法律英语阅读教程
2009-10
中国法制出版社
法律英语证书 编
215
众所周知，美国法是英美法系的典型代表，其法律体系完整、内容丰富，既有传统的普通法，又有新兴的成文法；既有统一的联邦法，又有各州的法律。同时，美国法在世界范围内影响深远，学习研究美国法意义重大，这不仅表现为许多国家都在研究美国的法律规则，借鉴其成熟做法，还表现为许多国际公约也参照美国法的理念、原则、规则制定。因此，本书主要选取了美国法案例作为阅读理解材料，希望读者通过研读这些部门法的经典案例，学习权威、实用的美国法律知识，掌握地道、纯正的法律英语。本书具有以下特点：首先，编者参考了大量的美国原版法学书籍，包括美国法学院教材及大量判例，力求实现教材内容的权威性和丰富性。其次，本书作为法律英语阅读教材，选取了极具代表性的英文案例。英美法系是判例法系，无论是法官还是律师都特别注重对判例的研究，因此学习美国法不能绕过案例。通过研究案例，了解法官判案推理过程和有关法律、法规的适用，更有利于学习标准的法律英语。也更容易掌握美国法的精髓。本书选取了几十个经典案例，以期最大程度的展现美国法原貌。再次，本书在每个案例的后面都附有问答练习题，以期帮助读者检查自己学习研读案例的程度水平。法律英语证书（Legal English Certificate，简称LEC）全国统一考试旨在为国家机关、涉外企事业单位、律师事务所等提供招募国际性人才的客观标准，同时督促国内法律从业人员提高专业英语水平。LEC考试的题型、考查内容与美国律师资格考试相近，同时又突出了法律英语语言运用特色，并结合中国实际增加了法律英语翻译测试。公检法机关和企事业单位涉外法务工作人员；从事涉外法务的律师、公司法律部门的从业人员；高等院校法律、英语、经贸等专业学生；愿意从事法律英语教学的教师以及社会上一切法律英语爱好者均可参加LEC考试。
随着我国入世和世界经济一体化进程的不断加快，国际交流合作日益增多，涉外法务活动空前频繁，法律英语的重要性日益凸显。掌握专业英语已经成为现代法律人必备的职业素质。由于法律英语的特殊性，国内一直没有一个科学的考核指标衡量法律从业人员专业英语的掌握程度。法律英语证书（LEC）全国统一考试的推出为我国法律英语的教与学指明了方向，意义重大，影响深远。
Unit 1 Introduction to Legal Reading Skills 1. The Specific Ski]Is of Legal Reading 2. The Structure of a Judicial Opinion 3. Frequently Used Legal Terms in Opinions 4. Speed and ComprehensionUnit 2 Administrative Law STATE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION ET AL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL GEORGE EXARCHOU v. JOHN L MURFF, DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION AT THE PORT OF NEW YORKUnit 3 Antitrust Law UNITED STATES v. SEALY, INC. KIEFER--STEWART CO. v. JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM &SONS, INC., ET ALUnit 4 Banking and Finance Law CHATSKY AND ASSOCIATES ET AL v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY;BANK OF AMERICA CORP., REAL PARTY IN INTEREST. THE CITIZENS BANK v. ALAFABCO,INC. , ET AL. Unit 5 Civil Procedure AUSLEY v. BISHOP CALDER ET AL v. JONESUnit 6 Constitutional Law BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA BOOS ET AL v. BARRY, MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET ALUnit 7 Contract Law LEFKOWITZ v. GREAT MINNEAPOLIS SURPLUS STORE,INC. JOSEPH FRASER v. DONALD D. EDMISTENUnit 8 Corporation Law DEWITF TRUCK BROKER, INC. v. W. RAY FLEMMING FRUIT COMPANY AND W. REY FLEMMING ANDREW H. SCHNELL v. CHRIS--CRAFT INDUSTRIES,INC. Unit 9 Criminal Law THE PEOPLE &C. v. KEITH ANTWINE THE PEOPLE &C. v. JAMES BYRNE Unit 10 Criminal Procedure UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOSE O. ORTEGA-SKNTANA RICHARD J. TAYLOR,JR. v. UNITED STATES. Unit 11 Employment Law ALFREDO AVILES v. CORNELL FORGE COMPANY AMANDA BENT BOLT COMPANY,AMANDA, OHIOA v. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,LOCAL 1549,ET AT. Unit 12 Environmental Law CITIZENS TO PRESERVE OVERTON PARK v. VOLPE KEY TRONIC CORPORATION, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE; DONALD B. RICE, SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY Unit 13 Evidence Law UNITED STATES v. MNUEL P. AMARAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MARIA CHRISTINA HURTADO AND AUGUSTINE ARAGONES,JR. Unit 14 Family Law ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL S. W. v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTYUnit 15 Intellectual Property Law HENRI'S FOOD PRODUCTS CO. INC. v. TASTY SNACKS, INC. PIONEER HI--BRED INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. J. E. M. AG SUPPLY, INC. , FARM ADVANTAGE, INC. , LARRY BENZ, MERLE PRUETT, KEVIN WOLFSWINKEL,TIM KAMSTRA, AND TOM EISCHEN SEED AND CHEMICALS Unit 16 Property Law DOROTHY MOORE AND KENT REINHARDT v. RUBY F. PHILLIPS, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ADA CHLOE BRANNAN,DECEASED LEECO GAS &OIL COMPANY v. COUNTY OF NUECES.Unit 17 Torts JEFFREY J. HARPER v. THEODOR H. HERMAN THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS-PAN AMERICAN v. TONY AGUILAR AND KAY MARIE AGUILAR BIG TOWN NURSING HOME, INC. v. HOWARD TERRY NEWMANAppendix I Key to ExercisesAppendix II 常用拉丁语法律词汇Sources of Reading Materials Used in this Book
插图：JUSTICE REHNQUlST delivered the opinion of the CourtRespondent Shirley Jones bwught suit in California Superior Court claiming that she hadbeen libeled in all article written and edited by petitioners in Horida.The article was publishedin a national magazine with a large circulation in California.Petitioners were se~ed withprocess by mail in Horida and caused special appearances to be entered on their behalf'movingto quash the service of process for lack of personal[465 U.S.783，785] jurisdiction.TheSuperior Court granted the motion on the ground that First Amendment concerns weighedagainst an assertion of jurisdiction otherwise proper under the Due Process Clause.TheCalifornia Court of Appeal reversed'rejecting the suggestion that First Amendmentconsiderations enter into the jurisdictional analysis.We now affirm.Respondent lives and works in California.She and her husband brought this suit againstthe National Enquirer，Inc。，its local distributing company，and petitioners for libel，invasion ofprivacy，and intentional infliction of emotional harm.The Enquirer is a Florida corporation withits principal place of business in Florida.It publishes a national weekly newspaper with a totalcirculation of over 5 million.About 600，000 of those copies’almost twice the level of the nexthighest State，are sold in California.Respondent’s and her husband’s claims were based on anarticle that appeared in the Enquirer's October 9’1979，issue.Both the Enquirer and thedistributing company answered the complaint and made no objection to the jurisdiction of theCaifornia court.Petitioner South is a reporter employed by the Enquirer.He is a resident of Florida，thoughhe frequently travels to California on business.South wrote the first draft of the challengedarticle，and his byline appeared on it.He did most of his research in Horida’relying on phonecalls to sources in California for the information contained in the article.Shortly beforepublication，South called respondent’s[465 U.S.783，786]home and read to her husband adraft of the article so as to elicit his comments upon it.Aside from his frequent trips and phonecalls’South has no other relevant contacts with California.Petitioner Calder is also a Horida resident.He has been to California only twice——once，ona pleasure trip，prior to the publication of the article and once after to testify in an unrelatedtrial.Calder is president and editor of the Enquirer.He”oversee[s]just about every function ofthe Enquirer.”App.24。He reviewed and approved the initial evaluation of the subject of thearticle and edited it in its final form.He also declined to print a retraction requested byrespondent.Calder has no other relevant contacts with California.
想考法律英语证书的同学，或有意于从事涉外法律事务的同学可以试试看。
法律英语考试用
书的纸张有点薄，但是应该是教材自身的原因吧，正好想买几本法律英语书，开始犹豫了一下，没想到第二天就全部都打折了，所以果断的买了三本，很划算，内容还没有看，收到就来评论了，希望可以得到收获。
平时自己翻翻 拓宽些法律英语知识还是挺不错的
本书内容丰富，教程科学，对提升法律阅读能力很有帮助。
全英文，专业英语，没中文翻译。想啃的要先考虑好：）
考试用书，都差不多一个模式，还可以的。
为考试准备,无所谓好坏
为了考试而买，无所谓好坏
综合性很强 把各种材料和考试形式集中在一起很利于复习
作为教材用书，质量还是蛮不错的
正版教材，降价得来，值得看看
慢慢看吧！希望有用
第一次**当买东东，很快
全是英文，需要好好下一番功夫啊
潮，土多，太一般
还可以吧，以后再看
此书很难，质量也不是很好
很好的书，坚持下来就更好了，毕竟是官方要求的书……
质量很好 质量是所有商家最便宜的了 实惠
正版图书，物流及时
纸质还不错！ 希望能促进学习！
很久没有接触英文了，就是想联系一下感情，这本书翻开全部都是英文，具体内容还没研究，但是看样子正是我想要的东西
很实用，特别适合想考证书的学习者
质量不错，内容也比较详细。
挺好。有利于提高专业英语水平
英文貌似还算地道.还没看几页,为了考试准备的.
挺好的 价格还好
书是09版的，虽没有使用过的痕迹，但感觉不是很新。不知道内容上改动幅度大不大。
还没来得学习!
没什好说的啦 工具书而已
新书新书
书本质量不错，内容也还可以。
内容我还没看，不过书是真的很破，书角都皱皱的，看起来很有年代。。。
没有中文注释，答案也不是很详细， 读英语水平不是很高的人来说，还是稍难了些
考试要用的嘛，还没看完
好好哄阿红阿红阿红阿红
因为就在北京 所以第二天就送到了
纸质差，印刷差，怎么看也不像正版书，还没仔细看内容，但愿内容上不要有什么大瑕疵。
正版出版物，品质非常好。