Conflict of Laws (2009)

States\u27 and nations\u27 laws collide when foreign factors appear in a lawsuit. Nonresident litigants, incidents outside the forum, parallel lawsuits, and judgments from other jurisdictions can create problems with personal jurisdiction, choice of law, and the recognition of foreign judgments. This article reviews Texas conflicts cases from Texas state and federal courts during the Survey period from October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2008. The article excludes cases involving federal-state conflicts, intrastate issues such as subject matter jurisdiction and venue, and conflicts in time, such as the applicability of prior or subsequent law within a state. State and federal cases are discussed together because conflict of laws is mostly a state law topic, except for a few constitutional limits, resulting in the same rules applying to most issues in state and federal courts. Although no data are readily available to confirm this, Texas is no doubt a primary state in the production of conflict-of-laws precedents. This results not only from its size and population, but also from its placement, bordering four states, a civil-law nation, and international shipping. Only California shares these factors, with the partial exception of the states bordering Quebec. Furthermore, Texas courts experience every range of conflict-of-laws litigation. In addition to a large number of opinions on garden variety examples of personal jurisdiction, Texas courts produce case law every year on internet-based jurisdiction, prorogating and derogating forum selection clauses, federal long-arm statutes with nationwide process, international forum non conveniens, parallel litigation, international family law issues, and private lawsuits against foreign sovereigns. Interstate and international judgment recognition and enforcement offer fewer annual examples, possibly a sign of that subject\u27s administrative nature that results in only a few reported cases. Texas state and federal courts provide a fascinating study of conflicts issues every year, but the volume of case law now greatly exceeds this Survey\u27s ability to report on them, a function both of journal space and authors\u27 time. Accordingly, this Survey period\u27s article focuses on selective cases

Conflict of Laws (2009)

States\u27 and nations\u27 laws collide when foreign factors appear in a lawsuit. Nonresident litigants, incidents outside the forum, parallel lawsuits, and judgments from other jurisdictions can create problems with personal jurisdiction, choice of law, and the recognition of foreign judgments. This article reviews Texas conflicts cases from Texas state and federal courts during the Survey period from October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2008. The article excludes cases involving federal-state conflicts, intrastate issues such as subject matter jurisdiction and venue, and conflicts in time, such as the applicability of prior or subsequent law within a state. State and federal cases are discussed together because conflict of laws is mostly a state law topic, except for a few constitutional limits, resulting in the same rules applying to most issues in state and federal courts. Although no data are readily available to confirm this, Texas is no doubt a primary state in the production of conflict-of-laws precedents. This results not only from its size and population, but also from its placement, bordering four states, a civil-law nation, and international shipping. Only California shares these factors, with the partial exception of the states bordering Quebec. Furthermore, Texas courts experience every range of conflict-of-laws litigation. In addition to a large number of opinions on garden variety examples of personal jurisdiction, Texas courts produce case law every year on internet-based jurisdiction, prorogating and derogating forum selection clauses, federal long-arm statutes with nationwide process, international forum non conveniens, parallel litigation, international family law issues, and private lawsuits against foreign sovereigns. Interstate and international judgment recognition and enforcement offer fewer annual examples, possibly a sign of that subject\u27s administrative nature that results in only a few reported cases. Texas state and federal courts provide a fascinating study of conflicts issues every year, but the volume of case law now greatly exceeds this Survey\u27s ability to report on them, a function both of journal space and authors\u27 time. Accordingly, this Survey period\u27s article focuses on selective cases

Conflict of Laws (2010)

States\u27 and nations\u27 laws collide when foreign factors appear in a lawsuit. Nonresident litigants, incidents outside the forum, parallel lawsuits, and judgments from other jurisdictions can create problems with personal jurisdiction, choice of law, and the recognition of foreign judgments. This Article reviews Texas conflict cases from Texas state and federal courts during the Survey period from November 1, 2008, through October 31, 2009. The Article excludes cases involving federal-state conflicts; intrastate issues, such as subject matter jurisdiction and venue; and conflicts in time, such as the applicability of prior or subsequent law within a state. State and federal cases are discussed together because conflict of laws is mostly a state-law topic, except for a few constitutional limits, resulting in the same rules applying to most issues in state and federal courts. Although no data are readily available to confirm this, Texas is no doubt a primary state in the production of conflict-of-laws precedents. This results not only from its size and population, but also from its placement bordering four states, as well as a civil-law nation, and its involvement in international shipping. Only California shares these factors, with the partial exception of the states bordering Quebec. Texas courts experience every range of conflict-of-laws litigation. In addition to a large number of opinions on garden-variety examples of personal jurisdiction, Texas courts produce case law every year on Internet-based jurisdiction, prorogating and derogating forum-selection clauses, federal long-arm statutes with nationwide process, international forum non conveniens, parallel litigation, international family-law issues, and private lawsuits against foreign sovereigns. Interstate and international judgment recognition and enforcement offer fewer annual examples, possibly a sign of that subject\u27s administrative nature that results in only a few reported cases. Texas state and federal courts provide a fascinating study of conflicts issues every year, but the volume of case law now greatly exceeds this Survey\u27s ability to report on them, a function both of journal space and authors\u27 time. Accordingly, this Survey period\u27s article focuses on selective cases

The epidemiology of hypertension family practice in Cape Town

A prevalence study of hypertension in 8 family practices in low socio-economic areas of Cape Town examined 1046 patients over the age of 15 years. The crude prevalence rate of hypertension was 20,26%. There was no significant sex difference. Systolic pressure, diastolic pressure and hypertensive status increased with age and body mass index (BMI). There were complex relationships with regard to sex in that the female sex was predictive of hypertensive status after the age of 45 years unexplained by differences in BM!. After adjusting for age, BMI and sex differences, widowhood, poor education, obesity, a family history of hypertension or stroke and a past history of hypertension were significant predictors of hypertensive status. Smoking status, occupational social class or property ownership were not predictive. Fifty-one per cent of hypertensive subjects were treated. Of those receiving treatment, 30% were controlled resulting in a control prevalence of only 18%. Younger male subjects were better controlled by treatment. A strong need for improved diagnosis and treatment of hypertension in family practice exists in this region.S Afr Med J 1990; 78: 7-1