The influence of corporate money in politics is one of the most studied topics in political science in the U.S., although not so much so in recent democracies. Using new and public data from Brazilian elections, this dissertation investigates the process of institutional change that culminated in a 2015 decision by the Brazilian Supreme Court to ban corporate donations as a legal source of financing to politicians and parties. The episode exemplifies the worldwide tendency of judicialization of politics and fits the pattern of change identified by the literature as a critical juncture, understood as a relatively short period of time in which there is a heightened probability that agents' choices will affect the outcome of interest. Under exceptional circumstances of political and economic crisis, actors not institutionally in charge of law making set in motion a process of legislative change whose final outcome was not a faithful reflection of their preferences, but was deeply influenced by contingent elements. Public support in a context of severe revelations of corruption schemes explain how the Supreme Court was able to rule against the immediate interest of politicians and how the latter, having adjusted to find additional sources of money, were unwilling to reinstate corporate donation as a legal means of campaign financing. Having confirmed in Chapter two that incumbency is associated in Brazil with a negative effect on the electoral performance of office holders while the use of corporate money by candidates is legal, the dissertation examines the effects of the Supreme Court decision on municipal elections held after it came into effect. We investigate whether removing this important source of funding for both incumbents and challengers swings the balance in favor of office holders in both majority and proportional elections held in 2016. We find evidence that the ban on corporate donations favored incumbent mayors, suggesting that the historic decision, instead of levelling the playing field between incumbents and challengers, in reality helped office holders to win an additional term. It was not immediately visible due to the particular conditions in which the 2016 elections took place, when voters were particularly angry at incumbents due to the widespread news of corruption involving party officials. These findings indicate that, despite its intention to make Brazilian elections more competitive and open, the historic Supreme Court decision might have had the exact opposite effect, helping perpetuate in power politicians already in office.

1 Abstract My master's thesis is focused on analysis of extraordinary appeal in criminal procedure. Extraordinary appeal is one of extraordinary remedial measures which was introduced into the Czech Criminal Procedure Code with effect from 1 January 2002. The thesis is devided into 6 chapters and the main chapter of the thesis is focused on in-depth analysis of the grounds of an extraordinary appeal and the issue of so called extreme discrepancy. So far, the issue of so called extreme discrepancy has not yet been subject to in-depth analysis in professional literature, therefore I pay more attention to this matter. The importance of so called extreme discrepancy is significant for the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic and its decisions. It is a concept arising from the case law of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, which extends the grounds of an extraordinary appeal despite the grounds laid down in the Czech Criminal Procedure Code. Based on this concept the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic is obliged not only to review questions of law but also questions of fact in cases with so called extreme discrepancy. The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic defends this concept saying it is neccessary to keep this approach in order to respect the fair trail within the meaning of the European...

The Role of the Grand Chambers of the Supreme Courts and of the Plenum of the Constitutional Court in Judicial Law-Making Abstract Grand Chambers (GCs) are considered to be the most authoritative judicial bodies within multi-panel supreme courts. They are said to secure the unity, continuity, and quality of these courts' decision making. This thesis explores these claims in relation to GCs of three Czech highest courts - the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, and the Constitutional Court. What is the role of the GCs in the decision-making of these Courts and how do the GCs fulfil their role? The thesis addresses these questions from both doctrinal and empirical angles. Doctrinally, it analyses with respect to all three courts the criteria for selecting GC cases, the character of GC decisions, and the status of GC precedents. Empirically, it explores how many and what type of cases the case-selection mechanism generates and how the GC's decisions influence the decision- making of other Court formations. On the basis of this analysis, the main argument of the thesis is that courts' use of GCs influences the way the multi-panel courts develop the law. The three key parameters of any GC that the thesis identifies are (i) the justification of its authority, (ii) the means of asserting its authority...

Interpretation of labour law regulations in the case law of The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic Abstract This thesis examines eight rulings of The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic that were handpicked for their extraordinary relevance in labour law. The author of this thesis attempts to find the solution to the problems solved by The Supreme Court in these rulings and then compares his reasoning and conclusions with the ones provided by The Supreme Court while evaluating the validity of the court's reasoning and conclusions along with whether The Supreme Court found its conclusions in a methodically sound manner. Rulings of cases No. 21 Cdo 4986/2010, 21 Cdo 224/2013, 21 Cdo 2745/2013, 21 Cdo 385/2014, 21 Cdo 5433/2014, 21 Cdo 3240/2015, 21 Cdo 1276/2016 and 21 Cdo 1276/2016 were the ones selected for analysis. The subject matter of the rulings listed above is as follows: When can an empoyer terminate a non- compete clause, whether or not specifying the applicable reason for termination in a medical opinion is needed in order to use said medical opinion as grounds for such termination, whether obstacle to work on the employee's part takes precedence over obstacle to work on the employer's part or vice versa, the relation between entitlement to severance pay and compensation provided by the Labour...

This investigation sought to identify linkages between the Texas Supreme Court and public opinion through 1) a matching of written decisions with scientifically conducted public opinion polls; 2) direct mention of public opinion and its synonyms in Texas justices' decisions; 3) comparison of these mentions over time; and 4) comparison of 10 personal attributes of justices with matched decisions. The study moved the unit of analysis from the U.S. Supreme Court to the state court level by using classification schemes and attribute models previously applied to the U.S. Supreme Court. It determined that linkages exist between the Texas Supreme Court's written decisions and public opinion from 1978 to July 1994.

Hahlo and Khan have aptly described South African law as a ‘three-layered cake’. This dissertation is not so much concerned with the ingredients of the cake, but with the Cape Supreme Court which was used to ‘bake’ the third layer, and the judges who were employed to supervise the task. However, in order t wet the appetites of the legal gourmets, an attempt has been made to analyse the ingredient of judicial precedent, and to serve it up in the form of ‘icing’.

A determination was made of the degree to which the four requirements of Gault were met in District I of the Utah Juvenile Court between July l, 1967 and June 30, 1969. The requirements handed down in 1967 by the U. S. Supreme Court were as follows: (a) guarantee to the right of notice given to the juvenile himself and to his parents; (b) right to counsel , representation by counsel in juvenile delinquency proceedings; (c) right to confrontation and cross-examination by prosecuting witness; and (d) privilege against self- incrimination in juvenile delinquency proceedings. Observable procedures indicate that sustained effort is being made by District I, Utah, toward affording protection of basic legal rights to juvenile court clients and their families. However, the juvenile court records, as the source of information for this study, show the four requirements of Gault as being met only in part during the period of time specified. It was also found that, with only two changes, the Utah Juvenile Court Act of 1965 would have already been fulfilling, in Utah, the requirements provided by the subsequent 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision on Gault. These two recommended changes were, first, a provision requiring that it be recorded whether or not the child was notified of his rights; and second, that a provision be added to record the name of the complainant, his presence, and if his testimony was used during the proceeding.

No description available.

The purpose of this study identifies state court cases involving public school finance specifically related to adequacy and equity in funding. Results address how state court cases have challenged the constitutionality of school finance in the United States, including Texas, over the last 50 years. The study further shows how the decisions from previous cases have influenced the Supreme Court of Texas decision in the Texas Taxpayer & Student Fairness litigation.

Literature regarding the Supreme Court's holdings in Establishment Clause cases suggests the Court's jurisprudence has been inconsistent. Because the Court had both upheld and invalidated challenged governmental actions that relate to religious practices or institutions, a broad overview of the Court's holdings in Establishment Clause cases seems to support that notion. But where does the inconsistency lie: in the tests and criteria used by court members or in the holdings themselves? This thesis suggests that when comparing categories and subsets of the Court's holdings in Establishment Clause cases to one another, the jurisprudence is in fact consistent. This thesis demonstrates where the consistency can be identified and measured in the Court's jurisprudence by analyzing the holdings. The thesis employs three models, Strict-Separationism, Non-Preferentialism, and Accommodationism, to create standardized categories of Supreme Court's holdings, as independent as possible of the reasoning, criteria, or tests applied to the case by the Court members. I grouped the cases included in this study into one or more categories based on which model(s) the Court's actual holding matched. Then I compared cases within each category of holdings to one another across variables (such as actual holding and case types) to measure consistency between the cases. I conclude with an examination of the measured consistency and explanation of identified patterns in the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause holdings. The data indicated that the Court's actual holdings matched the same projected holdings consistently when compared to cases with similar variables. / Master of Arts