法律英语case brief

1Title ：Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas

2 Facts: Summarize the facts of the case. List only the essential facts that you need to understand the holding and reasoning of the case. minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis. In each instance, they had been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.

This case is a consolidation of several different cases from Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. Several black children (through their legal representatives, Ps) sought admission to public schools that required or permitted segregation based on race. The plaintiffs alleged that segregation was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In all but one case, a three judge federal district court cited Plessy v. Ferguson in denying relief under the “separate but equal” doctrine. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs contended that segregated schools were not and could not be made equal and that they were therefore deprived of equal protection of the laws.

3 Procedure: Most of the cases that you'll read in law school will be appellate court decisions. In this section, you want to list what happened in the lower court(s). Do not go into too much detail. One or two sentences are sufficient for this section.

In each of the cases other than the Delaware case, a three-judge federal district court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called "separate but equal" doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537. Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate.

In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered that the plaintiffs be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the Negro schools.

4 Issue(s): What is/are the question(s) facing the court? Form the issue questions in a way that they can be answered by yes or no.

Do separate but equal laws in the area of public education deprive black children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution)?

Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

Is the race-based segregation of children into “separate but equal”public schools constitutional?

5 Holding: How did the court answer the issue question(s)? YES/NO?

We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

No. The race-based segregation of children into “separate but equal”public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Earl Warren (J. Warren) stated that even if the “tangible” factors of segregated schools are equal, to separate black children from others of similar age and qualifications solely on the basis of race, generates a feeling of inferiority with respect to their status in the community and may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely to ever be undone.

Segregation of children in the public schools solely on the basis of race denies to black children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, even though the physical facilities and other may be equal. Education in public schools is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

The question presented in these cases must be determined not on the basis of conditions existing when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, but in the light of the role of public education in American life today. The separate but equal doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson, which applied to transportation, has no place in the field of public education.

Separating black children from others solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The impact of segregation is greater when it has the sanction of law. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law tends to impede the educational and mental development of black children and deprives them of some of the benefits they would receive in an integrated school system. Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority and any language to the contrary in Plessy v. Ferguson is rejected.

6 Reasoning: This is the most important section of your case brief. Here you want to list the reasoning of the majority in reaching its decision. Y ou can actually be quite detailed in this section. List what the law was before this case was decided and how the law has changed after this decision. Law professors love to discuss the reasoning of a case in class discussions.

https://www.sodocs.net/doc/33548781.html,cation is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education., Such an opportunity where the st ate has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

2."Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon

the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system."

布朗诉托皮卡教育局案（Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 全名Oliver Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al.，简称 Brown case）是一件美国史上非常重要、具有指标意义的一件诉讼案。该案于1954年5月17日由美国最高法院做成决定，法院判决种族隔离本质上就是一种不平等（inherently unequal），因此原告与被告双方所争执的“黑人与白人学童不得进入同一所学校就读”的种族隔离法律必须排除“隔离但平等”（separate but equal）法律原则的适用（该原则由普莱西诉弗格森案──简称 Plessey case──所建立）[1]，因此种族隔离的法律因为剥夺了黑人学童的入学权利而违反了美国宪法第14条修正案中所保障的同等保护权（equal protection）[2]而违宪，该法律因而不得在个案中适用，学童不得基于种族因素被拒绝入学。因为本判决的缘故，终止了美国社会中存在已久白人和黑人必须分别就读不同公立学校（public school，这里仅限于中小学 elementary school）的种族隔离现象。从本判决后“隔离但平等”的法律原则被推翻，任何法律上的种族隔离随后都可能因违反宪法所保障的同等保护权而被判决违宪；同时本案也开启了接下来数年中美国开始废止一切有关种族隔离的措施；美国的民权运动也因为本案迈进一大步，此后数年中美国社会的种族融合与民权扩张方兴未艾。

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954),[1] was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional. The decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896 which allowed state-sponsored segregation. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9–0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This ruling paved the way for integration and the civil rights movement.[

Briggs case

Briggs v. Elliott[9]的发生是从1947年当地的家长们要求学校提供接送学童上下学的校车开始的[10]。当地的黑人学校不仅校舍差，和白人学校相比还少了接驳车，黑人学童必须走路上学。黑人学校的校长Rev. Joseph Armstrong DeLaine接触白人学校的管理者要求他们提供校车以帮助黑人学童们，但白人学校的管理人提出反驳，认为黑人缴的税不够多，无法支付接驳车的开销，因此要求白人纳税者提供接驳服务并不公平。DeLaine 写信请求州政府教育当局的协助也没有发挥作用，最后黑人学童家长联合募了一笔钱买了一台二手车充作接驳车用，然而后续的维修及燃料费用仍然是一个大问题。

隔年 DeLaine 决定采取法律行动，虽然因为一些技术细节遭法院驳回，但在1949年，DeLaine 收集到足够量的签名，再次提起集体诉讼（Class Action），同时 NAACP 也决定支助他们的诉讼费用。这次的诉讼不只要求校车，另外还积极要求州政府提供平等的教育设施。两个月后，诉讼的目标从要求改善设施转为攻击种族隔离设施。

法院引用了“隔离但平等”的原则，判决原告败诉，但是要求教育当局改善黑人学校的设施。NAACP 不满此判决而提出上诉至最高法院，因此成为后来 Brown case 的一部份。

Briggs case 在地方引起了很大的反弹，几个原告分别被老板解雇，而校长 DeLaine 也被撤职，他的房子更是被仇视者烧了。在判决中提出不同意见支持原告的法官 Walter Waring 也被南卡罗莱那州（South Carolina）众议院和议罢免。

Davis case

Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County[11]是从一群黑人学生的罢课活动开始的[12]。在当时黑人学生获得高中文凭的唯一方式是前往私立学校就读，这些学校通常是当地的教会所经营的。而中小学则是因为当地人口较少而由郡教育局所设立，而非由市教育局或镇教育局主导。

罢课事件发生所在的 Prince Edward County 的 Robert Moton High School 提供的学制比一般高中少了一年，只要读到十一年级即可毕业，因此吸引了邻近地区的许多黑人学生就读。由于校舍狭小加上学生众多，上课品质自然非常的差，当地黑人社区因此讨论是否要向教育当局要求改善，然而因为当地黑人的生活很大一部份无法脱离白人而独立，有些人深怕提起诉讼会招来白人的反感而报复，因此意见分成了两派。最后在 Rev. Francis Griffin（当地 NAACP 律师兼 Moton High School 学生会长）的促使下，和校长 Boyd Jones 向教育当局提出诉 petition）请求改善学校措施。

诉 交后的几个月，教育当局没有做出任何回应，不满升到最高点，由于学生长期累积的不满，加上当地黑人有杯葛种族隔离措施的经验，罢课行动于是展开。当时十六岁的 Barbara Rose Johns 及其他的学生领导人在 Moton High School 组织了一个共450个黑人学生参与的罢课运动，一直持续了十天，直到学生们寻求 NAACP 的法律咨询，NAACP 并且决定提供协助提出诉讼为止，罢课活动才告结束。

法院在本案中判决教育当局必须改善黑人学校的设施，但是引用了“隔离但平等”的原则拒绝原告黑人学生进入白人学校就读。NAACP 不满此判决而提出上诉至最高法院，因此成为后来 Brown case 的一部份。

[编辑] Gebhart case

Belton v. Gebhart (Bulah v. Gebhart)[13]是由两件被告相同的案子合并而成的[14]。本案中牵涉两所学校── Howard High School in Wilmington 以及只有一间教室的Hockessin 小学。

Howard High School的许多黑人学生必须搭车近一小时才能到达学校，校舍相当拥挤且座落于工业区，缺乏适合的教育环境，师资不良且课程缺乏，对于职业训练课程有兴趣的学生还必须自行走路离校修习。他们自己的社区中有设备非常优良的学校，却基于种族的因素不能就读。八位学生家长们基于NAACP的法律咨询向教育提出诉 果之后，1951年在 NAACP 的律师Louis Redding协助下提出了诉讼。

在 Hockessin 的乡村地区，Sarah Bulah 不要求平等的教育环境，而只要求平等的上下学接驳机会。他的女儿 Shirley Barbara 每天都必须要由自己接送上下学。虽然家门前每天都会经过一班校车，但是那是白人学校的校车，因此不能搭乘。Sarah Bulah 向

州政府教育当局表达想要搭乘那班校车的希望，却基于种族不同的因素而遭拒绝。Sarah Bulah 不死心，而继续向NAACP的律师Louis Redding寻求法律协助。

在这两件案件中，Louis Redding 皆决定要挑战州政府不允许设立种族融合学校的法律，连同两件案子的家长们都认为不应该只挑战州政府建设“不平等”校舍的作为，因此将州政府教育局官员列为被告。

和其他Brown case不同的是，本案中的法官 Collin Seitz 判决黑人学生──基于种族隔离所造成的实质伤害，以及两间学校上确实存在有“隔离但不平等”的差异──得以立即进入白人学校就读，也就是“隔离但平等”的原则在这里并不适用。教育当局不满此判决而提出上诉至最高法院，因此成为后来Brown case的一部份。

[编辑] Brown case

1950年代早期，Linda Brown 是一位住在堪萨斯州（Kansas）州托皮卡市（Topeka）的学生。她和她的姊姊 Terry Lynn 每天都要沿着 Rock Island Railroad switchyard 走一哩的距离到公共汽车车站，然后搭车到距离家里有五哩之远的黑人学校 Monroe School。Linda Brown 尝试取得离她家较近的 Sumner School 的入学许可（该学校离家里只有几个街区的距离），以免通勤之苦，却遭到托皮卡教育局案基于种族的因素驳回入学申请，原因是 Sumner School 是一个只给白人小孩子读的学校。在当时堪萨斯州的法律允许（但非强制要求）人口大于 15,000 的城市可以依据种族的不同而设置种族隔离的学校。基于这样的法律规定，托皮卡教育局案设立了种族隔离的公立中小学，然而相对于堪萨斯州内，当时其他附近社区的许多公立学校并无此种设立种族隔离学校的制度。

Oliver L. Brown 是 Linda Brown 的父亲，同时也是一位当地服务于 Santa Fe Railroad 的焊工，另外也是当地教堂的助理牧师[15]。最初 Brown 与托皮卡当地的律师 William Everett Glenn, Sr. 讨论“隔离但平等”的种族隔离教育措施，Glenn 因此向他推荐当地的 NAACP 也许可以帮助他，而他随后则被 NAACP 的律师同时也是他的儿时好友Charles Scott 说服提出救济。于是，在初步的救济──也就是诉 ─失败之后，他们开始着手提起诉讼。

在托皮卡地区的 NAACP（托皮卡地区有名的领导如律师 McKinley Burnett, Charles Scott, 以及 Lucinda Todd）带领之下，当地有相同背景的家长们也一起参加诉讼，诉讼参加者持续的增加。1951年秋天，在社区里白人的强烈敌意下，终于达成了集体诉讼所要求的人数门槛，以爸爸 Oliver L. Brown 作为原告对托皮卡教育局提起集体诉讼[16]，该诉讼由其他有同样背景的家庭（合 Brown 共有十三位家长及他们的二十位小孩子[17][18]）一同参加，要求校区停止种族隔离的政策，主张种族隔离的学校已经侵害了Linda Brown 依据宪法第14条修正案所保障的同等保护权。他们的理由中指出，尽管教育当局设置了隔离但“平等”的学校，但是这些措施实际上的目的，是对黑人实施永久的次等待遇，只提供次等的设备与服务，以达成压迫黑人的效果。

Brown case 的特殊之处在于对于种族隔离学校是否造成设备、课程以及教职员是否对于黑人学生实质劣等并无争论──虽然实际上黑人学校在课程与教科书的提供方面仍

然有所缺乏。法院认为这些可见因素（tangible factor）的比较结果实质上平等，并

无不平等的情况。地方法院引用了“隔离但平等”的原则，认为教育局的种族隔离措施不违反宪法第14条修正案的同等保护权[19]。虽然地方法院发现（根据原告一方所请的证人指出）在公立中小学实施种族隔离的措施确实对于黑人学生有不良、负面的影响，但是基于黑人学校和白人学校在建筑物、交通措施、课程以及教职员等方面有“实质”（substantially）的平等[20]，因此认为此影响仍不足以构成不平等的因素。NAACP 不满此判决而提出上诉至最高法院，因此成为后来 Brown case 的一部份。

[编辑] Bolling case

Bolling v. Sharp[21]的发生是由一位理发店拥有者领导黑人学生要求进入白人学校遭拒而开始的[22]。美国的首都──华盛顿哥伦比亚特区──自美国立国以来一直是许多黑人居住的重要地区，然而这个地区对于黑人并没有特别的友善，保留了许多种族隔离的习惯与制度。美国政府在二战之后废除军队种族隔离的措施在特区也没有引起任何的关于废除种族隔离的回应与行动。在1950年之前这个地方的传统黑人社群领导──如教会、妇女联谊会、公共集会所等──一直无法组织起有效的反对种族隔离措施运动，即使这个地区有许多的社经条件不错，服务于政府机构的的黑人，他们对于自己的孩子只能享有次等教育设施的现状仍然保持沉默。

这样子的现象一直到1950年才有些不同。当地的一位理发店拥有者 Gardner Bishop 带领着十七位黑人学生前往一所新的白人学校 John Phillip Sousa Junior High，要求校方许可这几位学生进入校园，并且接受他们的入学注册。虽然这所学校设备优良，地幅广大，明显可以再收好几名学生，但校方基于种族因素而拒绝。Gardner Bishop 随后接触律师Charles Houston寻求协助，Charles Houston 决定要求教育当局提供黑人学校平等的设施，过程中并未与NAACP有任何接触。1950年在诉讼准备的过程中，Charles Houston 的心脏疾病发作，健康状况恶化，因此把这件案子托付给他的同事兼好友James Nabrit，James Nabrit 后来决定将目标改变，从原本要求提供平等的设施转为攻击种族隔离本身的法律而提起诉讼。

地方法院判决驳回本件诉讼，但最高法院发给调卷令（certiorari）允许当原告直接上诉至最高法院。

和其他 Brown case 不同的是，虽然这件案子上诉至最高法院时和其他Brown case合并审理，但是最高法院将本案与其他 Brown case 分别审判，因此一般认为 Bolling case 是 Brown case 的相伴案件（companion case）。

上诉至最高法院

布朗诉托皮卡教育局案上诉到最高法院时，最高法院将几个同样具有种族隔离教育背景事实的案子合并一起交由最高法院审理，分别是： Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka（即本案，Kansas 的案子）、Briggs v. Elliott ( South Carolina 的案子)、Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County ( Virginia 的案子)、Gebhart v. Belton (Bulah v. Gebhart) ( Delaware 的案子)、以及 Bolling v. Sharpe

( Washington D.C. 的案子)。除了 Bolling case 外，这些全部都是 NAACP 从旁协助诉讼的案子。鉴于这些案子本质上背景相似，都是争取黑人学生有权进入白人学校的案

子，因此后来在提到本案时，其实不仅限于发生在 Kansas 的本案，尚包括了这些案子。且法院本身的判决也是合并判决（除 Bolling case 之外）。因此，布朗诉托皮卡教育局案其实是一个广泛对这些所有合并审理的案子以及随后的Brown II的称呼。

法律争点讨论

由于在挑战种族隔离的法律过程中，原告势必会面对到“隔离但平等”的前案法律原则，因此必须在本案中想尽办法从该原则下手。NAACP 的策略除了在下级法院举证出种族隔离措施在实际运作上造成了许多不平等的事实，更要提出对此原则最根本性的质疑，主张在各个公立学校尽管表面上为“隔离但平等”，但实际上却“隔离且不平等”，而且种族隔离是永远“不可能平等”的；当然被告一方就要努力说服最高法院“隔离但平等”的原则基本上为合宪，力争双方所争执的种族隔离法律为合宪。

从以上这一点来看，双方势必争夺第14条修正案“同等保护权”如何解释的主导权，以便于在论述如何适用同等保护权，同等保护权的内涵为何等问题上，达成对自己有利的解释方法，从而论证“隔离但平等”的法律原则在第14条修正案所指出的最高原则“同等保护权”底下，样态到底为何（也就是讨论该“隔离但平等”的原则到底有无违反同等保护权）。

Holding

The key holding of the Court was that, even if segregated black and white schools were of equal quality in facilities and teachers, segregation by itself was harmful to black students and unconstitutional. They found that a significant psychological and social disadvantage was given to black children from the nature of segregation itself, drawing on research conducted by Kenneth Clark assisted by June Shagaloff. This aspect was vital because the question was not whether the schools were "equal", which under Plessy they nominally should have been, but whether the doctrine of separate was constitutional. The justices answered with a strong "no":

Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does... Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system... We conclude

that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment

审理过程

案件首先在1952年在最高法院举行听审，瑟古德?马歇尔面对的对手是John W. Davis ──1924年美国总统选举中民主党选举的候选人，80岁，且相当雄辩。双方首先提出论点，John Davis 提出主张，从南北战争结束后宪法第14条修正案的形成背景来看，当时的立法者认为同等保护权的保障范围并不包含公立教育；瑟古德?马歇尔另一方面则提出各方面专家的证据证明种族隔离本身就是一种不平等。言词辩论结束，随后最高法院大法官就宪法第14条修正案的同等保护权是否应是否包括公立教育的提供无法达成共识，因此法院决定先驳回上诉。

然而于1953年，立场保守的首席大法官弗雷德?M?文森（Fred M. Vinson）突然死于重度心肌梗塞，大法官的组成面临改变，当时共和党的总统德怀特?艾森豪（Dwight Eisenhower）随后提名，并经参议院同意，产生一位新任的首席大法官厄尔?沃伦（Earl Warren）。然而，令所有人觉得惊奇的是，厄尔?沃伦的政治立场却比一般较保守的共和党人还要来的偏向自由派。他上任后马上重启 Brown case 的听证。这次的听审主要要求双方提出理由，讨论关于宪法第14条修正案是否在公立教育方面有适用余地[23]。

瑟古德?马歇尔在这次的重新听审中指出第14条宪法修正案的目的是要终结任何存有分类或阶级的法律[24]。他最后并指出：“这是最高法院对于宪法究竟对于种族隔离该采的态度作一番改变的时刻。[25]”

在本案中积极协调各个大法官的厄尔?沃伦（Earl Warren）也可谓对改善美国的种族不平等贡献不凡

当时的最高法院首席大法官厄尔?沃伦在完成判决之前基于本案对于美国社会变动可能带来的重要性，积极的协调各个大法官之间的意见，最后让九位大法官对于本案都能够达成一致，使得最高法院在本案（及其牵涉的法律原则）上具有绝对的拘束力，同时9:0的票数也表达了最高法院种族隔离方面采绝对反对态度的政治意涵，也因此在接下来的所有上诉到最高法院的种族隔离争议的法律都被判决为违宪。在厄尔?沃伦主笔，其他大法官全体加入的法院判决书里面，最高法院提到了以下几点：

法院对于第14条修正案需不需要采历史解释？亦即，第14条修正案形成时，制宪者的原意（framers' intent）是否重要？制宪者的原意可否适用在本案？

法院认为，讨论制宪当时的背景，并不足以解决本案的问题，因为双方无论如何都一定会有不同的解释，我们根本无法确定或得知制宪者的原意究竟为何[26]。

既然制宪者的原意无法列入考量因素，解决本案问题的方法究竟为何？问题点在哪里？由于本案与之前的类似案件不同，在所谓的有形因素（tangible factors，例如课程、师资、建筑物、硬件设备等）原告与被告并无争论，因此本案真正的问题点在于“隔离但平等”的原则是否能够适用于本案，因此法院当然无法仅就有形因素审查；同样的，法院也不能仅从第14条修正案形成时的背景进行比较，因为在本案中所争执的是的是种族隔离在公立学校教育上面所产生的影响，但是在第14条修正案的立法当时（1868年）或者是Plessy case 的“隔离但平等”原则形成时（1896年）公立学校教育尚未普及，背景完全不同，因此不能拿来讨论。因此法院必须衡酌之处在于种族隔离本身在公立学校教育究竟造成了哪些影响，法院必须从公立学校教育本身在现代社会所扮演的角色，以及种族隔离教育造成的实际影响面进行综合考量，以解决问题[27]。

在现代社会中教育的本质及其功能为何？

提供教育是现代政府的功能中最重要的一环，其作用在于培养良好的公民，使小孩子能够认识文化价值，使其适应整个社会，并使得他能够接受随后一系列进入社会（社会化）的训练，小孩子未来在社会上的发展如何，能否成功，也与他的基础教育息息相关。以上种种，都说明了受教育是一种权利。既然政府接收了这样的权利，必然有义务提供教育服务，且此提供必须是平等的[28]。

种族隔离的教育措施是否剥夺了黑人学童的权利（因而违反同等保护权）？如果是，究竟这样的措施剥夺了哪些权利？

尽管种族隔离表面上（例如在硬件设施、师资、课程等）的可见因素是平等的，但是有许多无形因素（intangible factors）却是不平等的，例如学习的能力，与他人讨论并交换意见的机会等；此外，在中小学更重要的是，隔离教育会使学童对自己形成一种“自己是次等的”的自我认同，这种认同感觉会伤害学童的心灵，同样也会影响他的学习动机以及未来心灵的正常成长。法院在此引进了许多心理学上的研究证明了这一点[29]。File:Tmarshall.jpg

（左起）George E.C. Hayes, Thurgood Marshall, 以及James Nabrit在法院正式做成Bown case判决之后，为彼此庆祝推翻种族隔离政策的胜利

从以上几点论证，法院因此判决“隔离但平等”的法律原则，在公立中小学中，因为隔离的措施本身即是一种不平等（inherently unequal），因此不再适用。隔离教育违反了第14条修正案的“同等保护权”，因此违宪，法律因而不适用于个案中，黑人学童进入白人学校就读的权利不得被拒绝[30]。

而另外一件相伴案件 Bolling case 中，因为华盛顿哥伦比亚特区由联邦直接管辖，直接适用联邦法律而无并无州法，法律依据不同，因此最高法院另外做出判决。由于美国宪法第14条修正案的同等保护权只规范州而不直接适用于联邦[31]，因此最高法院利用美国宪法第5条修正案的“正当法律程序”条款（due process of law），说明“同等保护权”与“正当法律程序”并不互相排斥[32]，指出种族隔离法律的实行并没有合理目的（any proper governmental objective），因此剥夺黑人学生进入白人学校的权利违反了宪法所保障的正当法律程序[33]，且参考 Brown case 的判决，法院指出联邦对于人民的基本保障责任不应该比州还轻[34]。综合上述理由，拒绝黑人学生入学的种族隔离措施因此违宪，黑人学生得进入白人学校就读。

虽然最高法院已经将公立学校教育需种族隔离的法律宣告为违宪，但是并没有详细地谈到如何执行的问题。鉴于美国社会的复杂，各州之间可能都有不同的社会情况，最高法院因此在 Brown I 做成决定的隔年（1955年），邀请各州的司法部长以及联邦的司法

部长讨论如何执行的问题[35]。最高法院经过多方讨论之后做出判决，决定将所有类似的公立学校种族隔离教育的法律争议案件重新发还各级地方法院，并且指定各级法院必须依照 Brown I 中所创立的一些原则进行审查，并且依照各地区不同的社会情况做出裁判。[36]。这个判决就是通称的“布朗第二案”（Brown II）[37]。最高法院指出，在各州转型至非种族隔离为基础的教育系统的过程中，各级法院可以终结任何可能遇到的障碍[38]。

然而，最高法院鉴于各地区可能的复杂性，并没有强制必须要在什么时间之前完成废除种族隔离的措施；相反地，法院仅指出此等解除种族隔离的措施必须以“十分谨慎的速度”（with all deliberate speed）实行。而这也造成有些州（特别是南方各州）常借故而拖延实行废除种族隔离的措施[39]。

In spring 1953 the Court heard the case but was unable to decide the issue and asked to rehear the case in fall 1953, with special attention to whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause prohibited the operation of separate public schools for whites and blacks

法律语言特点和法律翻译

法律语言特点和法律翻译 我国的法律语言学研究已经开始。作为法律语言学主要研究内容之一的法律翻译，包括口译和笔译，在国内、国际社会生活中将起日益重要的作用。法律翻译工作除了对译员及相关的条件提出较高的要求外，还受制于法律语言本身的特点。因此，根据法律翻译的基本要求分析法律语言特点对法律翻译的影响就成了一个重要的研究课题。法律翻译中与法律语言相关的问题的解决无疑会提高翻译的质量。本文以法律语言学的研究为基础，论述法律语言特点和法律翻译的关系。 1 法律翻译的基本要求 1．1 法律翻译的本质 由于普通翻译的作用和对社会生活的影响，由于法律对人们社会生活的影响，人们对法律翻译的重要性似乎不难形成一致的看法，但如果人们从法律翻译的本质进一步探究，就会意识到法律翻译是一种由译员为主的各种因素交互作用的交际过程，是译员进行主动决策的过程，是译员在既定的框架内创新的主动思维过程；就会意识到法律翻译的重要性不仅在于译员将法律文本（或话语）转换成不同的语言，译员也不是被动的中介人。法律翻译这一涉及到作者（或讲话人）、读者（或听话人）、译员本人以及其他一系列因素，译员是其中最主动、最活跃的因素，是调节者。法律翻译的主要目的是为了帮助解决问题（如帮助法官作出判决），因此法律翻译无疑是一种交际过程。在作者（或讲话人）和读者（或听话人）之间，除了语言的因素以外，还有复杂的法律行为的表现，有诸多未知、未定的方面需要译员临时作出决定。译员的决定直接影响到译文使用者（如法官）的决定，因此翻译本身是决策过程。法律翻译涉及到两种语言，也有可能涉及到两种法律体系、多种文化、不同的法律观念。在这些复杂的条件下，很难寻求完全的统一或对应，需要译员发挥创新能力，在允许的范围内能动地解决问题，因此法律翻译是译员创新的主动思维过程。在确定法律翻译本质的情况下去考察法律语言特点与法律翻译的关系，就会有一个明确的方向。 1．2 基本原则 法律翻译除了遵守普通翻译的一些原则以外也应该遵守特定的原则，这是由于法律翻译的法律框架所决定的。法律的最重要准则是公正性，因此法律翻译也必须体现这一原则。法律翻译涉及到诸多因素，译员被赋予一定的决定权，因此法律翻译又要靠合适性原则制约。准确性是法律语言的生命，准确性也应是法律翻译的重要原则之一，因此，考虑法律翻译的基本原则时，至少应该考虑公正性、准确性和合适性三项原则。 公正性（impartiality）是法律专业人员要遵守的最为基本的原则。法律翻译是法律行业工作的一部分，因此公正性也应是法律翻译的最为基本的原则。就法庭翻译来看，译员是在讲话人双方之间传达信息，是双方共同的沟通渠道。表面看来，公正性似乎不成问题，但在很多情况下，译员被看成发言人的“语言和心理的避难所”，就是说发言人力求从译员获取支持，或者寻取解脱，译员也难受到一定的影响。另一方面，译员也有可能主动地扮演保护者

法律英语练习题

Lesson Three Comparing Civil and Criminal Law I.Discuss the following questions: 1.What are the two objectives of criminal law? 2.What is civil law concerned with? 3.What are the two main branches of civil law? 4.In terms of duties or obligations, what are the differences between contract law and tort law? 5.How many kinds of torts are mentioned in the text? What are they? What are the difference and relationship between them? 6.Are compensatory damages and punitive damages the same in nature? Why or why not? Why are punitive damages seldom awarded? 7.Is it justified to say that a certain person can file a criminal charge against someone else? Why? II.Read the text again and decide whether these statements are true or false: 1.As for criminal law, there is just one purpose: to prevent antisocial behavior. F 2.Prevention of bad behavior may be more the consequence of civil law than the purpose. T 3.The primary purpose of civil law is the compensation of those injured by someone else’s behavior. T 4. A agreed to lease an apartment from a landlord for one year and A paid the rent for one year shortly after he moved in. Half a year later A moved out for unknown reasons, and then the landlord had the right to sue A for breach of contract. F 5.Negligent tort has occurred when one fails to act reasonably and unintentionally injury someone. T 6.Many intentional torts are also crimes and this is where civil law and criminal law has much in common. T 7.Criminal law is concerned with the immorality of an act while tort law is not. F https://www.sodocs.net/doc/33548781.html,plete the sentences below using the words or phrases given: undesirable; nonconformity; monetary; compensation; liability; restitution; tortfeasor; battery; fraternity; damages 1.The monetary system of certain countries used to be based on gold. 2.Civil law actually acts to prevent nonconformity to society’s behavior. 3.The court estimated the compensation in money for damages sustained by the plaintiff in the contract. 4.Since A has not breached the contract, he holds no liability for damage. 5.Restitution means the act of making good or compensating for loss, damage, or injury, or a return to or restoration of previous state or position. 6.If one at a party heaves a beer bottle and strikes another present either unintentionally or on purpose, he has committed a tort and he is known as a

法律英语试题2013-2014

2013-2014学年第二学期 华侨大学法学院期末考试试卷 考试科目：法律英语考核类型：A卷考试时间：120 分钟 学号姓名授课教师骆旭旭 (注意：所有的答案（包括选择题）应做在空白答题纸上) Exercise 1: Translate the following sentence into Chinese.(30%) The dominant purpose in starting the public enterprises had been public good and profit motive was secondary; however, of late the scenario has changed. With the liberalisation of markets the public undertakings are in direct competition with the private players and have to have profit motive in mind. If not, there have been criticisms by industry on the unequal treatment meted out to the private players. Here it is important to note the definition of "enterprise" under the Competition Act. It makes no distinction between a private and a public enterprise/undertaking. In fact it even includes a department of the Government which does not perform a "sovereign function". Functionally, the public undertakings have been broadly classified into four heads: ?Financial Institutions, such as Life Insurance Corporation of India, Reserve Bank of India, Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation Ltd, Film Finance Corporation Ltd, Unit Trust of India, Industrial Reconstruction Bank, etc. ?Promotional and Development Undertakings, such as Rehabilitation Housing Corporation Ltd, National Research Development Corporation Ltd, Food Corporation of India, Central Warehousing Corporation, National Small Industries Corporation Ltd, etc. ?Commercial and Industrial Undertakings, such as State Trading Corporation, Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd, Indian Airlines Corporation, Air India, etc. ?Public Utilities are those undertakings which render certain essential services to the people, like transportation, electricity, communications, energy, etc. The objective of such undertakings is to provide services to the community economically and efficiently and making profit is not the primary aim.

关于经典的英语情景口语对话

关于经典的英语情景口语对话 学习英语的口语训练就是要持之以恒的学习，所以小编今天就给大家分享一下英语口语，欢迎大家收藏 经典的英语情景口语练习 我带你逛街给你买条新裙子 AWhat do you think about this store? I heard it’s a posh store that’s only got branches in big cities. 你觉得这家店怎么样?我听说这是家一流的精品店，只在大城市开分店。 BI love this store. The only problem is that it’s extremely expensive. 我喜欢它!唯一的问题就是价格太贵了。 ADon’t worry. I’ve decided that for your birthday I’m going to take you shopping for a new dress. 别担心。我已经想好了，为了给你庆祝生日，我带你逛街给你买条新裙子。 BReally? I thought you hated shopping? 真的吗?我记得你讨厌逛街吧?

AI do, that’s why you should appreciate this gift! 我是讨厌。所以你该特别珍惜这份礼物! BSure. That’s reallu nice of you. Let’s go in and try some things on. 我当然会的。你真是太好了。咱们进去试穿几件吧。 AHow about this red dress? I think it would really suit you. 这条红裙子怎么样?我觉得它特别适合你。 BThat’s gorgeous! Do they have it in a size 8? 真是太漂亮了!这个有8号的吗? AHere you go.On any other day, it would cost me a fortune, but it’s on special offer today. 给你。要是别的日子，这件会花掉我不少钱，不过今天是特价。 BI think this color isn’t quite right for me. Do they have the same dress in white? 我觉得颜色不是太适合我。这款有白色的吗? ALet me look. Let’s see …they’ve got one in blue, green, pink, black…and white. Here you are. 我找找。咱们看看…有蓝色，绿色，粉色，黑色…还有白色.给你. BThis is perfect! What do you think? 真是太棒了!你觉得怎么样? AI think you look fantastic. Happy Birthday!

法律英语翻译练习与答案-0609

练习1：外国合营者如果有意以落后的技术和设备进行欺骗，造成损失的，应赔偿损失。If the foreign joint venturer causes any losses by deception through the intentional use of backward technology and equipment, it shall pay compensation for the losses. 修改提示：单复数考虑不周；用语不够简洁。 答案（修改要点）：causes any losses →causes any loss(es) 造成一项或多项损失时都应当赔偿，不能仅用复数形式。 pay compensation for the losses →pay compensation therefor (therefor=for that/them) 练习2：人民法院、人民检察院和公安机关办理刑事案件，应当分工负责，互相配合，互相制约，以保证准确有效地执行法律。 原译文：The people’s courts, people’s procuratorates and public s ecurity organs shall, in handling criminal cases, divide their functions, each taking responsibility for its own work, and they shall co-ordinate their efforts and check each other to ensure correct and effective enforcement of law. 修改提示：“分工负责”，应理解为：侧重点在“负责”，而非“分工”，即分工过程中各负其责；respective 比own 更为妥当、准确；原来的译文中，and they shall …比较啰嗦，更严重的问题是，使to ensure …割断了与divide their functions 的联系。 答案（修改要点）：in handling criminal cases, divide their functions, each taking responsibility for its own work, and they shall co-ordinate their efforts and check each other to ensure correct and effective enforcement of law.→… in handling criminal cases, take responsibility for their respective work while dividing functions, co-ordinate, and check each other, to ensure correct and effective enforcement of law. 练习3：商标注册人享有商标专用权，受法律保护。 原译文：Trademark registrants shall enjoy the right to exclusive use of their trademarks and shall be protected by law. 修改提示：商标专用权的译文“貌合神离”，立法原意是“商标专有权”；受法律保护的主语有些歧义，可加括号处理；原文shall滥用，因为并未刻意强调“必须，一定要”。 答案（修改为）：Trademark registrants have the exclusive trademark right, (and are) protected by law. 练习4：被告人的犯罪情节极其严重、社会影响极其恶劣、社会危害极其严重。 原译文：The extremely serious circumstances of the offense committed by the accused have brought abominable influence and severe hazard to the whole society. 修改提示：bring的用法有些生硬，动宾搭配不太适当。 答案（修改为）：have brought abominable influence and severe hazard to the whole society. → have exerted an abominable influence and posed a severe hazard to society. (exert, vt. 施加，产生，如exert pressure on, exert an influence on; abominable, adj. 可恶的，极坏的；pose v. 提出，形成，成为；使摆好姿势pose a problem; pose an obstacle/a threat to …) 练习5：买卖双方同意按下列条款由卖方出售，买方购进下列货物：货号; 品名及规格；数量；单价；总值(数量及总值均有_____%的增减, 由卖方决定)；生产国和制造厂家；包装；唛头；装运期限；装运口岸；目的口岸；保险；

关于经典的英语情景口语对话

关于经典的英语情景口语对话 经典的英语情景口语练习 我带你逛街给你买条新裙子 AWhat do you think about this store? I heard it’s a posh store that’s only got branches in big cities. 你觉得这家店怎么样?我听说这是家一流的精品店，只在大城市开分店。 BI love this store. The only problem is that it’s extremely expensive. 我喜欢它!唯一的问题就是价格太贵了。 ADon’t worry. I’ve decided that for your birthday I’m going to take you shopping for a new dress. 别担心。我已经想好了，为了给你庆祝生日，我带你逛街给你买条新裙子。 BReally? I thought you hated shopping? 真的吗?我记得你讨厌逛街吧? AI do, that’s why you should appreciate this gift! 我是讨厌。所以你该特别珍惜这份礼物! BSure. That’s reallu nice of you. Let’s go in and try some things on. 我当然会的。你真是太好了。咱们进去试穿几件吧。 AHow about this red dress? I think it would really suit you. 这条红裙子怎么样?我觉得它特别适合你。 BThat’s gorgeous! Do they have it in a size 8? 真是太漂亮了!这个有8号的吗? AHere you go.On any other day, it would cost me a fortune, but it’s on special offer today. 给你。要是别的日子，这件会花掉我不少钱，不过今天是特价。

法律英语课后问题整理

第一单元：LEGAL SYSYTEM 主课文： 1.The common law tradition originated in England. The decisions of the royal courts became the law common to the whole kingdom, the common law. 2.Both law and equity are part of what is called the common law. 3.Louisiana: civil law, the others: common law 4.The expression “civil law”, in Latin jus civilis, literally means the law of the citizens of Rome. Now the civilian jurists refer to what we call private law simply as “the civil law”( persons, property and obligations) 5.In common law countries ,cases are usually considered to be the primary source of law. In civil law countries, cases are not a source of law. 6.Civil law jurists will consider the civil code as an all encompassing document. On the contrary in common law jurisdictions legislation tends to be considered as an exception to the case law. 7.American legal education is very original and in many respects unique. The case method or Socratic method is peculiar to this country. 8.No, only through the postgraduate degree. 9.The case method is important in America, in other countries, the teaching style is magisterial—the professor express the law to his or

法律英语的特点

【摘要】翻译是使用不同语言的人们互相沟通的纽带和桥梁，是运用一种语言把另一种语言所表达的思想内容准确而又完整地再现的语言活动。法律英语具有专业特定性、词义传承性、语法被动性、文体正式性等特点，在翻译时应坚持精确性、精炼性和语言规范性等原则。 【关键词】法律英语特点翻译原则 作为专业英语(ESP)的分支学科之一，法律英语(Legal English)是应用型、 功能型英语。法律英语，在英语国家中被称为Legal Language或Language of the Law，即法律语言，指表述法律科学概念以及诉讼或非诉讼法律事务时所用的语种或某一语种的部分用语。随着改革开放的深入和国际贸易交流的日益广泛，法律英语翻译的需要翻译需求空前旺盛。 一、法律英语的特点 法律英语就其文体来说属于职业专用英语，是一种正式的书面语体，是应用语的一个分支，其行文庄重、结构严谨、表达准确。作为一种专用英语，法律英语具有以下几个特征。 1.专业的特定性 法律英语和普通英语的重要区别之一就是法律英语中用到的很多普通词汇往往具有专业特定含义，因此不能简单当作普通英语看待，否则很容易对法律英语的理解出现偏差。比如aoid，普通英语是“避开”的意思，而在法律英语中是“躲避取消”的意思；party在普通英语中翻译成“群，组，团队”，而在法律英语中要翻译成“社会集会一方，当事人”；sere在法律英语中尤指“当用人送达(传票等)”，而不能翻译成“为某人工作”。 2.词义的传承性 法律词汇具有明显的传承性特征。沿用旧的法律用语，即古体词，就是这一特征的表现。一些词汇在现代英语的许多文体中不再使用，但是在法律文体中，它们经过漫长的历史并没有随着法律的发展而改变，仍然保持其原有的含义。法律英语古体词从古英语和中古英语时期沿袭而来，其来源由两部分组成，有些来自于法语、拉丁语和少量希腊语等外来词语，例如“suit”，“testimony”等。 另外一些来源于古英语，例如由here-，there-和where-组成的复合词（hereunder=under it，thereof=of that，where for=for the reasons mentioned aboe）用来表示确定的含义。法律汉语的古体词例如“刑罚”、“自 首”等主要是文言词语，这些文言词语所表示的事物经过历史的过程在现实社会中依然存在，它们“作为人类的法律文化具有继承性”。 3.语法的被动性 语态的被动性即是指语句多被动语态，惯用长句，分词短语使用普遍，介词和介词短语使用频率高，条件从句使用率高。如在海商法中的许多国际公约，被动语态的使用率高于主动语态。但在汉译英时，被动语态使主体义务弱化。依据：The passie is not only weaker；it may be so indefinite as to leae the statement ambiguous. It may，for example，leae uncertain who the actor is. Een when the actor is known，the passie takes the spot-light away from him and leaes him in the shade.——H.W.，legal writing style. 4.文体的正式性 法律英语属于书面英语。在起草法律文件时，严密准确是法律英语最重要的最基本的要求和特征。只有严密准确的法律英语才能保障法律的权威性，才能更

法律英语试题答案

1调卷令certiorari 2遵循先例：stare decisis 3法系legal family 4大陆法civil law 管辖权jurisdiction 地区法院District court 巡回法院circuit court 治安法庭Justice court 社会主义法socialist law 众议院House of representative 行使exercise 1司法审查judicial review 起诉资格standing 事实上的损害injury in fact 行政协定executive decision共同决议common decision 分权separation of powers 制衡checks and balances 成熟原则ripeness 招标bids 宪法constitution 1刑法criminal law 轻微违法misdemeanor 报税单bill of entry 主观上的过错mental fault 非预谋杀人manslaughter 抢劫robbery 加重的aggravate 绑架kidnapping 盗劫larceny 伪证罪perjury 1the county is the subdivision 2the doctrine ---the maxim 3the federal entity4the enforcement of a claim5statutes or codes 6tradition custom,and precedent 7commom people ,versus legislation 8stare decisis , Latin9legal relationships /legal concept 10judicial branch /judicial dictatorships 1in the precess of a court ascertaining2than to statutory interpretation 3dose not have the ''prolixity"/dose not provide a ready solution 4congress though its "power of the purse" /power as commander -in- chief 5c hecks and balances provided for in the constitution 6and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures 7has no standing to challenge 8the policy of elimination of racial discrimination In places of accommodation/and ending the badges of servitude 1it is punishable by sanctions 2Most crimes or identified in statutes 3punished through imposition penalities 4violation of a misdemeanor 5which were committed before that /enactment of the law 6grand a criminal prosecution7as well as its substantive law 8crimes classified as felonies include murder9 authorized federal jurisdiction 10one can be held criminally liable 1 it is to tell the defendant that 2In US jurisprudence, however 3the right to trial by grand jury/protection against government tyranny 4 The prosecution at trial has the duty 5against arbitrary imposition of the capital punishment 6in an entirely different punishment/prosecution and conviction 7 privilege against self-incrimination8a common assumption abou t the nature of criminality 9"unreasonable" government searches and seizures is stated 10criminal procedure is "adversarial" 1 single issue of law 2dismissed or a defense was lost 3state a claim generally 4adequately represent the interests 5"fairness hearing" 6(the "plaintiff")to file suit in 7violatio n criminal law 8applying substantive law to real disputes 9 on part is entitled to judgment 10common law remedy/ equitable remedies

酒店英语情景对话经典

A: What can I do for you, sir? 先生,您要来点什么? B: What have you got this morning? 今天早上你们这儿有什么? A: Fruit juice, cakes and refreshments, and everything. 水果汁,糕点,各种茶点等等,应有尽有. B: I'd like to have a glass of tomato juice, please. 请给我来一杯西红柿汁. A: Any cereal, sir? 要来点谷类食品吗,先生? B: Yes, a dish of cream of wheat. 好的,来一份麦片粥. A: And eggs? 还要来点鸡蛋什么的吗? B: Year, bacon and eggs with buttered toast. I like my bacon very crisp. 要,再来一份熏猪肉和鸡蛋,我喜欢熏猪肉松脆一点. A: How do you want your eggs? 您喜欢鸡蛋怎么做? B: Fried, please. 煎的. A: Anything more, sir? 还要什么别的东西吗,先生? B: No, that's enough. Thank you. 不要了,足够了.谢谢. Dialogue 2 (A couple waiting to be seated in a crowded restaurant) (一对夫妇在拥挤的餐厅外等待就座) A: Do you have a reservation, sir? 请问您订位了吗?先生,太太? B: No, I am afraid we don't. 没有. A: I'm sorry. The restaurant is full now. You have to wait for about half an hour. Would you care to have a drink at the lounge until a table is available? 很抱歉,餐厅已经满座了.约要等30分钟才会有空桌.你们介意在休息室喝点东西直至有空桌吗? B: No,thanks. We'll come back later. May I reserve a table for two? 不用了,谢谢.我们等一会儿再来.请替我们预定一张二人桌,可以吗? A: Yes, of course. May I have your name, sir? 当然可以.请问先生贵姓? B: Bruce. By the way. Can we have a table by the window? 布鲁斯.顺便,我们可以要一张靠近窗口的桌子吗? A: We'll try to arrange it but I can't guarantee, sir. 我们会尽量安排,但不能保证,先生. B: That's fine. 我们明白了. (Half an hour later, the couple comes back.) 半小时后,布鲁斯夫妇回来了. A: Your table is ready, sir. Please step this way. 你们的桌子已经准备好了,先生,太太.请往这边走. Dialogue 3 A: Waiter, a table for two, please. 服务生,请给我一张两人的桌子. B: Yes, this way please. 好的,请跟我来. A: Can we see the menu, please? 能让我们看一看菜单吗? B: Here you are. 给您. A: What's good today? 今天有什么好吃的? B: I recommand crispy and fried duck. 我推荐香酥鸭. A: We don't want that. Well, perhaps we'll begin with mushroom soup, and follow by some seafood and chips. 我们不想吃香酥鸭.或许我们可以先吃蘑菇汤,然后再要点海鲜和土豆片. B: Do you want any dessert? 要甜品吗? C: No dessert, thanks. Just coffee. 不,谢谢. 咖啡就行了. (After a few minutes.) 过了一会儿.

法律英语证书(LEC)全国统一考试样题(含试卷一&试卷二)

法律英语证书（LEC）全国统一考试样题 试卷一 本题为单项选择题，限时180分钟。 1. Bill of Rights a. Domestic federal legislation. b. Legal protection against interference of rights by private individuals. c. A popular name given to the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. d. The federal constitutional provision which grants rights to state governments. 2. Standing a. Abbreviation of “notwithstanding” b. The ability to bring a lawsuit because of a party’s actual injury for which the court can provide a remedy. c. The ripeness of a case or controversy. d. The status of a person, group, or organization appearing as a “friend of the court.” 3. Consideration a. Process of judicial deliberation before rendering a decision in a contested case. b. The lengthy recitals of “boilerplate”language appearing in many contracts. c. The inducement to enter a contract, and a necessary element to prove the validity of a contract. d. The detrimental reliance of an offere e. 4. Promissory Estoppel a. A failure to prosecute a civil or criminal action. b. Power to make an offer to the public rather than a specific individual. c. Equitable doctrine recognized as substitute for consideration in some cases. d. Ability of an agent to bind a principal in matters beyond the scope pf agency.