Lit. Theory Put to the Test: A Comparative Literary Analysis of American Judicial Tests and French Judicial Discourse

The formalism/policy dichotomy has structured American jurisprudential analyses of judicial decisionmaking for most of the twentieth century. In this Article, Professor Lasser analyzes and compares American multi-part judicial tests and French civil judicial discourse to demonstrate that the dichotomy reflects and informs the ways in which judicial decisions are written. Drawing on the works of Roman Jakobson, Roland Barthes, and Paul de Man, he constructs a literary methodology to analyze American and French judicial discourse. Professor Lasser contends that the formalism/policy dichotomy is part of a larger process by which the American and French judicial systems justify how they produce judicial decisions. He argues that both American and French judicial decisions construct and use the dichotomy in order to make similar ontological claims about the nature of adjudication—namely, that adjudication is both inherently stable and socially responsive

The European Pasteurization of French Law

In a series of stunning decisions handed down in the last few years, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has condemned the decisionmaking procedures traditionally used by the French Supreme Courts (i.e., the Cour de cassation and the Conseil d\u27Etat). This Article traces and critiques this developing “fair trial” jurisprudence, which has also resulted in the condemnation of the supreme courts of Belgium, Portugal, and the Netherlands, whose decisionmaking procedures were all patterned on the French civil law model. Finally, the Article examines the dramatic and schismatic French responses that have ensued. This Article offers a case study at the intersection of European law, comparative law and judicial theory. It begins by describing—and distinguishing between—the interpretive practices and judicial theories that characterize the legal systems of France, the United States, and the European Union. It then analyzes the complex, multifaceted, and ongoing negotiation between these systems\u27 divergent understandings of proper judicial practice. Professor Lasser concludes that the largely misguided interchange between the French supreme courts and the ECHR may well have resulted in pasteurizing the French civil law procedural model into bland nonexistence. The traditionally republican and institutional modes of French judicial decisionmaking have been forced to take on some of the more democratic and argumentative features that characterize ECHR and, especially, American judicial decisionmaking. Unfortunately, these reforms may grant a new argumentative prominence—and thus normative dominance—to the French judiciary (precisely what the traditional French system was designed to avoid), without, however, counterbalancing this new judicial power with sufficiently effective individual, public, and argumentative judicial accountability. Whether these reforms mark the beginning of the end or the beginning of a creative new beginning of the French civil law model of judicial decisionmaking remains to be determined

Unstable Identities: The European Court of Human Rights and the Margin of Appreciation

All legal systems work under a master narrative – the self-conception of most actors of the system itself. A master narrative is a short and simple story and it is the underlying premise upon which any legal system is based. It is a simple story because it paints the system in quick broad brushstrokes and at (most) times is oblivious to the paradoxes within it. Furthermore, a master narrative is important for legitimization purposes because the actors’ legitimacy will depend on their (perceived) conformity with the system’s master narrative. Therefore, legitimacy is self-referential; the yardsticks for a legitimate action are contained within the system’s master narrative, not outside of it. When talking about different international courts it is important to remember that they are embedded within a master narrative that is contextual and contingent and, at different points, more or less contested. This paper explores the question of what happens when the master-narrative is in a period of transition (from a state cantered to a post-national world order) and when the actors’ legitimacy, their interpretative endeavours the very fundamentals are in a state of flux. I use the margin of appreciation discussion as a focal point of describing the conflicting narratives under which the European Court of Human Rights works, narratives in which the different actors (judges, attorneys, NGO activists, government agents) and their consequences in terms of the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights

Judicial (Self-)Portraits: Judicial Discourse in the French Legal System

The French legal system, according to its official pronouncements, functions on a rigid conception of the interpretive and creative role of the civil, private law judge. This conception may be thought of as an official portrait : It is an image or representation of the judge and of the nature of the judicial role. The official portrait, which represents an interpretive ideology that posits a perfectly grammatical mode of reading the legal code, has been the source of much confusion, especially to common lawyers. This portrait\u27s predominance in the French legal system, and its effect on French judicial practice, has never been properly understood, even by the finest American analysis of the French legal system: John Dawson\u27s The Oracles of the Law. By demonstrating that the official portrait is but the most visible of several conceptions of the judicial role currently operating in the French legal system, this Article seeks to correct the skewed common law accounts of how the French judicial system actually functions. In the process, this Article exposes an entire sphere of French judicial discourse that is kept largely hidden from the general public, and whose very existence requires novel analysis. This Article constructs an unofficial portrait of the French civil judge, based on the conceptions of the judicial role prevailing in this hidden discursive sphere. Finally, it examines the effects that the coexistence of the official and unofficial portraits produce on French judicial interpretation, discourse, and rhetoric

Novel SOX10 Indel Mutations Drive Schwannomas Through Impaired Transactivation of Myelination Gene Programs

BACKGROUND: Schwannomas are common peripheral nerve sheath tumors that can cause severe morbidity given their stereotypic intracranial and paraspinal locations. Similar to many solid tumors, schwannomas and other nerve sheath tumors are primarily thought to arise due to aberrant hyperactivation of the RAS growth factor signaling pathway. Here, we sought to further define the molecular pathogenesis of schwannomas. METHODS: We performed comprehensive genomic profiling on a cohort of 96 human schwannomas, as well as DNA methylation profiling on a subset. Functional studies including RNA sequencing, chromatin immunoprecipitation-DNA sequencing, electrophoretic mobility shift assay, and luciferase reporter assays were performed in a fetal glial cell model following transduction with wildtype and tumor-derived mutant isoforms of SOX10. RESULTS: We identified that nearly one-third of sporadic schwannomas lack alterations in known nerve sheath tumor genes and instead harbor novel recurrent in-frame insertion/deletion mutations in SOX10, which encodes a transcription factor responsible for controlling Schwann cell differentiation and myelination. SOX10 indel mutations were highly enriched in schwannomas arising from nonvestibular cranial nerves (eg facial, trigeminal, vagus) and were absent from vestibular nerve schwannomas driven by NF2 mutation. Functional studies revealed these SOX10 indel mutations have retained DNA binding capacity but impaired transactivation of glial differentiation and myelination gene programs. CONCLUSIONS: We thus speculate that SOX10 indel mutations drive a unique subtype of schwannomas by impeding proper differentiation of immature Schwann cells

Increased Incidence of Choroid Plexus Carcinoma Due to the Germline TP53 R337H Mutation in Southern Brazil

International audienceBACKGROUND: Choroid plexus carcinomas (CPC) are rare tumors predominantly found in children. Given the high frequency of the germline R337H mutation in the TP53 gene in southern Brazil, we have evaluated the frequency of the R337H mutation in families with CPC in children. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The present series included 29 patients that were admitted to the same institution from 1992 to 2010, including 22 children with CPC (0.08-13.6 years of age at diagnosis) and 7 children with papilloma of the choroid plexus (Pp; 0.5-9.8 years of age). Surgical resection was possible in 28 children. Blood and/or tumor DNA was extracted and analyzed using PCR-RFLP and results were confirmed by sequencing 240 bp of the TP53 exon 10. The patients, all parents, and some relatives submitted samples for blood DNA analysis. In addition, we have also examined the presence of the mutation in DNA from paraffin-embedded tumor samples to evaluate loss of heterozygosity. We found 63.3% (14/22) of the CPC patients positive for the germline R337H mutation; CPC samples were either heterozygous (n = 7), lost only the wild-type (n = 4), or only the R337H copy (n = 2). One CPC sample was not available. All Pp cases (7/7, 100%) were negative for R337H. Cure (>5 years survival free of disease) was observed in 18.1% of the CPC cases with the R337H mutation (2/11), 71.4% of the Pp (5/7), and 25% of CPC cases negative for the R337H mutation (2/8). Family history of cancer (with 2 or more cancer cases) was exclusively identified on the parental side segregating the R337H mutation, and 50% (7/14) of them were compatible with Li-Fraumeni-like syndrome. SIGNIFICANCE: Our results show for the first time that the R337H TP53 mutation is responsible for 63% of the CPC cases in children, suggesting a higher incidence of CPC in southern Brazil