法律英语阅读练习题

Unit 2 Administrative LawExerciseDiscussing the following topics:1.What is the issue of the case?Whether the respondent had acted without and in excess of its powers and that the evidence was insufficient to justify the findings of fact.2.On what grounds , did the petitioner seek an annulment of the award?Petitioner State Employee’s Retirement System seeks an annulment of the award , on the grounds that respondent Commission had acted without and in excess of its powers and that the evidence was insufficient to justify the findings of fact.3.What finding did the respondent make upon the facts adduced at the hearing?Upon the facts adduced at the hearing , summary of which has been given above, respondent Industrial Accident Commission made its finding that Karl Lund had sustained injury occurring in the course of and arising out of employment proximately causing his death from inhalation of carbon monoxide fumes.4.What is the holding of the District Court?The District Court of Appeal held that death arose out of and inthe course of employment , and the award is affirmed.5.Why neither awards may be annulled?Because there are two conclusions which fairly may be drawn from the evidence , both of which are reasonable, the one sustaining the other opposing the right to compensation . Nor may an award be rejected solely on the basis of moral or ethical considerations.P28 exercisesDiscussing the following topics;1.What is the issue of this case?Whether or not to allow a deportable alien to leave the country voluntarily.2.What is the opinion of the Court of Appeals?Exarchou has sustained his burden of established good moral character under s 19 (c) of the Immigration Act of 1917 , former 8 U.S.C.155 (c) ,and is entitled to further consideration of his application . Whether any other factors may warrant the Service in not following its 1951 and 1953 grants of discretionary relief to Exarchou is not now before us.3.The Immigration and Naturalization Service granted the Relator --Appellant Permission twice for relief he now seeks , what are they?In March 1951 , following the initial determination of his deportability ,it recommended that his deportation should be suspended. And for the second time ,the Service granted him permission to depart from the country voluntarily.4.What is the decision of the Special Inquiry Office upon the investigation of Immigration and Naturalization Service?The Special Inquiry Officer , reversing the Service’s earlier position , found that Exarchou had not sustained his burden of proof as to good moral character and hence was ineligible for the exercise of discretion which would allow him to depart from voluntarily.5.Why did the court reverse the shift of position of the Service?The evidence is not sufficient to justify the Service’s present shift to position as to Exarchou’s good moral character.Unit 3 Antitrust Law P 37Discussing the following topics1. What is the cause of action of the lawsuit brought by the United States against Sealy, Inc.?The United States alleged that Sealy ,Inc.had violated 1 of the Sherman Act , 26 Stat.209 , as amended , 15 U.S. C. 1, by conspiring with its licensees to fix the prices at which the retailcustomers of the licensees might resell bedding products bearing the Sealy name, and to allocate mutually exclusive territories among such manufacturer --licensees.2.What did the trial court find?The District Court found that Sealy Inc.was engaged in a continuing conspiracy with its manufacturer --licensees to agree upon and fix minimum retail prices on Sealy products and to police the prices so fixed . However , the trial court held that the US had not proved conduct in unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Sherman Act with respect to its allegation that Sealy Inc.conspired to allocate mutually exclusive territory among its manufacturers.3.What did the trial court rule on Sealy Inc. ‘s price--fixing activities?It enjoined Sealy Inc.from conspiracy of price-fixing.4.What is the issue for the Court to decide?Whether the appellee conspired to allocate mutually exclusive territory among its manufacturers。

5.What did this case distinguish from White Motor Co. V. United States?The case distinguished from White Motor in that the nature of appellee’s conduct was horizontal restraints while White Motor involved a vertical territorial limitation.6.What is the holding of the case?The appellee conspired of allocate mutually exclusive territory among its manufacturers.7.What the Appellee’s activities did the Court find violation of Sherman Act?The stockholder -licensee representative as the board of directors , the Executive Committee , or other committees of Sealy, Inc.discuss , agree upon and set (a）The retail prices at which Sealy products could be sold; (b) The retail prices at which Sealy products could be advertised; (c) The comparative retail prices at which the stockholder -licensees and the Sealy retailers could advertise Sealy products; (d) The minimum retail prices below which Sealy products could not be sold; and (f) The means of inducing and enforcing retailers to adhere to these agreed upon and set prices.8.What is the judgment?The judgment of the District Court is reversed and the case remanded for the entry of an appropriate decree.ExercisesP40Discussing the following topics1.What is the holding of the trial court?2.What is the decision of the Court of Appeals?3.What the Court of Appeals erred in according to the Supreme Court?4.What is (are ) the issue (s) of this case?5.The respondents hold their status as “mere instrumentalities of a single manufacturing merchandising unit,” what is the opinion of the Supreme Court on this point?。