Huang Yongbin of Luzhou, Sichuan, has been married to his wife Jiang Lunfang for more than 30 years and has an adopted son. From 1994, Huang began to associate with Zhang, and from 1996, they lived together openly, relying on Huang's salary (pension) and bonus, and once ran together. However, Huang Yongbin and Jiang Lunfang did not divorce. Since February, 20001year, Huang has been seriously ill in hospital, and Jiang Lunfang has been taking care of him in the hospital. The court held that he had fulfilled his maintenance obligations. /kloc-In April, 2008, Huang Yongbin made a will: "I decided to leave my friend Zhang with the housing subsidy, provident fund, pension and half of the selling price (that is, 40,000 yuan) of a house in Jiangyang District, Luzhou City. After my death, the urn was buried by Zhang. " On April 20th, the will was notarized in the Notary Office of Naxi District. After Huang's death, Zhang asked Jiang for property and urn according to his will, but Jiang refused. Zhang Sui sued the Naxi District People's Court, requesting that the defendant Jiang Lunfang be ordered to perform according to the will according to the relevant provisions of the Inheritance Law, and at the same time applying for pre-litigation preservation of the estate. From May 17, after four sessions (once suspended, July 1 day 13, 2006), Naxi District Judicial Bureau cancelled the "legacy pension" part of the notarized will, and still maintained the notarization of the housing subsidy and the provident fund belonging to Huang Yongbin. After the resumption of the trial), and on June 65438+ 10 1 1, the plaintiff Zhang's claim was rejected. According to the basic principle of Article 7 of the General Principles of the Civil Law that "civil activities should respect social morality and shall not harm social public interests", the court held that although Huang's will was an expression of his true meaning, it was legal in form, but its contents were illegal, and Huang's illegal cohabitation with the plaintiff violated the relevant provisions of the Marriage Law. Huang's bequest will is a violation of public order, good customs and laws, so it is invalid. The verdict of this case won the enthusiastic support of the local people, but it was evaluated by many legal professionals as a conflict between "morality and law" and "emotion and law", and even as a wrong case made under the pressure of public opinion.
2. Qi Yuling's right to education case
Qi Yuling and Xiaoqi Chen are both 1990 junior high school graduates from Tengzhou No.8 Middle School. Xiaoqi Chen lost the primary examination of middle school in 1990 and lost the qualification for entrance examination. Qi Yuling passed the pre-selection examination, with a unified examination score of 44 1, which exceeded the admission score of Pei Wei. Later, Jining Commercial School issued a notice to admit "Qi Yuling" as a client of accounting major 1990. Under the control of his father Chen Kezheng, Xiaoqi Chen entered Jining Commercial School under the name of Qi Yuling after receiving the notice from Tengzhou No.8 Middle School. After graduating from Jining Business School, Xiaoqi Chen worked in Tengzhou Branch of Bank of China under the name of Qi Yuling. Qi Yuling studied in Zoucheng Labor Technical School after re-reading, and was assigned to Shandong Lunan Ferroalloy General Factory in August 1996. Since July, 1998, she has been laid off and unemployed for quite some time. 1999 after learning that Xiaoqi Chen was using his name to go to school and get a job, Qi Yuling appealed to the court on the grounds that Xiaoqi Chen and related schools and units had infringed on his right to name and education, demanding that the defendant stop the infringement and compensate the economic loss and mental loss. Zaozhuang Intermediate People's Court held that Xiaoqi Chen had infringed Qi Yuling's name right and ordered Xiaoqi Chen to stop the infringement. Xiaoqi Chen, Chen Kezheng, Jining Commercial School, Tengzhou No.8 Middle School and Tengzhou Municipal Education Commission apologized to Qi Yuling and compensated her for mental damages of 35,000 yuan. Qi Yuling refused to accept the appeal and demanded that Xiaoqi Chen and others compensate 560,000 yuan for various losses.
During the second trial of the case, the Supreme People's Court gave a special reply on August 13, "Should citizens' basic right to education protected by the Constitution bear civil liability?" (Fa Shi No.200 125), clearly pointing out that according to the facts of the case, Xiaoqi Chen and others violated Qi Yuling's basic right to education in accordance with the Constitution.
On August 23rd, the Shandong Higher People's Court made a final judgment, ruling that Xiaoqi Chen would stop infringing on Yuling's name right. Xiaoqi Chen, Chen Kezheng, Jining Business School, Tengzhou No.8 Middle School and Tengzhou Municipal Education Commission apologized to Qi Yuling; The direct economic loss of 7,000 yuan caused by Qi Yuling's violation of her right to education was compensated by Xiaoqi Chen and Chen Kezheng, and Jining Commercial School, Tengzhou No.8 Middle School and Tengzhou Municipal Education Commission were jointly and severally liable for compensation. Qi Yuling's indirect economic losses caused by the violation of her right to education are compensated by Xiaoqi Chen and Chen Kezheng, and Jining Commercial School, Tengzhou No.8 Middle School and Tengzhou Municipal Education Commission are jointly and severally liable for compensation. Xiaoqi Chen, Chen Kezheng, Jining Commercial School, Tengzhou No.8 Middle School and Tengzhou Municipal Education Commission paid Qi Yuling 50,000 yuan for mental damages.
3. Du Baoliang's huge traffic fine case
On June 28th, 2003, the Law of the People's Republic of China on Road Traffic Safety was passed by the Fifth Session of the Standing Committee of the Tenth NPC, and came into force on May 28th, 2004. On June 22, 2004, the 15th meeting of the Standing Committee of the 12th Beijing Municipal People's Congress adopted the Measures for the Implementation of Beijing Municipality, which came into force on June 22, 2005.
On May 23rd, 2005, Du Baoliang, an Anhui migrant worker, accidentally learned that he had violated the no-walking sign 105 times at the same place in Zhenwumiao Road, Beijing, and all of them were recorded by the "electronic eye", so he had to pay a fine of 10500 yuan, and the traffic violation score was 2 10. This means that he worked in vain for a year because he got up early and was greedy for the dark, selling vegetables for a living. Since paying a traffic violation fine of 1000 yuan, the life of Lao Du and his wife has been disrupted. "Every day at home is to review traffic regulations."
After the matter was disclosed by the media, it caused widespread concern, and public opinion called it "Du Baoliang phenomenon".
The Legal Affairs Department of Beijing Traffic Management Bureau believes that "covert law enforcement conforms to the law and is a law enforcement means adopted by the traffic control department for traffic violations". The new traffic law gives the traffic police the power to investigate and deal with traffic violations, and the traffic police have the power to enforce the law. Secret law enforcement is just a way for traffic police to exercise law enforcement power and investigate and deal with illegal acts. In order to achieve the effect of strict law enforcement, the traffic control department has adopted various means, including on-site guidance and command, electronic eye monitoring, and direct shooting by traffic police. , including secret law enforcement.
A taxi driver commented on this matter: We are driving in a place where there are no traffic police and electronic eyes on duty. Should we obey the traffic rules? Many of our drivers have a kind of psychology, as if obeying traffic laws is a last resort to deal with traffic police. The purpose of setting up traffic electronic eyes now is aimed at this kind of psychology and phenomenon. If one day our driver drives alone on the road without traffic police and electronic eyes, he can still drive naturally according to traffic rules, then electronic eyes can rest. The electronic eye has just started, and I'm afraid it's the first time I've encountered such a thing. There should be a process of improvement, so playing the board on traffic control is a bit emotional. I think drivers should think more about how to obey the law. "This person doesn't know that he can't walk here like this" is probably not an excuse to evade responsibility, otherwise how to enforce the law? There are too many excuses to avoid responsibility here. Here, farmers or lawyers should not be used to divide the boundaries of whether to abide by the rules.
Some people in the society think that as drivers, no matter what level or reason, they should abide by laws and regulations, and they should not break the law just because they don't understand the law, and then people show sympathy for them. This is unreasonable. "Du Baoliang violated the rules" actually exposed another problem, that is, the lack of legal education. The current new traffic law in China is the first traffic law in more than 40 years. It has only been implemented for more than a year now, and the implementation time of relevant rules in various places is even shorter. Therefore, tens of millions of drivers need to popularize traffic laws in various ways. The purpose of making laws and regulations is to make people abide by them. If we only rely on punishment, it will deviate from the purpose of formulating laws and regulations. For drivers, they have the obligation to actively learn the new traffic law and related rules, and should not shirk their responsibilities on the grounds of not knowing. If this matter is meaningful, it can only be said that it exposes the shortcomings of traffic management and the reality of drivers' quality. In addition, this is also a popular education for the new communication law.
A spokesman for the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau said that there are still some outstanding problems in daily law enforcement. For example, when reporting violations, it is not well thought out. In reality, some citizens can't know the violations through the Internet in time. In the future rectification, it is necessary to strengthen traffic signs so that people can see at a glance. The Municipal Bureau will rectify and standardize public security law enforcement and promote justice in law enforcement.
On June 13, Du Baoliang, accompanied by a lawyer, filed an administrative lawsuit with the People's Court of Xicheng District, Beijing on the issue of "fine of 10,000 yuan". Du Baoliang, 40, told reporters: "This is the first time in my life to go to court."
Du Baoliang's lawyer, Wang Ying, pointed out that according to the second paragraph of Article 107 of the Measures for the Implementation of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China in Beijing: "If the traffic management department of the public security organ and its traffic police find that the motor vehicle has an unprocessed record of illegal behavior, they shall notify the motor vehicle owner or driver in writing, and the motor vehicle owner or driver shall accept the treatment according to the time and place notified." The Xidan team did not handle Du Baoliang's illegal behavior as many as 105 times, but never fulfilled the obligation of "informing in writing".
On the morning of June 18, Beijing Xicheng District People's Court informed the court that Du Baoliang was officially served with the Notice of Acceptance of Administrative Cases, which read: "Du Baoliang: On June 13, 2005, our hospital received your complaint against Xidan Brigade of Xicheng Traffic Detachment. After review, your lawsuit basically meets the statutory acceptance conditions, and our hospital decided to file a case for trial. "
After learning the news that the court filed a case, Du Baoliang said that in the past, he always thought that going to court was a disgraceful thing. This is the first time he has entered the court in his life, and he is still a "people's accusation." Everyone in his hometown knows. But now he has changed his mind. "So many people have helped me, especially the lawyers who provided me with legal aid. I also began to know some legal knowledge and know how to protect myself with the law. "
4. Luoyang Seed Case in Henan Province
On May 22nd, 20001year, Ruyang Company signed a contract with Yichuan Company, agreeing that Yichuan Company would breed corn seeds for it. At the beginning of 2003, Ruyang Company sued Yichuan Company to Luoyang Intermediate People's Court for compensation on the grounds that Yichuan Company failed to perform the contract. The facts of this case are not disputed. The difference between the two sides mainly lies in the calculation method of loss compensation. The plaintiff claims to apply the seed law, and the amount of compensation is calculated according to the "market price"; The defendant demanded that the Regulations on the Management of Crop Seeds in Henan Province be applied and calculated according to the "government guidance price".
On May 27th, 2003, Li Huijuan, who was in charge of this case, issued the judgment No.26 of "2003 Luo Min Zi Chu" with the consent of the court's audit committee, which supported the plaintiff's claim and ordered Yichuan Company to compensate according to the market price. The verdict reads: "After the implementation of the Seed Law, the price of corn seeds has been regulated by the market. The Regulations on the Management of Crop Seeds in Henan Province, as a local regulation with a low legal rank, is naturally invalid. " . After the verdict was pronounced, both parties appealed.
In June 65438+1October 65438+August of the same year, the General Office of the Standing Committee of Henan Provincial People's Congress issued the Circular on the Relevant Contents of Luoyang Intermediate People's Court's Illegal Application of Local Regulations Adopted by the Standing Committee of Provincial People's Congress in Civil Trial, demanding that the Henan Provincial High Court seriously deal with the "serious illegal acts" of Luoyang Intermediate People's Court, and deal with the directly responsible persons and competent leaders according to law. The Provincial People's Congress believes that Li Huijuan, as a judge, has no right to declare local regulations invalid, and the judgment of Luoyang Intermediate People's Court is unconstitutional; The National People's Congress is the legislature and the courts are the law enforcement organs. Its main task is to apply the law. The amendment and repeal of this law falls within the scope of the functions and powers of the National People's Congress. Therefore, regardless of whether there is a conflict, the court has no right to declare laws and regulations valid or invalid.
Subsequently, the party group of Luoyang Intermediate People's Court made a decision according to the requirements, revoking the post of vice president of the People's Court that issued the judgment, the post of presiding judge of Li Huijuan, and removing the post of assistant judge of Li Huijuan.
10 10/2 1 day, the Henan Provincial High Court said in a circular to the whole province that "individual policemen's people's congresses have a weak awareness of the system and their political and professional qualities are not high. ..... No matter what the specific circumstances of the case are, the contents of local regulations shall not be deemed invalid in the judgment. "
On March 30, 2004, the Supreme People's Court issued "Reply on Request for Instructions on the Contract Dispute of Maize Seed Substitution between Ruyang County Seed Company in Henan Province and Yichuan County Seed Company in Henan Province", arguing that according to Article 79 of the Legislative Law, "the legal effect is higher than administrative regulations, local regulations and rules, and the administrative regulations are higher than local regulations and rules"; Article 4 of the Interpretation of People's Republic of China (PRC) Contract Law (I) stipulates: "After the implementation of the contract law, the people's court shall confirm that the contract is invalid, based on the laws formulated by the National People's Congress and its Standing Committee and the administrative regulations formulated by the State Council, and shall not be based on local regulations and administrative rules." In the process of hearing a case, the people's court considers that local regulations are inconsistent with the provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and the relevant provisions of laws and administrative regulations shall apply.
On April 1 day, the Standing Committee of Henan Provincial People's Congress passed the "Implementation Measures for the Implementation of People's Republic of China (PRC) Seed Law in Henan Province", which came into effect on July 1 day. The Regulations on the Management of Crop Seeds in Henan Province shall be abolished at the same time.
5. The case of from ruin.
165438+1October 12 in the afternoon10/30: 00, a car accident happened at Hainan East Expressway 122 km: a company in Hainan was pushed into the guardrail by a big truck for more than two hours, and the emergency doctor of Wanning People's Hospital rushed to the scene.
How to solve this shameful moral dilemma of the times marked by "incorrigible", resort to law or rebuild morality? In the face of moral anomie, people often think of the weapon of law.
The frequent occurrence of "from ruin" has repeatedly shown that it is far from enough to rely on moral constraints and limited legal responsibilities for this social problem. Only by comprehensive use of legal means can we punish this kind of indifference and dereliction of duty which is extremely harmful to society. In other words, national civil servants should play an exemplary role in establishing and advocating social morality and good manners, and this "should" can rise to the level of legal obligations; Every citizen should be duty-bound to help the dangerous situation within the scope of his duties, and this responsibility can also be mentioned at the legal level.
As early as 200 1, at the National People's Congress, 32 deputies put forward a bill to increase the crimes in criminal law. It is suggested that a new charge be added to the criminal law: "the crime of not saving from danger and the crime of not saving from danger"
The phenomena of "not saving is dangerous" and "not saving is dangerous" have aroused widespread concern from all walks of life. The social impact of "not saving in times of danger" and "not saving in times of danger" is quite bad, and such legislation has long existed in some countries. At this NPC meeting, Liu Rujun and other 32 delegates also put forward a motion on this issue. They suggested adding the crime of "not saving in case of danger" to the criminal law, and the legislative content should include the legal definition and punishment provisions of criminal acts.
Some legal scholars have suggested that when the national interests and the legitimate rights and interests of others are damaged, citizens have the obligation to help; For the behavior of "not saving", criminal responsibility can be investigated according to its social harmfulness and the subjective and objective conditions of the responsible person at that time.
Ni Zhengmao, a member of Shanghai CPPCC, a professor at Shanghai University Law School, and some CPPCC members also put forward suggestions-establishing the crime of "being courageous" and enacting the Law of Rewarding Being courageous.
In their view, the basis of the crime of "not saving in times of danger" can refer to the severity of the consequences of the incident, the attitude of the parties at the time of the incident and so on. The reward for courageous people can be determined according to the degree of dedication of the parties at that time, the critical situation at the time of the incident, the effective consequences achieved and other factors.
6. Riggs v Palmer.
Palmer killed his grandfather with poison in new york on 1882, and his grandfather left him a large legacy in his existing will. Palmer was sentenced to several years in prison by the court for murder, but whether Palmer can enjoy the right to inherit his grandfather's estate has become a difficult case for judges. Palmer's aunts think that since Palmer killed the deceased, the law should not continue to give Palmer any inheritance rights. However, the law of New York State does not clearly stipulate that if the heir kills the decedent, of course, he loses his inheritance right. On the contrary, Palmer's grandfather's will before his death fully meets the valid conditions stipulated by law. Therefore, Palmer's lawyer argues that since this will is legally valid, and since Palmer is designated as the heir by a valid will, he should enjoy the legal right to inherit the estate. If the court deprives Palmer of his inheritance, then the court is changing the law, that is, replacing the law with its own moral beliefs.
Judge Gray, who heard the case, also supported the lawyer's statement. Judge Gray thinks that if Palmer's grandfather knew Palmer was going to kill him, he might be willing to give his inheritance to others, but the court can't rule out the opposite possibility, that is, his grandfather thinks that even if Palmer killed someone (even his grandfather himself), he will still be the best heir. The meaning of law is defined by the words used in the legal text itself, while the New York State Wills Law has a clear definition, so there is no reason to abandon it. In addition, if Palmer loses his inheritance by killing the decedent, it will be an additional punishment for Palmer besides imprisonment. This violates the principle of "a legally prescribed punishment for a crime". The punishment for a crime must be prescribed by the legislature in advance, and the judge cannot impose additional punishment on the crime after the judgment.
However, Earle, another judge who tried the case, believed that the true meaning of the law depends not only on the legal text, but also on the intention of legislators outside the text, and the real intention of legislators obviously will not let the murderer inherit the inheritance. Judge Earle's other reason is that understanding the true meaning of law cannot be based only on historically isolated legal texts, and judges should creatively conceive a law that is closest to the principle of justice that permeates the law in order to maintain the unity of the whole legal system. Judge Earle finally quoted an old legal principle-no one can benefit from his own fault-to explain that the testamentary law should be understood as denying the right of inheritance by killing the heir.
In the end, Judge Earle's opinion prevailed and four judges supported him. Judge Gray has only one supporter. The Supreme Court of New York ruled that Palmer was disinherited.