No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Treatment of Jewish Law in American Decisions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2016
Extract
The application of foreign law in American courts forms the subject matter of much comparative law writing. Two alternative approaches are usually adopted by the comparative legal scholars. One studies pleading and proof of foreign law in American courts; the other studies the substantive use of foreign law by American courts. No studies of the actual use of Jewish law by American courts are to be found. In what follows an attempt will be made to fill the gap and to draw some conclusions concerning the relevance and advantages to the courts, the parties and society generally of such use of Jewish law.
All reported cases which have expressly made some use of Jewish law are collected and analyzed in this article. In addition, the application of Jewish law to the resolution of conflicts presently handled by the courts is discussed.
The reported judgments in which a party's appeal to Jewish law was considered relevant are classified according to American law classifications as opposed to Jewish law classifications. Finally, the actual relevance and the relevance in the eyes of the presiding judge of the Jewish law to the controversy before the court is examined.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1974
References
1 For a representative work utilizing this approach, see Sass, S., “Foreign Law in Civil Litigation” 16 Am. J. Comp. L. 332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 For a representative work utilizing this approach, see Note, , “Recognition of Rights Acquired Under Foreign Law By Illegitimate Children” (1968) 20 Stan. L. R. 1945.Google Scholar
3 Some articles have dealt with ecclesiastical law. [Since this article was written, an article discussing the topic from another angle has appeared. See Meislin, Bernard J., “Jewish Law in American Tribunals” (1972) 7 Is.L.R. 349. Ed.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 See e.g. Code of Iowa, Ch. 595, § 19 (a 971).
5 Horowitz, G., The Spirit of Jewish Law (1953) (Hereinafter cited as Horowitz).Google Scholar
6 Clark, , Law of Domestic Relations, (1968) 35 (Hereinafter cited as Clark).Google Scholar
7 General Laws of Rhode Island 15–1.4 (1956).
8 98 A. 358 (1916).
9 114 NE2d 4 (1953).
10 197 App. Div. 489, N.Y.S. 860 (1921).
11 117 Misc. 728, 191 N.Y.S. 868 (1922).
12 129 Misc. 835, 223 N.Y.S. 311 (1927).
13 163 A. 5 (1932).
14 208 App. Div. 161, 203 N.Y.S. 163 (1924).
15 166 N.E. 423 (1927).
16 New York, 1915.
17 156 Misc. 817, 282 N.Y.S. 787 (1935).
18 105 Misc. 461, 174 N.Y.S. 385 (1918).
19 162 Misc. 764, 295 N.Y.S. 567 (1937).
20 Note that the court did not rule the get invalid.
21 8 U.S.C. 1427 (1924).
22 24 F. 2d 605, SDNY, (1928).
23 48 F. 2d 652, EDNY, (1931).
24 19 F. Supp. 305, WDNY (1937).
25 Petition of Schlau, 41 F. 2d. 161, SDNY, (1941).
26 136 F. 2d. 480, 2d Cir., (1943).
27 96 A. 974 (1916).
28 253 P. 654 (1927).
29 243 App. Div. 738, 277 N.Y.S. 425 (1935).
30 166 Misc. 329, a N.Y.S. 2d. 730 (1937).
31 1 N.Y.S. 2d. 733.
32 168 Va. 345, 191 S.E. 627 (1937).
33 167 Misc. 301, 3 N.Y. Supp. 2d. 754.
34 47 N.Y.S. 2d. 938 (1944).
35 64 N.Y.S. 2d. 274 (1946).
36 57 N.Y.S. 2d. 103 (1945).
37 92 A. 2d. 117 (1952).
38 120 N.Y.S. 2d. 287 (1953).
39 ORS (Ohio) sec. 517. 23.
40 2 Ohio App. 2d. 60, 206 N.E. 2d. 412 (1965).
41 See infra sec. IV.
42 Supra n. 37.
43 98 A. 835 (1916).
44 101 A. 249 (1917).
45 115 N.W. 2d. 553 (1953).
46 Supra n. 40.
47 The exception is cited infra, n. 64.
48 See infra n. 70, and accompanying text.
49 98 Misc. 524, 162 N.Y.S. 943 (1917).
50 At p. 951.
51 See supra n. 28 and accompanying text.
52 See supra n. 45 and accompanying text.
53 See supra n. 14 and accompanying text.
54 See supra n. 18 and accompanying text.
55 See supra n. 37 and accompanying text.
56 (1970) 6 Columbia Journ. of Law and Social Welfare 49 (hereinafter referred to as Columbia).
57 Ibid., 56.
58 Ibid., 59–60.
59 Ibid., 61–62.
60 Ibid., 62–3.
61 For further details see ibid., 64–68.
62 See, e.g., Cadman Memorial Cong. Soc. v. Kenyan.
63 Matter of Hellman, 31 App. Div. 2d 477, 298 N.Y.S. 2d. 540, (1969).
64 18 F. Supp. 596 (S.D.N.Y.) (1937).
65 158 Misc. 358, 285 N.Y.S. 879 (1936).
66 But see People v. Gordon, 258 App. Div. 421, 16 N.Y.S. 2d. 833 (1940).
67 173 Misc. 1089, 19 N.Y.S. 2d. 678 (1940).
68 17 N.J. Super. 540, 86 A. 2d. 314 (1952).
69 Columbia, 74.
70 Ibid., 49.
71 Ibid., 69.
72 Ibid.
73 Code of Iowa, chap. 598, 1971: 598.6 requires a ninety-day conciliation process.
74 See supra n. 58, and accompanying text.