Book Review

A book review of Leonard D. DuBoff, Deskbook of Art Law, Federal Publications, 1977

Book Review

A book review of Leonard D. DuBoff, Deskbook of Art Law, Federal Publications, 1977

On Legal Writing

Virtually all legal writing is atrocious! This is true about (a) statutes and administrative regulations; (b) judicial opinions and agency rulings; (c) trial papers and appellate briefs; (d) office memoranda and opinion letters; (e) annotations and digest paragraphs; and (f) law treatises and legal articles. It is even true (especially true?) about articles on legal writing. This is a serious matter. For the ramifications of bad legal writing are very costly-in time, in money and, indeed, in the very quality of life. Working to improve legal writing is no frivolous exercise

Understanding Rights and Bills of Rights

Scholars hold that there are forty to fifty distinct human rights. History teaches that they should be constitutionally enshrined. In this modern era when constitution-making is multiplying, drafters of bills of rights must now determine questions of formulation and location. How should these forty to fifty distinct human rights be classified; where in these constitutions should these rights be recited

Overruling Opinions in the Supreme Court

Despite its vaunted reputation for rectitude, the United States Supreme Court has been the first to deny its own judicial infallibility. For in at least ninety decisions, dating as far back as 1810 and as recent as its 1956 Term, the Supreme Court has made public confession of error by overruling its previous determinations. This is a study of those ninety decisions-a statistical accounting of overruling cases and cases overruled, and a listing of the judges who agreed and disagreed with what was said and done. And this is a study of the right to be wrong -an inquiry into when and under what circumstances the Supreme Court should overrule its prior dictates

War Crimes Jurisdiction and Due Process: The Bangladesh Experience

Must any state that holds and controls prisoners either prosecute those accused of having committed serious violations of international law or extradite them to a state that will prosecute? Finally, would similar breaches of international law by India or Indian troops obviate any jurisdictional competence or duties of India or Bangladesh? The questions seemed unusual, at least in view of the past practices of international tribunals of the United States in prosecutions of its nationals. Specific criminal applications of relevant international norms had been relatively sparse.\u27 There were problems with the applicability of international norms to Bangladesh, especially during the state\u27s transition through the legally relevant stages of insurgency, belligerency, and state-to-state warfare. It would also be necessary to decide whether violations of human rights were prosecutable by the state whose nationals were the victims of substantial and intentional deprivations. Do general human rights protections apply in an armed conflict? What interrelationships exist between human rights, laws of armed conflict, and prohibitions of genocide? The Bangladesh trials would surely be significant for their precedential value, the analyses of the jurisdictional issues, and the final determinations on the competence to prosecute and to sanction. They would perhaps be as significant as Nuremberg. Equally interesting would be the application of international due process guarantees to safeguard the human rights of the accused before, during, and after the trials. No previous court had faced such issues squarely, and few national or international courts had specifically incorporated human rights into due process guarantees

Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: Patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease remain at high risk for cardiovascular events despite effective statin-based treatment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by anacetrapib reduces LDL cholesterol levels and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, trials of other CETP inhibitors have shown neutral or adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 30,449 adults with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy and who had a mean LDL cholesterol level of 61 mg per deciliter (1.58 mmol per liter), a mean non-HDL cholesterol level of 92 mg per deciliter (2.38 mmol per liter), and a mean HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter). The patients were assigned to receive either 100 mg of anacetrapib once daily (15,225 patients) or matching placebo (15,224 patients). The primary outcome was the first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 4.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (1640 of 15,225 patients [10.8%] vs. 1803 of 15,224 patients [11.8%]; rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.97; P=0.004). The relative difference in risk was similar across multiple prespecified subgroups. At the trial midpoint, the mean level of HDL cholesterol was higher by 43 mg per deciliter (1.12 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (a relative difference of 104%), and the mean level of non-HDL cholesterol was lower by 17 mg per deciliter (0.44 mmol per liter), a relative difference of -18%. There were no significant between-group differences in the risk of death, cancer, or other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive statin therapy, the use of anacetrapib resulted in a lower incidence of major coronary events than the use of placebo. (Funded by Merck and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN48678192 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252953 ; and EudraCT number, 2010-023467-18 .)