001435149 000__ 07015cam\a2200541\i\4500
001435149 001__ 1435149
001435149 003__ OCoLC
001435149 005__ 20230309003839.0
001435149 006__ m\\\\\o\\d\\\\\\\\
001435149 007__ cr\cn\nnnunnun
001435149 008__ 210327s2021\\\\sz\\\\\\o\\\\\000\0\eng\d
001435149 020__ $$a9783030637316$$q(electronic bk.)
001435149 020__ $$a303063731X$$q(electronic bk.)
001435149 020__ $$z9783030637309
001435149 0247_ $$a10.1007/978-3-030-63731-6$$2doi
001435149 035__ $$aSP(OCoLC)1243536393
001435149 040__ $$aEBLCP$$beng$$erda$$epn$$cEBLCP$$dGW5XE$$dOCLCO$$dEBLCP$$dOCLCF$$dN$T$$dUKAHL$$dOCLCQ$$dOCLCO$$dOCLCQ
001435149 049__ $$aISEA
001435149 050_4 $$aK2123
001435149 08204 $$a347/.035$$223
001435149 24500 $$aSupreme courts under pressure :$$bcontrolling caseload in the administration of civil justice /$$cPablo Bravo-Hurtado, Cornelis Hendrik van Rhee, editors.
001435149 264_1 $$aCham :$$bSpringer,$$c[2021]
001435149 300__ $$a1 online resource (232 pages)
001435149 336__ $$atext$$btxt$$2rdacontent
001435149 337__ $$acomputer$$bc$$2rdamedia
001435149 338__ $$aonline resource$$bcr$$2rdacarrier
001435149 4901_ $$aIus gentium: comparative perspectives on law and justice ;$$vvolume 83
001435149 5050_ $$aIntro -- Contents -- Abbreviations -- Part I: Introduction -- Introduction -- 1 `Under Pressure ́ -- 1.1 Two Dimensions of Case Overload -- 1.2 Various Solutions -- 1.3 Content -- 2 Romanic Legal Tradition -- 2.1 France -- 2.2 Italy -- 2.3 Spain -- 3 Germanic Legal Tradition -- 3.1 Germany -- 3.2 Austria -- 3.3 Croatia -- 4 Anglo-American Legal Tradition -- 4.1 England and Wales -- 4.2 United States of America -- 4.3 Argentina -- References -- Part II: Romanic Legal Tradition -- Towards a Reform of the French Court of Cassation? -- 1 The French Court of Cassation in Its Context
001435149 5058_ $$a2 On-Going Reform -- 3 Conclusion -- References -- Finding a Cure or Simply Relieving Symptoms? The Case of the Italian Supreme Court -- 1 The Italian Supreme Court and Its Performance -- 2 One Court and Two Different Functions -- 3 Overburdened Docket: Consequences, Internal Solutions ... -- 4 and External Interventions: The 2009 and 2016 Legislative Reforms -- 5 Effectiveness of the Solution -- 6 `Tips ́from the Outside -- 7 Conclusion -- References -- Back in Focus: Case Overload and Case Selection Standards in the Spanish Supreme Court -- 1 Overview of the History of the Supreme Court
001435149 5058_ $$a1.1 The Constitution of Cdiz (1812) -- 1.2 The Establishment of Cassation Appeal (1838) -- 1.3 The Definitive Shape of Spanish Cassation (1855-1881) -- 1.4 The Passing of the Crown (1978) -- 1.5 A Monetary Threshold (1984-1992) -- 1.6 `Cassational Interest ́As the Central Standard (2000) -- 1.7 A Constitutional Certiorari (2007) -- 1.8 Legal and Statistical Overview -- 1.9 Almost a Revolution (2014) -- 1.10 Towards a New Stability? -- 2 Particular Aspects -- 2.1 Composition of the Supreme Court and the Cassation Procedure -- 2.2 Case Overload Problems -- 2.3 Case Overload Solutions
001435149 5058_ $$a2.3.1 Increasing Capacity -- 2.3.2 Procedural Measures -- 2.3.3 Reducing Quantity -- 3 Conclusion -- References -- Part III: Germanic Legal Tradition -- Sharing Responsibility: The German Federal Court of Justice and the Civil Appellate System -- 1 Overview of the Supreme Court -- 1.1 The Historical Setting -- 1.2 The Structure of the Federal Supreme Court -- 1.2.1 Internal Organisation -- 1.2.2 Special Bar of Lawyers -- 1.2.3 Other Federal Supreme Courts -- 1.2.4 The Federal Constitutional Court -- 1.3 The Procedural Setting -- 1.3.1 The Court System in Civil Matters -- 1.3.2 The Types of Appeal
001435149 5058_ $$aAppeal (Berufung) -- Appeal on Points of Law (Revision) -- Complaint (Beschwerde) and Complaint on Points of Law (Rechtsbeschwerde) -- 1.3.3 Restricting Access to the Bundesgerichtshof -- The System as It Was Before 2002 -- Leave to Appeal -- Striking Out Revisions -- 1.3.4 Grounds for Appeal (Revisionsgründe) -- Violation of the Law -- Factual Basis -- 1.3.5 A Successful Appeal on Points of Law -- 1.4 Workflow: Case Management -- 1.4.1 Preliminary Selection of Cases -- 1.4.2 Inferior Judges/Law Clerks -- 1.4.3 Writing the Judgment -- 1.5 Caseload -- 1.5.1 Intake -- 1.5.2 Judgment on the Merits
001435149 506__ $$aAccess limited to authorized users.
001435149 520__ $$aThis book discusses civil litigation at the supreme courts of nine jurisdictions Argentina, Austria, Croatia, England and Wales, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United States and focuses on the available instruments used to keep the caseload of these courts within acceptable limits. Such instruments are necessary in order to allow supreme courts to fulfil their main duties, that is, the administration of justice in individual cases (private function) and providing for the uniformity and development of the law within their respective jurisdictions (public function). If the number of cases at the supreme court level is too high, the result is undue delays, which are mainly problematic with regard to the private function. It may also put the quality of the courts judgments under pressure, which can affect its public and private function alike. Thus, measures aimed at avoiding excessive caseloads need to take both functions into account. Increasing the capacity of the court to handle larger numbers of cases may result in the court being unable to adequately fulfil its public function, since large numbers of court decisions make it difficult to guarantee the uniformity of the law and its development. Therefore, a balanced approach is needed to safeguard capacity and quality. As shown by the contributions gathered here, the nature of reform in this area is not the same everywhere. There are a variety of reasons for this heterogeneity, ranging from different understandings of the caseload problem itself, local conceptions regarding the purpose of the Supreme Court, and strong entitlements concerning the right to appeal to budgetary restrictions and extremely rigid legislation. The book also shows that the implementation of similar solutions to case overload, such as access filters, may have different effects in different jurisdictions. The conclusion might well be that the problem of overburdened courts is multifactorial and context-dependent, and that easy, one-size-fits-all solutions are hard to find and perhaps even harder to implement.
001435149 588__ $$aDescription based on print version record.
001435149 650_0 $$aCourts of last resort.
001435149 650_0 $$aCourts of last resort$$xAdministration.
001435149 655_0 $$aElectronic books.
001435149 7001_ $$aBravo-Hurtado, Pablo,$$eeditor.
001435149 7001_ $$aRhee, C. H. van,$$eeditor.
001435149 77608 $$iPrint version:$$aBravo-Hurtado, Pablo.$$tSupreme Courts under Pressure.$$dCham : Springer International Publishing AG, ©2021$$z9783030637309
001435149 830_0 $$aIus gentium (Dordrecht, Netherlands) ;$$vv. 83.
001435149 852__ $$bebk
001435149 85640 $$3Springer Nature$$uhttps://univsouthin.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-63731-6$$zOnline Access$$91397441.1
001435149 909CO $$ooai:library.usi.edu:1435149$$pGLOBAL_SET
001435149 980__ $$aBIB
001435149 980__ $$aEBOOK
001435149 982__ $$aEbook
001435149 983__ $$aOnline
001435149 994__ $$a92$$bISE