英単語分野別・語彙増強・専門用語法律・法務お試し正解付き

英単語分野別

専門用語
法務・法律

この問題の作成時点で発表されたばかりの米・英国の法律専門誌の記事から英単語・語彙を選びました。毎週100語前後おぼえ、それを何倍にも増やしながらも、確実に覚えていける語彙増強方法です。

ヒントを開けるというバナー（帯）を押してまず目を通します。目を通したら、設問に答えてみてください。


administrative feasibility 事務手続上の実行可能性

claim 申立

class action 集団訴訟

compensation 補償

consonant 一致した

​damage 損害賠償

joinder 併合

judgement-proof 判決不能

litigation 訴訟

litigate 訴訟を起こす

merit 法的根拠

    分野別語彙 - 法律・法務用語

    ​

    ​設問: （ ）内に適切な語彙を選択肢から選び、補ってください。[ ] 内の数字は語数です。尚、以下の文章は続いた文章ですので、前後の文脈はすべて関連があります。答えを記入しなくても解答は見ることができます。
    ​[2](  ) are a means for aggregating [1](  ) that are too small to incentivize individual [1](  ). 
    ​Enabling [1](  ) is one clear benefit of [2](  ), but aggregate [1](  ) also serves a [1](  ) public purpose of deterring unlawful conduct. 
    ​By making small [1](  ) economically feasible to [1](  ), [2](  ) enlist private attorneys as law enforcement agents. 
    ​However, where [1](  ) are frivolous and [1](  ) are high, these cases create coercive settlement pressure.
    ​In part to filter out classes that are unlikely to succeed on the [1](  ), courts must conduct a “rigorous analysis” of Rule 23(a)’s prerequisites before certifying a class. 
    ​Plaintiffs must demonstrate that a class (1) is sufficiently numerous so that [1](  ) is impracticable, and (2) raises a common question of law or fact; and that the representative (3) alleges [1](  ) that are typical of class [1](  ), and (4) can adequately represent the class. 
    ​In monetary-damage actions, Rule 23(b)(3) additionally requires that class-wide common issues predominate over individual issues. 
    ​But some courts impose an additional prerequisite that does not appear in the text of Rule 23. 
    ​Under the Third Circuit’s version of “[2](  )” doctrine, plaintiffs must propose a reliable means for ascertaining the identity of all class members before the class can be certified. 
    ​Because most individuals who purchase inexpensive products in stores do not keep itemized receipts and cannot prove their purchase, this requirement typically prevents those consumers from becoming certified as a class. 
    ​Recently, in Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., the Ninth Circuit declined to adopt [2](  ) as a standalone requirement for class certification. 
    ​Although Briseno deftly analyzed a number of important arguments against [2](  ), it did not consider a fundamental problem with that doctrine: no realistic alternative to consumer class actions could effectively replicate their role as a law enforcement mechanism. 
    ​For this reason, a standalone [2](  ) requirement would seriously undermine much of consumer protection law and render some potential defendants [1](  ) when they cause a small amount of harm to a large number of people.
    ニックネームを記入の上、解答を見るボタンを押して戴きますと、ご訪問感謝ポイントが 1 ポイント付きます。当社サービスのご購入時に、1ポイント100円換算でご利用いただけます。ニックネームをお忘れなく。​
    ​

--- Cited from HLR ---


このページを訪れていただいたお客様へのおすすめサービス
​​​


このページを訪れていただいたお客様にコース代金が半額になるクーポンコードをご用意いたしました。チェックアウトの際に、
vocab-law
をご入力ください。

© Copyright 2023 Adamorbis, all rights reserved