Suchergebnisse

This issue of the VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW contains two outstanding student pieces on bankruptcy law. Few would be surprised by this observation. As to the quality of the works, they fall in with a long tradition of outstanding student scholarship published by the REVIEW. The choice of topic-bankruptcy law-also does not raise eyebrows. After all, Congress has recently enacted the most sweeping changes to the Bankruptcy Code since its original enactment in 1978. This legislation was the culmination of a more than decade long effort to revise our nation's bankruptcy law. Any major reform effort of this scope surely generates puzzles for students to solve. One would expect that the coming years will see a steady flow of student work grappling with the changes wrought by the new legislation. Constitutional issues and interpretative problems have already hit the courts, and ambitious students looking for challenging legal issues on which to hone their analytical skills will find much in the new law to keep them busy.

The subject. The article reveals the concept of "estoppel" as a mechanism prohibiting the change of position depending on the change of circumstances or the passage of time. The purpose of the paper is to identify is it possible to use estoppel in procedural relations in Russia. Methodology. The author uses the methods of the analysis of legal literature as well as the formal-legal interpretation of the Commercial Procedure Code, the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The main results and scope of their application. The development of civil and civil proce-dural legal relations virtually requires the study and application of the doctrinal and practice rules that are new for Russia, but well-known abroad. Among such is the rule of estoppel. It presents a mechanism that prohibits changing of position depending on the change of circumstances or the passage of time. The rule of estoppel attracts the attention of special-ists in both civil and civil procedural law, but, despite having the same name, the rule pos-sesses different qualities in substantive and procedural law. Thus, in procedural relations it is necessary to take into account that the court is a necessary participant of any civil proce-dural relationship. The actions of the parties in themselves do not give rise to any legal consequences; for they must be allowed (sanctioned) by the court. The main difficulty concerns not with the application of the norms fixing the institute of es-toppel, but with the court's qualification of the case in fact as an estoppel situation. The court should receive a clear and unambiguous position from the party and fix it. Such a fixation is possible, in particular, in a decision that has entered into legal force. The estoppel by judgment used in these cases differs from other kinds of estoppel in that it prevents parties from chal-lenging the circumstances established in a court decision. It is not connected to the actions of the party, which during the whole process defended the position opposite to that which was ultimately put by the court into the basis of the decision. In the future, a party to a new process may reiterate the same facts and circumstances that it asserted earlier. Thus, her position changes in comparison not with her own previous behavior, but rather with a valid judicial decision, which she must observe. Conclusions. The Russian legislation contains certain provisions allowing for the use of estop-pel rule in procedural relations: these are, for example, rules on procedural agreements and rules concerning validity of a court decision. However, considering the specifics of procedural legal relations and the role of the court within them, and taking into account the procedural rights of the parties, the use of estoppel is only possible with the help of legally established methods for the fixation of the participant's position and his "changing behavior".

The subject. The article reveals the concept of "estoppel" as a mechanism prohibiting the change of position depending on the change of circumstances or the passage of time. The purpose of the paper is to identify is it possible to use estoppel in procedural relations in Russia. Methodology. The author uses the methods of the analysis of legal literature as well as the formal-legal interpretation of the Commercial Procedure Code, the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The main results and scope of their application. The development of civil and civil proce-dural legal relations virtually requires the study and application of the doctrinal and practice rules that are new for Russia, but well-known abroad. Among such is the rule of estoppel. It presents a mechanism that prohibits changing of position depending on the change of circumstances or the passage of time. The rule of estoppel attracts the attention of special-ists in both civil and civil procedural law, but, despite having the same name, the rule pos-sesses different qualities in substantive and procedural law. Thus, in procedural relations it is necessary to take into account that the court is a necessary participant of any civil proce-dural relationship. The actions of the parties in themselves do not give rise to any legal consequences; for they must be allowed (sanctioned) by the court. The main difficulty concerns not with the application of the norms fixing the institute of es-toppel, but with the court's qualification of the case in fact as an estoppel situation. The court should receive a clear and unambiguous position from the party and fix it. Such a fixation is possible, in particular, in a decision that has entered into legal force. The estoppel by judgment used in these cases differs from other kinds of estoppel in that it prevents parties from chal-lenging the circumstances established in a court decision. It is not connected to the actions of the party, which during the whole process defended the position opposite to that which was ultimately put by the court into the basis of the decision. In the future, a party to a new process may reiterate the same facts and circumstances that it asserted earlier. Thus, her position changes in comparison not with her own previous behavior, but rather with a valid judicial decision, which she must observe. Conclusions. The Russian legislation contains certain provisions allowing for the use of estop-pel rule in procedural relations: these are, for example, rules on procedural agreements and rules concerning validity of a court decision. However, considering the specifics of procedural legal relations and the role of the court within them, and taking into account the procedural rights of the parties, the use of estoppel is only possible with the help of legally established methods for the fixation of the participant's position and his "changing behavior".

The subject. The article reveals the concept of "estoppel" as a mechanism prohibiting the change of position depending on the change of circumstances or the passage of time. The purpose of the paper is to identify is it possible to use estoppel in procedural relations in Russia. Methodology. The author uses the methods of the analysis of legal literature as well as the formal-legal interpretation of the Commercial Procedure Code, the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The main results and scope of their application. The development of civil and civil proce-dural legal relations virtually requires the study and application of the doctrinal and practice rules that are new for Russia, but well-known abroad. Among such is the rule of estoppel. It presents a mechanism that prohibits changing of position depending on the change of circumstances or the passage of time. The rule of estoppel attracts the attention of special-ists in both civil and civil procedural law, but, despite having the same name, the rule pos-sesses different qualities in substantive and procedural law. Thus, in procedural relations it is necessary to take into account that the court is a necessary participant of any civil proce-dural relationship. The actions of the parties in themselves do not give rise to any legal consequences; for they must be allowed (sanctioned) by the court. The main difficulty concerns not with the application of the norms fixing the institute of es-toppel, but with the court's qualification of the case in fact as an estoppel situation. The court should receive a clear and unambiguous position from the party and fix it. Such a fixation is possible, in particular, in a decision that has entered into legal force. The estoppel by judgment used in these cases differs from other kinds of estoppel in that it prevents parties from chal-lenging the circumstances established in a court decision. It is not connected to the actions of the party, which during the whole process defended the position opposite to that which was ultimately put by the court into the basis of the decision. In the future, a party to a new process may reiterate the same facts and circumstances that it asserted earlier. Thus, her position changes in comparison not with her own previous behavior, but rather with a valid judicial decision, which she must observe. Conclusions. The Russian legislation contains certain provisions allowing for the use of estop-pel rule in procedural relations: these are, for example, rules on procedural agreements and rules concerning validity of a court decision. However, considering the specifics of procedural legal relations and the role of the court within them, and taking into account the procedural rights of the parties, the use of estoppel is only possible with the help of legally established methods for the fixation of the participant's position and his "changing behavior".

The subject. The article reveals the concept of "estoppel" as a mechanism prohibiting the change of position depending on the change of circumstances or the passage of time. The purpose of the paper is to identify is it possible to use estoppel in procedural relations in Russia. Methodology. The author uses the methods of the analysis of legal literature as well as the formal-legal interpretation of the Commercial Procedure Code, the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The main results and scope of their application. The development of civil and civil proce-dural legal relations virtually requires the study and application of the doctrinal and practice rules that are new for Russia, but well-known abroad. Among such is the rule of estoppel. It presents a mechanism that prohibits changing of position depending on the change of circumstances or the passage of time. The rule of estoppel attracts the attention of special-ists in both civil and civil procedural law, but, despite having the same name, the rule pos-sesses different qualities in substantive and procedural law. Thus, in procedural relations it is necessary to take into account that the court is a necessary participant of any civil proce-dural relationship. The actions of the parties in themselves do not give rise to any legal consequences; for they must be allowed (sanctioned) by the court. The main difficulty concerns not with the application of the norms fixing the institute of es-toppel, but with the court's qualification of the case in fact as an estoppel situation. The court should receive a clear and unambiguous position from the party and fix it. Such a fixation is possible, in particular, in a decision that has entered into legal force. The estoppel by judgment used in these cases differs from other kinds of estoppel in that it prevents parties from chal-lenging the circumstances established in a court decision. It is not connected to the actions of the party, which during the whole process defended the position opposite to that which was ultimately put by the court into the basis of the decision. In the future, a party to a new process may reiterate the same facts and circumstances that it asserted earlier. Thus, her position changes in comparison not with her own previous behavior, but rather with a valid judicial decision, which she must observe. Conclusions. The Russian legislation contains certain provisions allowing for the use of estop-pel rule in procedural relations: these are, for example, rules on procedural agreements and rules concerning validity of a court decision. However, considering the specifics of procedural legal relations and the role of the court within them, and taking into account the procedural rights of the parties, the use of estoppel is only possible with the help of legally established methods for the fixation of the participant's position and his "changing behavior".

CASES OF CURRENT INTEREST AND IMPORTANCE PREVIOUSLY NOTED Baker v. State, 184 Tenn. 503 (1947), 1 Vand. L. Rev. 127 (1947). Accessory after the fact--when is felony complete? Black v. Black, 202 S. W. 2d 659 (Tenn. 1947), 20 Tenn. L. Rev. 201 (1948).' Effect of reciting an oral contract to sell land in an undelivered deed. Churn v. State, 184 Tenn. 646 (1947), 20 Tenn. L. Rev. 195 (1948). Testimony of arresting officers. Davis v. Beeler, 207 S. W. 2d 343 (Tenn. 1947), 1 Vand. L. Rev. 451 (1948). Prohibition of practice of naturopathy in Tennessee. Elliott v. Fuqua, 204 S. W. 2d 1016 (Tenn. 1947), 1 Vand. L. Rev. 309(1948). Special legislation-population as basis for classification. Hanm v. Harmn, 204 S. W. 2d 113 (Tenn. 1947), 1 Vand. L. Rev. 161 (1947). Estoppel to challenge validity of void divorce decree.

The subject. The article reveals the concept of "estoppel" as a mechanism prohibiting the change of position depending on the change of circumstances or the passage of time.The purpose of the paper is to identify is it possible to use estoppel in procedural relations in Russia.Methodology. The author uses the methods of the analysis of legal literature as well as the formal-legal interpretation of the Commercial Procedure Code, the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.The main results and scope of their application. The development of civil and civil procedural legal relations virtually requires the study and application of the doctrinal and practice rules that are new for Russia, but well-known abroad. Among such is the rule of estoppel. It presents a mechanism that prohibits changing of position depending on the change of circumstances or the passage of time. The rule of estoppel attracts the attention of specialists in both civil and civil procedural law, but, despite having the same name, the rule possesses different qualities in substantive and procedural law. Thus, in procedural relations it is necessary to take into account that the court is a necessary participant of any civil procedural relationship. The actions of the parties in themselves do not give rise to any legal consequences; for they must be allowed (sanctioned) by the court.The main difficulty concerns not with the application of the norms fixing the institute of estoppel, but with the court's qualification of the case in fact as an estoppel situation. The court should receive a clear and unambiguous position from the party and fix it. Such a fixation is possible, in particular, in a decision that has entered into legal force. The estoppel by judgment used in these cases differs from other kinds of estoppel in that it prevents parties from challenging the circumstances established in a court decision. It is not connected to the actions of the party, which during the whole process defended the position opposite to that which was ultimately put by the court into the basis of the decision. In the future, a party to a new process may reiterate the same facts and circumstances that it asserted earlier. Thus, her position changes in comparison not with her own previous behavior, but rather with a valid judicial decision, which she must observe.Conclusions. The Russian legislation contains certain provisions allowing for the use of estoppel rule in procedural relations: these are, for example, rules on procedural agreements and rules concerning validity of a court decision. However, considering the specifics of procedural legal relations and the role of the court within them, and taking into account the procedural rights of the parties, the use of estoppel is only possible with the help of legally established methods for the fixation of the participant's position and his "changing behavior". ; Раскрывается понятие «эстоппель» (еstoppel) как механизм, запрещающий менять позицию в зависимости от изменения обстоятельств или по истечении времени. Эстоппель имеет множество разновидностей, в том числе и процессуальных. Обосновывается, что в настоящее время в российском законодательстве существуют положения, позволяющие применять правило эстоппель в процессуальных отношениях: это, например, правила о процессуальных соглашениях и правила действия законной силы судебного решения. Однако, учитывая специфику процессуальных правоотношений и роль суда в них, а также процессуальные права сторон, применение правила эстоппель возможно лишь при установленных законом способах фиксации и самой позиции участника, и его «изменяющегося поведения».