|
Describes motivation process for creativity with emphasis on intrinsic motivation by Corey K Katir
Filed under: Estates
The Russian billionaire, Yuri Milner, has paid $100 million for a second home in California’s Silicon Valley, in Los Altos Hills. According to the Wall Street Journal’s Market Watch, March 30th, it is the highest known amount paid for a home in the United States.
This home is 25,500 square feet of living area, and was inspired by 18th-century French chateaux (see above). It has 25,000+ square feet of living space with five bedrooms, nine bathrooms, a central entry court, ballroom, home theater, wine cellar, spa/gym, a tennis court, car wash, swimming pool and formal gardens. The living areas are all located on the second floor to take advantage of the dramatic San Francisco Bay Bay view. It was designed by the prestigious Hablinski + Manion Architectural & Planning Group.
Mr. Milner’s primary residence is in Moscow, where he lives with his wife and two daughters, but he is a frequent visitor to the high-tech enclave in northern California.
The 47-year-old Internet tycoon appeared on the cover of the most recent issue of Forbes magazine and has invested heavily in Facebook, Zynga and Groupon through his investment firm DST Global. His company is said to control about 10 percent, or $5 billion worth, of Facebook’s shares. He also has had positive dealings with the Russian online company Mail.ru.
The home was bought from another tycoon, Fred Chan, founder of ESS Technology, who has reportedly decided to live in Hawaii after building the Silicon Valley mansion.
Mr Milner reportedly made the transaction through a limited liability company called La Paloma Property. After years of relative market flatness, this sale has been seen as a sign that the market in high-end properties on the West Coast are becoming more, well, effervescent.
 $100 Million for a Second Home in California? A Russian Billionaire Just Bought One! originally appeared on Luxist on Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:01:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Permalink | Email this | Comments
Filed under: Estates, Auctions
High on a hill in the Summit Ranch subdivision in Denver, Colorado is today’s home which was originally listed for $3.25 million. Concierge Auctions will sell this home on June 14 in cooperation with listing agents Jim and Barbara Appleby of Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage, who are also the sellers.
The six-bedroom home on more than 10 acres offers 11,000-square feet of space. The home’s open floor plan and large windows are meant to make the most of the Continental Divide’s natural beauty with sunrise, snow-capped and sunset mountain views. The home is also designed with spacious decks and patios overlooking acreage. The sunken great room has a massive stone hearth which opens to the gourmet kitchen and dining room. Warm, red oak floors ground an impressively high, 16-foot ceiling with a unique wood-encased beam treatment. The kitchen has granite countertops and stainless steel appliances including a professional gas range with six burners and griddle, a stainless steel refrigerator and freezer and a built-in wine center. The formal dining space opens to the great room and features a unique, wood-beamed ceiling with custom faux painting. The sunken library, also just off the great room has built-in knotty alder bookcases and a built-in wet bar with slab granite countertops and a copper bar sink. Two additional spaces on this main floor are a formal office with built-in knotty alder cabinets and bookshelves and slab granite desktop with its own outside entry door and a multipurpose room that could be used as private office space, a nursery or guest bedroom quarters.
The multi-room master suite has an exercise room, two fireplaces, a private covered porch, wet bar, spa bathroom, large closets and a laundry room. The lower level has a game room, sports bar/entertaining area, wine closet three bedrooms and a heated garage. The more than 1,500-square-foot unfinished space in the walkout level could be transformed into an expansive theater room, additional living or merely storage space.
Summit Ranch is open daily by appointment. For more details call 877-463-5280 or visit SummitRanchAuction.com.
Continue reading Summit Ranch, Estate of the Day
Summit Ranch, Estate of the Day originally appeared on Luxist on Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:01:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Permalink | Email this | Comments
Filed under: Estates
We don’t usually feature homes under the $500,000 mark but real estate commenter Spectacular Bid drew my attention to today’s modest charmer in Montgomery, Alabama. This home was designed by architect and furniture designer Bobby McAlpine whose work has been featured in many of the popular shelter magazines. This three-bedroom English country style home has had its magazine moments, appearing in Southern Accents, House & Garden and British House & Garden. The home adheres to the tenets of English style without giving off that faux-for-show impression that other English country style home can. It has a good mix of formal and casual elements providing both elegance and comfort. It can be yours for just $499,000 and is listed with Bess Jenkins.
Continue reading Felder Avenue, Estate of the Day
Felder Avenue, Estate of the Day originally appeared on Luxist on Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:05:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Permalink | Email this | Comments
Filed under: Estates
Today’s home is one of the priciest on the market in the Boston area. This French-style, three-story brick residence in Brookline, Massachusetts was designed and built between 1929 and 1930 by renowned Boston architect William T. Aldrich. The main home is on over three acres with manicured lawns, flower beds, shrubs and mature deciduous and coniferous trees.
The home has 20 principal rooms in the main house and there is also a separate one-bedroom guest house. The home has been thoroughly renovated to combine its original, formal style with modern amenities. The most unique feature in this home might be the light-filled indoor pool pavilion which is reached via an underground passageway that also serves as an art gallery. The pavilion offers additional entertaining area and a caterer’s kitchen. Overall there are a total of 10 fireplaces, hardwood floors, hand-painted murals and other finishes, and ornate moldings. This home is listed at $15.75 million with LandVest.
Continue reading Lee Street, Estate of the Day
Lee Street, Estate of the Day originally appeared on Luxist on Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:01:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Permalink | Email this | Comments
Filed under: Estates
Villa Stella is a Moroccan fantasy on Miami’s ritzy Star Island. This four-bedroom, two-story home on the water has four enclosed garages including two that are fully air conditioned. The formal arrival court can hold up to 15 cars.
Inside awaits a private sanctuary done in a bright yet soft palette. The home’s 30-foot ceilings display handpainted murals and skylights by muralist Yves Lanthier and the decor also has Southwestern and Balinese influences. The master and guest suite rooms are on the upper floor and staff quarters and a garden guest suite are on the ground floor. The master suite includes lavish his and hers baths with semi-precious light-colored onyx flooring and vanities, multiple shower heads, whirlpool bath, and heated towel racks. An enclosed rooftop observatory offers a quiet place to enjoy views all around anytime of the day or night. Carved wood and elaborate tile details give this home an exotic feel.
The kitchen has double wall ovens, double Sub Zero refrigerators, two dishwashers and a Viking gas stove with grill. The saltwater keyhole-shaped pool and bayside gazebo with a relaxation bed and summer kitchen offer views across the bay to South Beach. The home has 100 feet of waterfront with a boat dock for a yacht and jet skis. The backyard includes a swing set and doll house. The home’s technology includes security cameras 24/7, audio/visual controls, interior and exterior lighting controls in every room. This home is listed at $24 million with Sylvia Fragos of Great Estates International Realty.
Continue reading Villa Stella, Estate of the Day
Villa Stella, Estate of the Day originally appeared on Luxist on Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:02:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Permalink | Email this | Comments
Filed under: Estates
Today’s home sits high above the Ohio River in Louisville, Kentucky. This brick Tudor is on five acres of gardens and lawns. Designed by architects Nevin & Morgan in 1937, this brick Tudor-style home has a formal living room with decorative leaded celerestory windows and a banquet-sized dining room. A beautiful charcoal-gray library lies behind the center hall (alas, the chandelier is not being sold with the home), and accesses the terrace and gardens through French doors. A breakfast room with original cabinetry and a sitting room are located near the kitchen. The kitchen has a Viking professional range, Northland designer series refrigerator with matching beverage and wine cooler, ample cabinetry and hardwood countertops.
The master suite offers plenty of storage with a wall of custom cabinetry. It has an adjoining bath and large connecting bedroom used as a sitting room. Four additional bedrooms and two baths are located on the second level and the third floor contains one large and two smaller bedrooms as well as a craft or wrap room, and TV room. Outside a cobbled pathway leads to the broad limestone terrace at the back of the home, which overlooks the formal English garden. The property also has a carriage house with a two-room apartment over the four-car garage. This home is listed at $2.35 million.
Continue reading Upper River Road, Estate of the Day
Upper River Road, Estate of the Day originally appeared on Luxist on Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:01:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Permalink | Email this | Comments
Filed under: Estates Dennis Quaid is moving back to Texas. The LA Times reports that the handsome actor is leaving Los Angeles and has listed his equestrian estate in Pacific Palisades for $16.9 million. The home is on two acres with a lawn and a year-round creek. The estate is horse heaven with a barn, corral and a private trail to Will Rogers Park. The property also includes a full guest house and studio.
The eight-bedroom French Country style home is very well-decorated and has a luxurious master suite with his/her baths, fireplace and balcony. The large gourmet kitchen and family room area has a casual yet glamorous look with a fireplace skylights. Rustic wood-beamed ceilings help keep the elegant home from getting too formal. The home also has an office, wine cellar, covered loggia with fireplace overlooking the pool/spa. The maids quarters above the kitchen have been converted to a gym. The listing is with Kathrin Nicholson of Westside Estate Agency.
Dennis Quaid Lists His Pacific Palisades Home originally appeared on Luxist on Tue, 08 Mar 2011 22:01:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Permalink | Email this | Comments
The last several weeks in the examination bans on court use of sharia/international law have seen something new: while such bans have been voted down in committee before for t he first time authors are starting to withdraw the bills outright. Minnesota’s SB 2281 was withdrawn the day it was introduced. According to WCCO TV: [...]
The last several weeks in the examination bans on court use of sharia/international law have seen something new: while such bans have been voted down in committee before for t he first time authors are starting to withdraw the bills outright.
Minnesota’s SB 2281 was withdrawn the day it was introduced. According to WCCO TV:
Before the bill was even introduced, the author, Republican Dave Thompson pulled it. “It was never my intent to introduce legislation that was being targeted to any one group,” said Thompson.
The second bill was New Jersey’s AB 919 (introduced in the 2010/2011 session as AB 3496). Introduced January 10 of this year, the bill was withdrawn last week. The NJ Assembly Republicans blog on March 13 quotes the bill’s author (GOP Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi):
In the climate of what has been transpiring in the Muslim community in New Jersey, they were concerned it would further, in their view, portray Muslims in a negative light. After sitting and listening to their concerns, I agreed to withdraw it.
The legislature’s website, however, does not yet show the bill has having been formally withdrawn. (No direct link to bill status page, follow this link and search for bill AB 919).
The other activity as in Kansas. SB 79, as originally introduced, had nothing to do with international law or sharia and dealt with the state’s program on allowing courts to recover fees/fines owed. That bill passed the Senate unanimously.
Yesterday (March 19) the House changed the bill entirely. The House substitute for SB 79 simply replicates the language of HB 2087, which the House had previously passed and the Senate had declined to advance.
Readers may recognize this tactic on the part of the Kansas House. When the House approved bills to end merit selection for the state’s Court of Appeals, bills the Senate did not take up, the House started to add provisions to unrelated bills (see here, here, and here). The difference here is that rather than tacking on the new provision to the existing bill, this effort simply replaces the text of the bill entirely.
Full roster of 41 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.
| Bill |
Provisions |
Status |
| Alabama SB 33 (Constitutional Amendment) |
Enacts American and Alabama Laws for Alabama Courts Amendment. Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” |
In Senate Committee on Judiciary. |
| Alabama SB 40 (Constitutional Amendment) |
Defines foreign law as “any law, rule, or legal code, or system established, used, or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States, or which exist as a separate body of law, legal code, or system adopted or used anywhere by any people, group, or culture different from the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State of Alabama.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” |
In Senate Judiciary Committee. |
| Alabama SB 84 (Constitutional Amendment) |
Defines foreign law as “any law, rule, or legal code, or system established, used, or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States, or which exist as a separate body of law, legal code, or system adopted or used anywhere by any people, group, or culture different from the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State of Alabama.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” |
Approved by Senate Committee on Judiciary 3/1/12. |
| Alaska HB 88 |
Prohibits a court, arbitrator, mediator, administrative agency, or enforcement authority from applying a foreign law if application of the foreign law would violate an individual’s right guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Alaska or the United States Constitution. |
Approved by House State Affairs Committee 3/17/11. Approved by House Judiciary Committee 4/4/11. Carried over from 2011 session. |
| Florida HB 1209 |
Provides “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations or tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides the term does not include the common law and statute laws of England as described or any laws of the Native American tribes in the state. Declares “Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the State Constitution or the United States Constitution.” |
Approved by House Judiciary Committee 2/22/12. Approved by full House 3/1/12. Died in Senate Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned. |
| Florida SB 1360 |
Provides “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations or tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides the term does not include the common law and statute laws of England as described or any laws of the Native American tribes in the state. Declares “Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the State Constitution or the United States Constitution.” |
Approved by Senate Budget Subcommittee on Criminal and Civil Justice Appropriations 2/28/12. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned. |
| Georgia HB 45 |
Provides “the term ‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” |
In House Committee on Judiciary. Carried over from 2011 session. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day. |
| Georgia HB 242 |
Declares “‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” |
Approved by House Committee on Judiciary Non-Civil 2/24/12. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day |
| Georgia SB 51 |
Provides that no court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States |
In Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Carried over from 2011 session. Probably dead; failed to advance to House before crossover day. |
| Georgia SR 926 (Constitutional Amendment) |
Describes foreign and religious laws which are incompatible with the laws and policy of the United States and the State of Georgia. Provides ways in which incompatible laws may not be applied or enforced by courts of state. |
In Senate Committee on Judiciary. Probably dead; failed to advance to House before crossover day. |
| Indiana HB 1166 |
Provides that a court may not apply, enforce, or grant comity, res judicata, claim preclusion, or issue preclusion to a foreign law, ruling, or judgment if doing so would violate the fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Indiana. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement: (1) that provides for the choice of foreign laws in its interpretation; or (2) that provides for the choice of venue or forum; and that would result in a violation of a fundamental liberty, right, or privilege guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Indiana is void and unenforceable. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party. Provides that a court may not require or authorize any court to: (1) adjudicate or prohibit a religious organization from adjudicating ecclesiastical matters; or (2) determine or interpret the doctrine of a religious organization. |
In House Committee on Judiciary. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day. |
| Indiana SB 36 |
Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States Constitution. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement calling for the application of foreign law is not enforceable and is void if the provision cannot be modified, unless the contract explicitly states that it will be enforced in accordance with foreign law. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions to transfer a case to another jurisdiction if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party. |
In Senate Committee on Judiciary. Probably dead; failed to advance to House before crossover day. |
| Indiana SB 90 |
Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States Constitution. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement between natural persons calling for the application of foreign law is not enforceable and is void if the provision cannot be modified. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions to transfer a case to another jurisdiction if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party. |
In Senate Committee on Judiciary. Probably dead; failed to advance to House before crossover day. |
| Iowa HB 489 |
Defines “foreign law, legal code, or system” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including but not limited to international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code, or system against a person in this state is whether the decision rendered violated any right of the person in this state guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Iowa, the Constitution of the United States, or any statute enacted or decision issued under the constitution of the state of Iowa or the United States.” |
In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day. |
| Iowa HB 575 |
Enacts “Iowa Freedom and Sovereignty Act.” Defines “Foreign law” as “any law enacted by a jurisdiction or a governmental or quasi-governmental body other than the federal government or a state of the United States. “Foreign law” includes a religious law, legal code, accord, or ruling promulgated or made by an international organization, tribunal, or formal or informal administrative body.” Provides “any foreign law or other law that is in conflict with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution of the State of Iowa shall not have force or effect in this state…It is the public policy of this state that the only factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other person acting under authority of this state’s laws shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law that affects a sovereign citizen of this state is whether the decision violates the sovereign citizen’s rights under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Iowa.” |
In House State Government Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day. |
| Iowa HJR 14 (Constitutional Amendment) |
Provides the state courts “when exercising judicial power, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Iowa, the United States Code, federal regulations, established common law, the Iowa Code, the Iowa administrative code, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia law. The courts shall not use the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including but not limited to cases of first impression.” |
In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day. |
| Iowa SB 2198 |
Enacts “Iowa Freedom and Sovereignty Act.” Defines “Foreign law” as “any law enacted by a jurisdiction or a governmental or quasi-governmental body other than the federal government or a state of the United States. “Foreign law” includes a religious law, legal code, accord, or ruling promulgated or made by an international organization, tribunal, or formal or informal administrative body.” Provides “any foreign law or other law that is in conflict with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution of the State of Iowa shall not have force or effect in this state…It is the public policy of this state that the only factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other person acting under authority of this state’s laws shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law that affects a sovereign citizen of this state is whether the decision violates the sovereign citizen’s rights under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Iowa.” |
In Senate State Government Committee. Probably dead; failed to advance to House before crossover day. |
| Kansas HB 2087 |
Defines “foreign law,” “legal code” or “system” means any law, legal code or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides “Any court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States and Kansas constitutions.” |
Approved by full House 3/30/11. In Senate Committee on Judiciary. Carried over from 2011 session. |
| Kentucky HB 386 |
Establishes legislative intent that the rights of an individual afforded under the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and the United States take precedence over the application of any foreign law in any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. Strictly construe waivers of constitutional rights Provides exceptions for corporate entities Prohibits choice of venue outside of the Commonwealth or United States to preserve the constitutional rights of the person against whom enforcement is sought. |
In House (no committee). |
| Michigan HB 4769 |
Defines “foreign law,” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.” |
In House Committee on Judiciary. |
| Michigan SB 701 |
Defines “foreign law,” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.” |
In Senate Committee on Government Operations. |
| Minnesota SB 2281 |
Provides “A court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on a law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the Minnesota Constitution and the United States Constitution, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the Minnesota Constitution.” |
Withdrawn by author 3/5/12. |
| Mississippi HB 2 |
Provides “”Foreign law” means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states
or territories of the United States…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” |
In House Judiciary A Committee. Probably dead; failed to advance out of committee before deadline. |
| Mississippi HB 698 |
Prohibit use of international or Sharia law by state’s judiciary. |
In House Judiciary A Committee. Probably dead; failed to advance out of committee before deadline. |
| Missouri HB 1512 |
Provides court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States and Missouri constitutions, including, but not limited to, due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state. |
Approved by House Rules Committee 3/8/12. |
| Missouri SB 676 |
Mandates that any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling shall be unenforceable if based on a foreign law that does not grant the parties the same rights as the parties have under the United States and Missouri constitutions. |
Approved by Senate General Laws Committee 2/28/12. |
| Nebraska LB 647 |
Declares a court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decisions the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Nebraska. |
In Senate Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. |
| New Hampshire HB 1422 |
Declares that no New Hampshire court shall enforce foreign law or a state law enforcing foreign law if such enforcement violates an individual’s or corporation’s rights under the New Hampshire constitution or the United States Constitution. |
Approved as amended by full House 2/22/12. |
| New Jersey AB 919 |
Provides that a foreign law may only be recognized by a court in New Jersey if it does not violate any right guaranteed by the Constitution of this State or of the United States of America. |
Author has announced she will withdraw bill 3/13/12. |
| New Mexico SJR 14 (Constitutional Amendment) |
Provides “The courts provided for in this article, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States constitution, the constitution of New Mexico, statutes of the United States and federal regulations adopted pursuant thereto, established common law, New Mexico statutes and state regulations adopted pursuant thereto and, if necessary, the law of another state of the United States, provided that the law of the other state does not include Sharia law. The courts shall not consider or apply a rule of comity to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, international law, laws promulgated by foreign governments or national laws of foreign countries if the consideration or application of the foreign precepts or laws would violate the public policy of the state of New Mexico or reduce or impair the rights of any resident of the state of New Mexico existing under New Mexico statutes or common law governing child custody, rights of married persons, property rights, protection from domestic violence or any criminal law. The courts shall not consider or apply Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts, including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.” |
In Senate Rules Committee. Died when legislature adjourned. |
| North Carolina HB 640 |
Declares “it to be the public policy of this State to protect its citizens from the application of foreign law that would result in the violation of a right of a natural person guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution or the United States Constitution. The public policies expressed in this section shall apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of a constitutional right resulting from the application of the foreign law.” |
In House Committee on Judiciary Subcommittee C. Carried over from 2011 session. |
| Oklahoma HB 1552 |
Provides any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, rule, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions. |
Approved by full House 3/17/11. In Senate Rules Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. |
| Pennsylvania HB 2029 |
Provides a tribunal shall not consider a foreign legal code or system which does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Pennsylvania. |
In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. |
| South Carolina HB 3490 |
Provides “As used in this section, the term “foreign law” means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in or by another jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.” |
In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. |
| South Carolina SB 444 |
Provides “As used in this section, the term ‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in or by another jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories….A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.” |
In Senate Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. |
| South Dakota HB 1253 |
ORIGINAL: “No court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative mediation or enforcement authority may render any judgment predicated on any religious code or enforce any provisions of any religious code.” AS AMENDED: “No court, administrative agency, or other governmental agency may enforce any provisions of any religious code.” |
Signed into law by Governor 3/12/12. |
| South Dakota SB 136 |
ORIGINAL: Provides any ruling or decision that makes use of international or foreign law is void and unenforceable if the court bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the constitutions of the United States and South Dakota, including due process of law, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically provided by the constitution of this state. Foreign law, legal code, or system is any foreign law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Specifies the term foreign law does not include any tribal laws of the Native American tribes in the state. AS AMENDED: “No court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative mediation or enforcement authority may render any judgment predicated on any religious code or enforce any provisions of any religious code.” |
Deferred to 41st day (i.e. killed) by Senate Judiciary Committee 2/2/12. |
| Virginia HB 631 |
Provides that court decisions and contracts and other agreements will be void as violative of the public policy of the Commonwealth where such decisions or contracts are based on foreign law, i.e., law applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States, where the application of such foreign law would violate a person’s rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of Virginia. |
Continued to 2013 by House Committee for Courts of Justice 2/10/12. |
| Virginia HB 825 |
Prohibits any Virginia court or administrative agency from applying the law of any jurisdiction outside of the United States and its territories unless the application is required by the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia, or any federal or state law. |
Approved by House Committee for Courts of Justice 2/3/12. Continued to 2013 by House Committee for Courts of Justice 2/10/12. |
| West Virginia HB 3220 |
Provides “”foreign law, legal code or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals…It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code or system against a natural person in this state is whether the decision rendered either violated or would violate any right of the natural person in this state guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of West Virginia or the United States Constitution or any statute or decision under those Constitutions.” |
In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. Died when legislature adjourned. |
The last several weeks in the examination bans on court use of sharia/international law have seen something new: while such bans have been voted down in committee before for t he first time authors are starting to withdraw the bills outright. Minnesota’s SB 2281 was withdrawn the day it was introduced. According to WCCO TV: [...]
The last several weeks in the examination bans on court use of sharia/international law have seen something new: while such bans have been voted down in committee before for t he first time authors are starting to withdraw the bills outright.
Minnesota’s SB 2281 was withdrawn the day it was introduced. According to WCCO TV:
Before the bill was even introduced, the author, Republican Dave Thompson pulled it. “It was never my intent to introduce legislation that was being targeted to any one group,” said Thompson.
The second bill was New Jersey’s AB 919 (introduced in the 2010/2011 session as AB 3496). Introduced January 10 of this year, the bill was withdrawn last week. The NJ Assembly Republicans blog on March 13 quotes the bill’s author (GOP Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi):
In the climate of what has been transpiring in the Muslim community in New Jersey, they were concerned it would further, in their view, portray Muslims in a negative light. After sitting and listening to their concerns, I agreed to withdraw it.
The legislature’s website, however, does not yet show the bill has having been formally withdrawn. (No direct link to bill status page, follow this link and search for bill AB 919).
The other activity as in Kansas. SB 79, as originally introduced, had nothing to do with international law or sharia and dealt with the state’s program on allowing courts to recover fees/fines owed. That bill passed the Senate unanimously.
Yesterday (March 19) the House changed the bill entirely. The House substitute for SB 79 simply replicates the language of HB 2087, which the House had previously passed and the Senate had declined to advance.
Readers may recognize this tactic on the part of the Kansas House. When the House approved bills to end merit selection for the state’s Court of Appeals, bills the Senate did not take up, the House started to add provisions to unrelated bills (see here, here, and here). The difference here is that rather than tacking on the new provision to the existing bill, this effort simply replaces the text of the bill entirely.
Full roster of 41 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.
| Bill |
Provisions |
Status |
| Alabama SB 33 (Constitutional Amendment) |
Enacts American and Alabama Laws for Alabama Courts Amendment. Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” |
In Senate Committee on Judiciary. |
| Alabama SB 40 (Constitutional Amendment) |
Defines foreign law as “any law, rule, or legal code, or system established, used, or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States, or which exist as a separate body of law, legal code, or system adopted or used anywhere by any people, group, or culture different from the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State of Alabama.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” |
In Senate Judiciary Committee. |
| Alabama SB 84 (Constitutional Amendment) |
Defines foreign law as “any law, rule, or legal code, or system established, used, or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States, or which exist as a separate body of law, legal code, or system adopted or used anywhere by any people, group, or culture different from the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State of Alabama.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” |
Approved by Senate Committee on Judiciary 3/1/12. |
| Alaska HB 88 |
Prohibits a court, arbitrator, mediator, administrative agency, or enforcement authority from applying a foreign law if application of the foreign law would violate an individual’s right guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Alaska or the United States Constitution. |
Approved by House State Affairs Committee 3/17/11. Approved by House Judiciary Committee 4/4/11. Carried over from 2011 session. |
| Florida HB 1209 |
Provides “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations or tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides the term does not include the common law and statute laws of England as described or any laws of the Native American tribes in the state. Declares “Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the State Constitution or the United States Constitution.” |
Approved by House Judiciary Committee 2/22/12. Approved by full House 3/1/12. Died in Senate Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned. |
| Florida SB 1360 |
Provides “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations or tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides the term does not include the common law and statute laws of England as described or any laws of the Native American tribes in the state. Declares “Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the State Constitution or the United States Constitution.” |
Approved by Senate Budget Subcommittee on Criminal and Civil Justice Appropriations 2/28/12. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned. |
| Georgia HB 45 |
Provides “the term ‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” |
In House Committee on Judiciary. Carried over from 2011 session. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day. |
| Georgia HB 242 |
Declares “‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” |
Approved by House Committee on Judiciary Non-Civil 2/24/12. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day |
| Georgia SB 51 |
Provides that no court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States |
In Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Carried over from 2011 session. Probably dead; failed to advance to House before crossover day. |
| Georgia SR 926 (Constitutional Amendment) |
Describes foreign and religious laws which are incompatible with the laws and policy of the United States and the State of Georgia. Provides ways in which incompatible laws may not be applied or enforced by courts of state. |
In Senate Committee on Judiciary. Probably dead; failed to advance to House before crossover day. |
| Indiana HB 1166 |
Provides that a court may not apply, enforce, or grant comity, res judicata, claim preclusion, or issue preclusion to a foreign law, ruling, or judgment if doing so would violate the fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Indiana. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement: (1) that provides for the choice of foreign laws in its interpretation; or (2) that provides for the choice of venue or forum; and that would result in a violation of a fundamental liberty, right, or privilege guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Indiana is void and unenforceable. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party. Provides that a court may not require or authorize any court to: (1) adjudicate or prohibit a religious organization from adjudicating ecclesiastical matters; or (2) determine or interpret the doctrine of a religious organization. |
In House Committee on Judiciary. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day. |
| Indiana SB 36 |
Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States Constitution. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement calling for the application of foreign law is not enforceable and is void if the provision cannot be modified, unless the contract explicitly states that it will be enforced in accordance with foreign law. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions to transfer a case to another jurisdiction if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party. |
In Senate Committee on Judiciary. Probably dead; failed to advance to House before crossover day. |
| Indiana SB 90 |
Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States Constitution. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement between natural persons calling for the application of foreign law is not enforceable and is void if the provision cannot be modified. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions to transfer a case to another jurisdiction if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party. |
In Senate Committee on Judiciary. Probably dead; failed to advance to House before crossover day. |
| Iowa HB 489 |
Defines “foreign law, legal code, or system” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including but not limited to international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code, or system against a person in this state is whether the decision rendered violated any right of the person in this state guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Iowa, the Constitution of the United States, or any statute enacted or decision issued under the constitution of the state of Iowa or the United States.” |
In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day. |
| Iowa HB 575 |
Enacts “Iowa Freedom and Sovereignty Act.” Defines “Foreign law” as “any law enacted by a jurisdiction or a governmental or quasi-governmental body other than the federal government or a state of the United States. “Foreign law” includes a religious law, legal code, accord, or ruling promulgated or made by an international organization, tribunal, or formal or informal administrative body.” Provides “any foreign law or other law that is in conflict with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution of the State of Iowa shall not have force or effect in this state…It is the public policy of this state that the only factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other person acting under authority of this state’s laws shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law that affects a sovereign citizen of this state is whether the decision violates the sovereign citizen’s rights under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Iowa.” |
In House State Government Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day. |
| Iowa HJR 14 (Constitutional Amendment) |
Provides the state courts “when exercising judicial power, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Iowa, the United States Code, federal regulations, established common law, the Iowa Code, the Iowa administrative code, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia law. The courts shall not use the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including but not limited to cases of first impression.” |
In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day. |
| Iowa SB 2198 |
Enacts “Iowa Freedom and Sovereignty Act.” Defines “Foreign law” as “any law enacted by a jurisdiction or a governmental or quasi-governmental body other than the federal government or a state of the United States. “Foreign law” includes a religious law, legal code, accord, or ruling promulgated or made by an international organization, tribunal, or formal or informal administrative body.” Provides “any foreign law or other law that is in conflict with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution of the State of Iowa shall not have force or effect in this state…It is the public policy of this state that the only factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other person acting under authority of this state’s laws shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law that affects a sovereign citizen of this state is whether the decision violates the sovereign citizen’s rights under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Iowa.” |
In Senate State Government Committee. Probably dead; failed to advance to House before crossover day. |
| Kansas HB 2087 |
Defines “foreign law,” “legal code” or “system” means any law, legal code or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides “Any court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States and Kansas constitutions.” |
Approved by full House 3/30/11. In Senate Committee on Judiciary. Carried over from 2011 session. |
| Kentucky HB 386 |
Establishes legislative intent that the rights of an individual afforded under the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and the United States take precedence over the application of any foreign law in any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. Strictly construe waivers of constitutional rights Provides exceptions for corporate entities Prohibits choice of venue outside of the Commonwealth or United States to preserve the constitutional rights of the person against whom enforcement is sought. |
In House (no committee). |
| Michigan HB 4769 |
Defines “foreign law,” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.” |
In House Committee on Judiciary. |
| Michigan SB 701 |
Defines “foreign law,” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.” |
In Senate Committee on Government Operations. |
| Minnesota SB 2281 |
Provides “A court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on a law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the Minnesota Constitution and the United States Constitution, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the Minnesota Constitution.” |
Withdrawn by author 3/5/12. |
| Mississippi HB 2 |
Provides “”Foreign law” means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states
or territories of the United States…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” |
In House Judiciary A Committee. Probably dead; failed to advance out of committee before deadline. |
| Mississippi HB 698 |
Prohibit use of international or Sharia law by state’s judiciary. |
In House Judiciary A Committee. Probably dead; failed to advance out of committee before deadline. |
| Missouri HB 1512 |
Provides court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States and Missouri constitutions, including, but not limited to, due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state. |
Approved by House Rules Committee 3/8/12. |
| Missouri SB 676 |
Mandates that any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling shall be unenforceable if based on a foreign law that does not grant the parties the same rights as the parties have under the United States and Missouri constitutions. |
Approved by Senate General Laws Committee 2/28/12. |
| Nebraska LB 647 |
Declares a court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decisions the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Nebraska. |
In Senate Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. |
| New Hampshire HB 1422 |
Declares that no New Hampshire court shall enforce foreign law or a state law enforcing foreign law if such enforcement violates an individual’s or corporation’s rights under the New Hampshire constitution or the United States Constitution. |
Approved as amended by full House 2/22/12. |
| New Jersey AB 919 |
Provides that a foreign law may only be recognized by a court in New Jersey if it does not violate any right guaranteed by the Constitution of this State or of the United States of America. |
Author has announced she will withdraw bill 3/13/12. |
| New Mexico SJR 14 (Constitutional Amendment) |
Provides “The courts provided for in this article, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States constitution, the constitution of New Mexico, statutes of the United States and federal regulations adopted pursuant thereto, established common law, New Mexico statutes and state regulations adopted pursuant thereto and, if necessary, the law of another state of the United States, provided that the law of the other state does not include Sharia law. The courts shall not consider or apply a rule of comity to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, international law, laws promulgated by foreign governments or national laws of foreign countries if the consideration or application of the foreign precepts or laws would violate the public policy of the state of New Mexico or reduce or impair the rights of any resident of the state of New Mexico existing under New Mexico statutes or common law governing child custody, rights of married persons, property rights, protection from domestic violence or any criminal law. The courts shall not consider or apply Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts, including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.” |
In Senate Rules Committee. Died when legislature adjourned. |
| North Carolina HB 640 |
Declares “it to be the public policy of this State to protect its citizens from the application of foreign law that would result in the violation of a right of a natural person guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution or the United States Constitution. The public policies expressed in this section shall apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of a constitutional right resulting from the application of the foreign law.” |
In House Committee on Judiciary Subcommittee C. Carried over from 2011 session. |
| Oklahoma HB 1552 |
Provides any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, rule, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions. |
Approved by full House 3/17/11. In Senate Rules Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. |
| Pennsylvania HB 2029 |
Provides a tribunal shall not consider a foreign legal code or system which does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Pennsylvania. |
In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. |
| South Carolina HB 3490 |
Provides “As used in this section, the term “foreign law” means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in or by another jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.” |
In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. |
| South Carolina SB 444 |
Provides “As used in this section, the term ‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in or by another jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories….A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.” |
In Senate Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. |
| South Dakota HB 1253 |
ORIGINAL: “No court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative mediation or enforcement authority may render any judgment predicated on any religious code or enforce any provisions of any religious code.” AS AMENDED: “No court, administrative agency, or other governmental agency may enforce any provisions of any religious code.” |
Signed into law by Governor 3/12/12. |
| South Dakota SB 136 |
ORIGINAL: Provides any ruling or decision that makes use of international or foreign law is void and unenforceable if the court bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the constitutions of the United States and South Dakota, including due process of law, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically provided by the constitution of this state. Foreign law, legal code, or system is any foreign law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Specifies the term foreign law does not include any tribal laws of the Native American tribes in the state. AS AMENDED: “No court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative mediation or enforcement authority may render any judgment predicated on any religious code or enforce any provisions of any religious code.” |
Deferred to 41st day (i.e. killed) by Senate Judiciary Committee 2/2/12. |
| Virginia HB 631 |
Provides that court decisions and contracts and other agreements will be void as violative of the public policy of the Commonwealth where such decisions or contracts are based on foreign law, i.e., law applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States, where the application of such foreign law would violate a person’s rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of Virginia. |
Continued to 2013 by House Committee for Courts of Justice 2/10/12. |
| Virginia HB 825 |
Prohibits any Virginia court or administrative agency from applying the law of any jurisdiction outside of the United States and its territories unless the application is required by the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia, or any federal or state law. |
Approved by House Committee for Courts of Justice 2/3/12. Continued to 2013 by House Committee for Courts of Justice 2/10/12. |
| West Virginia HB 3220 |
Provides “”foreign law, legal code or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals…It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code or system against a natural person in this state is whether the decision rendered either violated or would violate any right of the natural person in this state guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of West Virginia or the United States Constitution or any statute or decision under those Constitutions.” |
In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. Died when legislature adjourned. |
These study scholarships aim to provide foreign applicants from the fields of Fine Art, Design, Film, Music, Architecture as well as Performing Arts (Drama, Direction, Dance, Choreography, etc.) with an opportunity to complete a course of extension studies, without gaining a formal degree or qualification, or to complete a postgraduate or Masteras degree course to gain a degree in Germany (Masteras/Diplom), at a German state (public) or state-recognised higher education institution
The Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (AvH) offers, through the Feodor Lynen Programme, an opportunity to highly qualified German scholars from all academic disciplines to carry out long-term research projects (one to four years) at institutes outside Germany. The host must be a foreign scholar formerly sponsored by the foundation (research fellow or research award winner).
The Jacobs Foundation supports research and intervention projects in the field of Productive Youth Development. In this context, the foundation focuses on the value chain paradigm: innovative research, practical testing of the findings in pilot interventions and market introduction, which ensures the systematic application of tested models on a larger scale.
DebRA funds both clinical research, and fundamental scientific research, aimed at an enhanced understanding of Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB), of direct relevance to the diagnosis, treatment and, ultimately, cure of EB. Clinical research funding is available to support varied programs of work, from project grants, to clinical research fellowships (to provide logistical support to key clinicians, facilitating careeer development in EB research). Small amounts of pump priming grants (to enable pilot-scale data collection in support of a hypothesis, or to allow small-scale pieces of work to be undertaken) are also available.
The Royal Society of Edinburgh is keen to facilitate, encourage, and support research collaboration in all areas between Scottish and overseas research groups. The object of the International Exchange Programmes funded by the Scottish Executive is to enable scholars and researchers to come to Scotland or to visit overseas from their Scottish academic base for a short period of time with a view to establishing ongoing collaboration.
Temporarily Suspended!
legalweek
Linklaters is planning to apply for a licence to practise local law in Singapore following the confirmation last month (13 March) that it has ended its joint venture with top-tier Singapore firm Allen & Gledhill (A&G). Instead of pursuing another formal alliance in the region, the magic circle firm now intends to engage in several informal referral relationships with local law firms, as well as growing its own practice by hiring lawyers with Singapore law expertise.
legalweek
Linklaters and Allens Arthur Robinson (AAR) are set to vote on an exclusive formal alliance next month, as the Australian firm’s former best friend Slaughter and May reconsiders its relationships in the region. Following ongoing discussions, Linklaters will vote on the proposed agreement at its partner conference next month, with a vote at AAR expected to follow shortly after.
Personal Injury Lawyer Los Angeles – FREE CONSULTATION by Personal Injury Attorney Los Angeles – Legal Defenders, Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyers – Law Offices of Burg and Brock, who have won over $100 million in verdicts and settlements for clients
Page took 6 seconds to load.
|
