing authority courts have over policy. This changing role reinforces the need to study the role of courts on law. I will use minority opinions from the Laskin and Dickson courts to study what disagreement reveals about the decision making process. Judicial disagreement has largely been summed up into two deficient stereotypes: the dissent as "serious" disagreement and the separate concurrence as inferior disagreement to the dissent. I will dispel this fallacy by introducing the five categories created to describe a new way of thinking about judicial disagreement and to shatter the old stereotypes. / vii, 149 leaves ; 29 cm.