法律英語(yǔ)閱讀教程

前言

眾所周知，美國(guó)法是英美法系的典型代表，其法律體系完整、內(nèi)容豐富，既有傳統(tǒng)的普通法，又有新興的成文法；既有統(tǒng)一的聯(lián)邦法，又有各州的法律。同時(shí)，美國(guó)法在世界范圍內(nèi)影響深遠(yuǎn)，學(xué)習(xí)研究美國(guó)法意義重大，這不僅表現(xiàn)為許多國(guó)家都在研究美國(guó)的法律規(guī)則，借鑒其成熟做法，還表現(xiàn)為許多國(guó)際公約也參照美國(guó)法的理念、原則、規(guī)則制定。因此，本書主要選取了美國(guó)法案例作為閱讀理解材料，希望讀者通過(guò)研讀這些部門法的經(jīng)典案例，學(xué)習(xí)權(quán)威、實(shí)用的美國(guó)法律知識(shí)，掌握地道、純正的法律英語(yǔ)。本書具有以下特點(diǎn)：首先，編者參考了大量的美國(guó)原版法學(xué)書籍，包括美國(guó)法學(xué)院教材及大量判例，力求實(shí)現(xiàn)教材內(nèi)容的權(quán)威性和豐富性。其次，本書作為法律英語(yǔ)閱讀教材，選取了極具代表性的英文案例。英美法系是判例法系，無(wú)論是法官還是律師都特別注重對(duì)判例的研究，因此學(xué)習(xí)美國(guó)法不能繞過(guò)案例。通過(guò)研究案例，了解法官判案推理過(guò)程和有關(guān)法律、法規(guī)的適用，更有利于學(xué)習(xí)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的法律英語(yǔ)。也更容易掌握美國(guó)法的精髓。本書選取了幾十個(gè)經(jīng)典案例，以期最大程度的展現(xiàn)美國(guó)法原貌。再次，本書在每個(gè)案例的后面都附有問(wèn)答練習(xí)題，以期幫助讀者檢查自己學(xué)習(xí)研讀案例的程度水平。法律英語(yǔ)證書（Legal English Certificate，簡(jiǎn)稱LEC）全國(guó)統(tǒng)一考試旨在為國(guó)家機(jī)關(guān)、涉外企事業(yè)單位、律師事務(wù)所等提供招募國(guó)際性人才的客觀標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，同時(shí)督促國(guó)內(nèi)法律從業(yè)人員提高專業(yè)英語(yǔ)水平。LEC考試的題型、考查內(nèi)容與美國(guó)律師資格考試相近，同時(shí)又突出了法律英語(yǔ)語(yǔ)言運(yùn)用特色，并結(jié)合中國(guó)實(shí)際增加了法律英語(yǔ)翻譯測(cè)試。公檢法機(jī)關(guān)和企事業(yè)單位涉外法務(wù)工作人員；從事涉外法務(wù)的律師、公司法律部門的從業(yè)人員；高等院校法律、英語(yǔ)、經(jīng)貿(mào)等專業(yè)學(xué)生；愿意從事法律英語(yǔ)教學(xué)的教師以及社會(huì)上一切法律英語(yǔ)愛(ài)好者均可參加LEC考試。

內(nèi)容概要

隨著我國(guó)入世和世界經(jīng)濟(jì)一體化進(jìn)程的不斷加快，國(guó)際交流合作日益增多，涉外法務(wù)活動(dòng)空前頻繁，法律英語(yǔ)的重要性日益凸顯。掌握專業(yè)英語(yǔ)已經(jīng)成為現(xiàn)代法律人必備的職業(yè)素質(zhì)。由于法律英語(yǔ)的特殊性，國(guó)內(nèi)一直沒(méi)有一個(gè)科學(xué)的考核指標(biāo)衡量法律從業(yè)人員專業(yè)英語(yǔ)的掌握程度。法律英語(yǔ)證書（LEC）全國(guó)統(tǒng)一考試的推出為我國(guó)法律英語(yǔ)的教與學(xué)指明了方向，意義重大，影響深遠(yuǎn)。

書籍目錄

Unit 1  Introduction to Legal Reading Skills  1. The Specific Ski]Is of Legal Reading  2. The Structure of a Judicial Opinion  3. Frequently Used Legal Terms in Opinions  4. Speed and ComprehensionUnit 2  Administrative Law  STATE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION ET AL  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL GEORGE EXARCHOU v. JOHN L MURFF, DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION AT THE PORT OF NEW YORKUnit 3  Antitrust Law  UNITED STATES v. SEALY, INC.   KIEFER--STEWART CO. v. JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM &SONS, INC., ET ALUnit 4  Banking and Finance Law  CHATSKY AND ASSOCIATES ET AL v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY;BANK OF AMERICA CORP., REAL PARTY IN INTEREST.    THE CITIZENS BANK v. ALAFABCO,INC. , ET AL.  Unit 5  Civil Procedure  AUSLEY v. BISHOP  CALDER ET AL v. JONESUnit 6  Constitutional Law  BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA  BOOS ET AL v. BARRY, MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET ALUnit 7  Contract Law  LEFKOWITZ v. GREAT MINNEAPOLIS SURPLUS STORE,INC.    JOSEPH FRASER v. DONALD D. EDMISTENUnit 8  Corporation Law  DEWITF TRUCK BROKER, INC. v. W. RAY FLEMMING FRUIT COMPANY AND W. REY FLEMMING  ANDREW H. SCHNELL v. CHRIS--CRAFT INDUSTRIES,INC.　Unit 9  Criminal Law  THE PEOPLE &C. v. KEITH ANTWINE  THE PEOPLE &C. v. JAMES BYRNE  Unit 10  Criminal Procedure　UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOSE O. ORTEGA-SKNTANA  RICHARD J. TAYLOR,JR. v. UNITED STATES.　Unit 11  Employment Law  ALFREDO AVILES v. CORNELL FORGE COMPANY  AMANDA BENT BOLT COMPANY,AMANDA, OHIOA v. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,LOCAL 1549,ET AT.  Unit 12  Environmental Law  CITIZENS TO PRESERVE OVERTON PARK v. VOLPE    KEY TRONIC CORPORATION, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE; DONALD B. RICE, SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY  Unit 13  Evidence Law　UNITED STATES v. MNUEL P. AMARAL　UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MARIA CHRISTINA HURTADO AND AUGUSTINE ARAGONES,JR.  Unit 14  Family Law    ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL　S. W. v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTYUnit 15  Intellectual Property Law  　 HENRI'S FOOD PRODUCTS CO. INC. v. TASTY SNACKS, INC.  　 PIONEER HI--BRED INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. J. E. M. AG SUPPLY, INC. , FARM ADVANTAGE, INC. , LARRY BENZ, MERLE PRUETT, KEVIN WOLFSWINKEL,TIM KAMSTRA, AND TOM EISCHEN SEED AND CHEMICALS  Unit 16  Property Law　DOROTHY MOORE AND KENT REINHARDT v. RUBY F. PHILLIPS, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ADA CHLOE BRANNAN,DECEASED  LEECO GAS &OIL COMPANY v. COUNTY OF NUECES.Unit 17  Torts  JEFFREY J. HARPER v. THEODOR H. HERMAN  THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS-PAN AMERICAN v. TONY AGUILAR AND KAY MARIE AGUILAR  BIG TOWN NURSING HOME, INC. v. HOWARD TERRY NEWMANAppendix I  Key to ExercisesAppendix II 常用拉丁語(yǔ)法律詞匯Sources of Reading Materials Used in this Book

章節(jié)摘錄

插圖：JUSTICE REHNQUlST delivered the opinion of the CourtRespondent Shirley Jones bwught suit in California Superior Court claiming that she hadbeen libeled in all article written and edited by petitioners in Horida.The article was publishedin a national magazine with a large circulation in California.Petitioners were se~ed withprocess by mail in Horida and caused special appearances to be entered on their behalf'movingto quash the service of process for lack of personal[465 U.S.783，785] jurisdiction.TheSuperior Court granted the motion on the ground that First Amendment concerns weighedagainst an assertion of jurisdiction otherwise proper under the Due Process Clause.TheCalifornia Court of Appeal reversed'rejecting the suggestion that First Amendmentconsiderations enter into the jurisdictional analysis.We now affirm.Respondent lives and works in California.She and her husband brought this suit againstthe National Enquirer，Inc。，its local distributing company，and petitioners for libel，invasion ofprivacy，and intentional infliction of emotional harm.The Enquirer is a Florida corporation withits principal place of business in Florida.It publishes a national weekly newspaper with a totalcirculation of over 5 million.About 600，000 of those copies’almost twice the level of the nexthighest State，are sold in California.Respondent’s and her husband’s claims were based on anarticle that appeared in the Enquirer's October 9’1979，issue.Both the Enquirer and thedistributing company answered the complaint and made no objection to the jurisdiction of theCaifornia court.Petitioner South is a reporter employed by the Enquirer.He is a resident of Florida，thoughhe frequently travels to California on business.South wrote the first draft of the challengedarticle，and his byline appeared on it.He did most of his research in Horida’relying on phonecalls to sources in California for the information contained in the article.Shortly beforepublication，South called respondent’s[465 U.S.783，786]home and read to her husband adraft of the article so as to elicit his comments upon it.Aside from his frequent trips and phonecalls’South has no other relevant contacts with California.Petitioner Calder is also a Horida resident.He has been to California only twice——once，ona pleasure trip，prior to the publication of the article and once after to testify in an unrelatedtrial.Calder is president and editor of the Enquirer.He”oversee[s]just about every function ofthe Enquirer.”App.24。He reviewed and approved the initial evaluation of the subject of thearticle and edited it in its final form.He also declined to print a retraction requested byrespondent.Calder has no other relevant contacts with California.

圖書封面

評(píng)論、評(píng)分、閱讀與下載

---

    法律英語(yǔ)閱讀教程 PDF格式下載

---