Superior courts

It is not uncommon for individuals under the influence of phencyclidine to come to the attention of the criminal justice system. Increasingly, there is a need for forensic experts to advise and testify in cases involving PCP and other psychoactive drugs. With the publication of a paper on acute intoxication and fatalities from PCP use, we began to receive requests from attorneys to evaluate PCP-related cases (Burns et al. 1975). We have now consulted in over 400 civil and criminal cases and have testified in municipal, superior, and Federal courts from Hawaii to Washington, D.C. 

Supreme Court of the United States (1962). Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660. Appeal from the appellate department, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, No. 554. 

Thus, in response to Pfizer s asserted superior and unexpected results, the court, at various places, reasoned a particular result (e.g., solubility, chemical stability, ease of manufacturability) was not superior, not unexpected, or both not superior and not unexpected. This analysis, combined with the court s dismissal of Pfizer s other arguments for nonobviousness, resulted in invalidation of Claims 1-3 of the 303 patent. 

The aspirin saint had impressed the court more than the evidence against him. We could not afford to stumble when we tackled his superior, Fritz ter Meer. 

Aformer employee of Pantasote, a defunct PVC processor in Passaic, N.J., is reported to have filed a class-action lawsuit against the company, its suppliers and insurers in Essex County Superior Court in Newark, N. J. The former worker claims the firms conspired to hide health risks associated with exposure to vinyl chloride monomer. The claim is that all the VCM and PVC people knew about the danger and concealed it for 40 or 50 years, says Ron... 

Unlike the Court, I do not believe that the possibility that an inventor with a patentable invention will rely on state trade secret law rather than apply for a patent is remote indeed. Ante, at 19. State trade secret law provides substantial protection to the inventor who intends to use or sell the invention himself rather than license it to others, protection which in its unlimited duration is clearly superior to the 17-year monopoly afforded by the patent laws.. . . ... 

The literature on regulation is very extensive. New Deal activism in the areas of monopoly and antitrust and the explosion of health, safety, and environmental regulations during the 1965-1975 period led to increased scrutiny by academics and policy research organizations. I do not review this literature here because many competent reviews already exist. Instead, I examine only the role that com-mand-and-control bureaucracies can play in the acquisition of information, the use of that information to set conduct standards, and the alleged superiority of bureaucracies (relative to courts or markets) in doing both. 

Empirical work about the liability system utilizes several famous data sets. The Insurance Service Office, a research arm of the insurance industry, randomly sampled product liability claims in 1976 and 1977, but the universe represents only claims. Viscusi (1986,1988,1989b) has extensively used these data. The Rand Corporation has assembled the results of all civil jury trials held in federal and superior state courts in Cook County, Illinois, and San Francisco, California, from 1959 through 1984 and issued a series of studies (Peterson 1986). 

July 23 Colombian Superior Court judge Talio Manuel Castro Gil, who had indicted Pablo Escobar for the murder of Lara Bonilla, is assassinated. Drug traffickers step up their campaign to harass and intimidate the Colombian judiciary. 

In its description of the doctrine of respondeat superior, the court noted the general rule that employers are liable for injuries caused by an employee only when the employee is acting within his/her normal job function. An employee s commute to and from work is not normally considered part of an employee s job function. There is, however, a special risk exception to this going and coming rule when the employer s actions create a risk of harm to others (46). In this case, the court concluded that Crocodile s scheduling of a double shift followed by 16 hr of rest for its manager did not meet this threshold. 

The defense attorneys, Hajo Herrmann and Dr. Herbert Schaller, had prepared comprehensive evidence. They prepared their evidence to conform with a decision of the Upper District Court of Diisseldorf. In a gas chamber denial case, this court held that evidence must be admitted when it was superior to the proofs in the former National Socialist... 

In this regard, the Court quoted from a case we discussed previously, In re Chupp, 816 F.2d 643,647 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ( Evidence that a compound is unexpectedly superior in one of a spectrum of properties... can be enough to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. )... 

Just what did the trial court do with the patent It held first of all, that an invention of great merit had been made and recognized that the patentees had been able, by the use of their improved fluxing composition, to conduct their electric arc-welding operation without glare, with no open arc, no splatter, and very little, if any, smoke. Further the performance achievement was held to be far superior to what had gone be-... 

The defense must show that the evidence it wishes to present is superior to all evidence previously presented at German courts, which was used to justify the ruling of self-evidentness, or... 

In many countries in Europe even neutral researchers are not in a position today to approach Holocaust studies with the hypothesis that certain events did not take place. They too are condemned without any examination of their arguments, on the grounds of self-evidence of the opposite of their theses, and with that they are deprived of their social existence. In 1992 the Provincial High Court and Court of Appeal in Diisseldorf, seconding a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, did decide that self-evidence may be reversed if completely new evidence, or such that is superior to past evidence, is presented, requiring a retrial of the matter at hand.340... 

As a result, the Nuremberg court s attempts to revise the general principles failed. Therefore, under international law, orders issued by a responsible superior on principle preclude criminal liability on the part of the subordinate obeying the orders the superior giving the orders is criminally liable for their implementation. 

People V Martin Miel, No. A 804003, Los Angeles Superior Court, 1985. 

People V Robert Korner, No. 154558, Santa Barbara Superior Court, 1985. 

---