法律英語課文翻譯

-z.第二單元第一篇P21第一段的“procedure〞：thisisaproceedinguponwritofadeathbenefitawardbytheIndustrialAccidentmissioninfavorofthewidowandthreeminorchildrenofKarlLund,deceased.petitionerStateEmployees'RetirementSystemseeksanannulmentofth這是一個死亡令狀效益賠償，有關(guān)工業(yè)事故委員會贊同對寡婦和已故的卡爾隆德的三個未成年的孩子進(jìn)展賠償。申請人，國家雇員退休系統(tǒng)，旨在廢除該賠償為由，辯論委員會擅自行動，且超過其權(quán)力行使權(quán)力，其證明的事實證據(jù)缺乏。P22倒數(shù)第一段：onthecontrary,wearerequiredtoindulgeallreasonableinferenceswhichmaybedrawnlegitimatelyfromthefactsinordertosupportthefindingsofthemission,andindoingsoallthatisrequiredisreasonableprobability;notabsolutecertainty.反之，我們需要放縱所有合理的推斷，可能是合法的事實來支持委員會的調(diào)查結(jié)果，如此一來，這樣做所需的一切就是合理的可能性，而非絕對確實定性。P23第一段neithermaytheawardbeannulledbecausetherearetwoconclusionswhichfairlymaybedrawnfromtheevidence,bothofwhicharereasonable,theonesustainingandotheropposingtherighttopensation.裁定是不可撤銷的，因為有兩個結(jié)論是從證據(jù)中公正地得出的，這兩者都是合理的，一個是支持，并且另外一個是反對賠償?shù)臋?quán)利。P23app1：thatLund,asafishandgamewarden,hadnoregularorfi*edhoursofemployment;thatfrequentlyhedidpatroldutyatnightforthepurposeofinterceptingviolatorsofthefishandgamelaws.隆德，是魚類和游戲管理員，沒有正規(guī)的或固定的工作時間，他經(jīng)常夜間值班巡邏，攔截違反漁獵法的行為。App2：astotheplaceofhisdeath,theevidenceshowsthathehadstationedhimselfinaterritorywhichwasundersurveillancefortheillegalspotlightkillingofdeer.在他死的地方，有證據(jù)說明，他曾駐扎在被監(jiān)視的非法捕殺鹿的聚光燈的區(qū)域里。App3：whileonsuchdutyhewasnotonlypermittedto,butitwascontemplatedthathecouldconvertthecarintoabed(foritwassoequipped,)andthathemightretirethereonorsleep.therewasnorulethatforbadehishavingpanywhileonduty.而對這種責(zé)任，他不僅是被允許的，而且我們看到他可以將其轉(zhuǎn)換成汽車床〔因為它是如此裝備，〕這樣他可以就寢。他的公司沒有任何規(guī)則制止在值班時找伙伴陪同。P23最后一段第一句：fromthisandotherfactsandcircumstancesintherecord,wecannotsaytherewasnotsubstantialevidencetosupportthefindingsofthemission,orthatthefindingswereirrational.從這個地方和其他的事實和情況的記錄來看，我們不能說這里沒有實質(zhì)性的證據(jù)支持委員會的調(diào)查結(jié)果，或者說結(jié)果是不合理的。第二單元第二篇P25第一段的procedure：thisisanappealfromadecisionofthedistrictcourtdismissingawritofhabeascorpussuspendingrelator'sdeportation.relatorconcedesthatheillegallyenteredtheunitedstatesin1945withoutanimmigrationvisaandhenceisdeportable.這是一個關(guān)于區(qū)法院決定駁回暫停申請者驅(qū)逐出境的人身保護令的上訴。表達(dá)者成認(rèn)他于1945年沒有移民簽證非法進(jìn)入美國以及他因此應(yīng)該被驅(qū)逐出境。P26第二段第一句的rule：relator,nottheImmigrationService,hastheburdenofproofontheissueofhisgoodmoralcharacter.是表達(dá)者，而不是移民規(guī)劃局，對他的良好的道德品格負(fù)有舉證責(zé)任。P26還是第二段，issue：whetherornottoallowadeportablealientoleavethecountryvoluntarilyismittedtothediscretionoftheattorneygeneralandhissubordinates。是否允許一個被驅(qū)逐的外國人自愿承諾離開該國，取決于司法部長和他的下屬的自由裁量權(quán)。P26第三段第一句：thereisnodoubtofthedifficultiesbothfortheadministrativeagencyandforthecourtsinthedeterminationofquestionsofthekind,dependingonnuancesofimpressionsastohumanbehavior.毫無疑問，最困難的是在認(rèn)定問題時依據(jù)行政機構(gòu)還是法院，這些要依據(jù)人類行為的細(xì)微差異。P26倒數(shù)第一段：actuallytherecordindicatesthatavoidanceofembarrassmentwasprobablyastrongerfactorinherrefusalthanfearofself-incrimination.實際上，記錄說明，防止為難，可能是比拒絕自證其罪的恐懼感來得更強大的一個因素。五單元反壟斷法38p2TheCourtofAppealserredinholdingthatanagreementamongpetitorstofi*ma*imumresalepricesoftheirproductsdoesnotviolatetheShermanAct.上訴法院錯誤地認(rèn)為競爭者之間確定產(chǎn)品的最高轉(zhuǎn)售價格的協(xié)議不違反壟斷法。38第二段倒數(shù)第三行：UndertheShermanActabinationformedforthepurposeandwiththeeffectofraising,depressing,fi*ing,pegging,orstabilizingthepriceofamodityininterstateorforeignmerceisillegalperse.在反壟斷法中，一個為了在洲際或國際貿(mào)易中起到提高、壓制、制定、限制或平衡商品的價格的影響的，這本身是不合法的。38p3TheCourtofAppealsalsoerredinholdingtheevidenceinsufficienttosupportafindingbythejurythatrespondentshadconspiredtofi*ma*imumresaleprices.上訴法院錯在認(rèn)為支持陪審團認(rèn)為被告有陰謀地制定最高轉(zhuǎn)售額的證據(jù)是不充分的。39第三段第一句RespondentsalsoseektosupportthejudgmentofreversalonothergroundsnotpassedonbytheCourtofAppealsbutwhichhavebeenarguedherebothorallyandinthebriefs.被告還請求法院撤銷判決，基于其他沒有被上訴法院通過但是在本院進(jìn)展口頭辯論并總結(jié)的原因。39第三段第四行RespondentsintroducedevidenceinthedistrictcourtdesignedtoshowthatpetitionerhadagreedwithotherIndianawholesalerstosetminimumpricesforthesaleofliquorinviolationoftheantitrustlaws.被告在基層法院舉證時試圖說明，原告為了銷售含酒精飲料和其他印第安納零售商達(dá)成設(shè)定最低銷售額的協(xié)議的行為違反了反托拉斯法。39第三段第六行itisnowcontendedthatthetrialcourterredinchargingthejurythatpetitioner'spartinsuchaconspiracy,evenifproved,wasnodefensetothepresentcauseofaction?，F(xiàn)在值得肯定的是原審法院的誤導(dǎo)了陪審團關(guān)于申請人有這樣一個陰謀，但即便如此，也不能阻礙當(dāng)前行為構(gòu)成。39第三段第八行Weholdthattheinstructionwascorrect.SeagramandCalvertactingindividuallyperhapsemighthaverefusedtodealwithpetitioner。我們認(rèn)為指令是正確的，Seagram和calvert各自的行為可能會拒絕和原告的交易。39p4Respindentsne*tsuggestthattheirstatusasmereinstrumentalitiesofasinglemanufacturing—merchandisingunit’makesitimpossibleforthemtohaveconspiredinamannerforbiddenbytheShermanAct.Butthissuggestionrunscountertoourpastdecisionsthatmonownershipandcontroldoesnotliberatesorporationsfromtheimpactoftheantitrustlaws…..Theruleisespeciallyapplicablewhere,ashere,respondentsholdthemselvesoutaspetitors.被告接著指出，他們作為一個純粹的單獨制造經(jīng)營的單元，這種地位令他們的行為不可能是**反壟斷法。但是，這種觀點與我們原來的判決相反，原來認(rèn)為共同的所有權(quán)和支配權(quán)不能使公司逃避反托拉斯法的調(diào)整。這條法律尤其適用像這里所說的被告把自己作為競爭者的情況。七單元合同法76P1ThisisanappealfromanorderoftheMunicipalCourtofMinneapolisdenyingthemotionofthedefendantforamendedfindingsoffact,or,inthealternative,foranewtrial.Theorderforjudfmentawardedtheplaintiffthesumof138.5asdamagesforbreachofcontract.這是一個關(guān)于明尼阿波利斯市法院拒絕被告關(guān)于修正所發(fā)現(xiàn)的事實的提議的上訴，或者，作為替代，它是一個新的審判。原告的訴訟請求是請求被告支付違約金138.5美元。76倒2L3howmuchlessbeingspeculativeespeciallyinviewofthepriceforwhichtheywereofferedforsale.投機的多少，特別針對于他們提供銷售的價格來看。77P3Therearenumerousauthoritieswhichholdthataparticularadvertisementinanewspaperorcircularletterrelatingtoasaleofarticlesmaybeconstruedbythecourtasconstitutinganoffer,acceptanceofwhichwouldpleteacontract.有許多權(quán)威人士認(rèn)為把特定的廣告登在報紙上或通知在有關(guān)出售物品的文章上是可以由法院解釋說明其構(gòu)成要約，承諾即構(gòu)成完整的合同。九單元刑法95P5personistuiltyofescapeintheseconddegreewhen…Havingbeenarrestedfor,chargedwithorconvictedofaclassC,classDorclassEfelony,heescapesfromcustody.他被判二級脫逃罪，因犯c級，d級，e級重罪被捕，逃離監(jiān)管。95P5倒4DefendantarguesthatinordertobeconvictedofthecrimeofescapeunderPenalLaw205.10(2),hewouldhavehadtomakeitpastthehospitale*itdoors.Anythingshortofleavingthebuilding,accordingtodefendant,wassimplyanattemptedescape.被告爭論說為了被判刑法205.10的脫逃罪，他必須逃出醫(yī)院的出口大門，而被告只是純碎的試圖脫逃。96P2L2Hence,oncethePeopleshowthatadefendantbrokefreeorgotawayfromtherestraintorcontroloftheofficer,asdefendantdidherebyphysicallyremovingrestraintstofreehimselffromthecontrolsimposedandrunningaway,sufficientevidencee*iststosupportthecrimeofescape.因此，一旦人們指出被告脫逃并遠(yuǎn)離了公務(wù)員的約束和控制，被告解除身體的限制，逃離控制，這些充足的證據(jù)足以成立脫逃罪。96P2L8hereitwashepointwhendefendantwasnolongerunderthecontroloftheofficerandhadremovedhimselefromhercustodywithoutauthorization—whenshehadtogivechase,placingherselfandthepublicatrick—thattheelementsofPenalLaw205.10(2)weresufficientlymet.現(xiàn)在有一關(guān)鍵是當(dāng)被告不在受控于公務(wù)員時，他在未經(jīng)許可的情況下逃離了公務(wù)員的監(jiān)管，此時公務(wù)員不得不追趕，使她和社會公眾處在危險中，這充分見證了刑法205.10規(guī)定的要素。十二單元環(huán)境法P4L4Theirclaimwasrejectedbythedistrictcourt,whichgrantedthesecretary’smotionforsummaryjudgment,andthecourtofappealsforthesi*thcircuitaffirmed.他們的請求被區(qū)法院駁回，并準(zhǔn)予秘書長及時審判的請求，而且第六巡回上訴法院維持了判決。Afteroralargument,thiscourtgrantedastaythathaltedconstructionand,treatingtheapplicationforthestayasapetitionforcertiorari,grantedreview.經(jīng)過口頭的辯論，本法院同意暫停施工，把申請暫停的請求作為司法審查的上訴狀，準(zhǔn)予司法審查。400U.S.939.Wenowreversethejudgmentbelowandremandforfurtherproceedingsinthedistrictcourt..我們現(xiàn)在撤銷原判決，并要求區(qū)法院進(jìn)一步進(jìn)展訴訟。120P2AlthoughtheroutethroughtheparkwasapprovedbytheBureauofPublicRoadsin1956andbytheFederalHighwayAdministratorin1966,雖然1956年Bureau公路管理局道路和1966年聯(lián)邦鐵路行政機構(gòu)均批準(zhǔn)從公園通過，theenactmentof§4oftheDepartmentofTransportationActpreventeddistributionoffederalfundsforthesectionofthehighwaydesignatedtogothroughOvertonParkuntiltheSecretaryofTransportationdeterminedwhethertherequirementsof§4hadbeenmet..交通部制定的行動方案§4阻止為公路通過歐弗頓公園分配聯(lián)邦資金，直到交通部部長確定§4方案是否得到了實現(xiàn)。120P3PetitionerscontendthattheSecretary’sactionisinvalidwithoutsuchformalfindings,andthattheSecretarydidnotmakeanindependentdetermination,butmerelyreliedonthejudgmentofMemphisCityCouncil.

120P4RespondentsarguetheitwasunnecessaryfortheSecretarytomakeformalfindings,andthathedid,infact,e*ercisehisownindependentjudgment,whichwassupportedbythefacts.被告辯稱秘書長進(jìn)展正式調(diào)查是不必要的，實際上他也沒有這么做，他進(jìn)展了獨立的審查,這是事實證據(jù)的支持.Inthedistrictcourt,respondentsintroducedaffidavits,preparedspecificallyforthelitigation,whichindicatedthattheAecretaryhadmadethedecisionandthatthedecisionwassupportable.在區(qū)法院審理階段，被告為了訴訟介紹了已準(zhǔn)備好的詳細(xì)書面證言。121P2Weagreethatformalfindingswerenotrequired.Butwedonotbelievethat，inthiscase，judicialreviewbasedsolelyonlitigationaffidavitswasadequate.我們認(rèn)同正式調(diào)查是不必須的。但是我們相信這個案子的司法審查僅僅基于訴訟中單純的書面證言是不充分的。

121P3Athresholdquestion—whetherpetitionersareentitledtoanyjudicialreview---iseasilyanswered.一個首要的問題是——原告是否被授予任何司法審查的權(quán)利——這是很容易答復(fù)的。Section701oftheAdministrativeProcedureAct,5U.S.C.§701,providesthetheactionof“eachauthorityoftheGovernmentoftheUnitedStates,〞行政訴訟法的701章5U.S.C.§701授予“美國每個政府權(quán)力部門〞實施行動的自由whichincludestheDepartmentofTransortation,issubjecttojudicialreviewe*ceptwherethereisastatutoryprohibitiononrevieworwhere“agencyactionismittedtoagencydiscretionbylaw.〞這包括交通部門，收到司法審查的制約，除非有立法制止審查的規(guī)定或者機構(gòu)行動在于法律授予機構(gòu)的自由裁量權(quán)的范圍之內(nèi)。Inthiscase,thereisnoindicationthatCongresssoughttoprohibitjudicialreview,andthereismostcertainlyno“showingofclearandconvincingevidenceofa…legislativeintent〞torestrictaccesstojudicialreview.這個案子里，目前沒有跡象說明美國國會試圖制止司法審查，而且肯定沒有“明確和令人信服的證據(jù)……立法意圖〞去限制進(jìn)展司法審查。121P4Similarly,theSecretary’sdecisionheredoesnotfallwithinthee*ceptionforaction〞mittedtoagencydiscretion.〞Thisisaverynarrowe*ception.一樣地，這里秘書長的決定不屬于例外行為〞這是一個范圍非常狹窄的例外。121P5L4requirestheuseofanypublicparklandunless(1)thereisnofeasibleandprudentalternativetotheuseofsuchland,and(2)suchprogramincludesallpossibleplanningtominimizeharmtosuchpark.Thislanguageisaplainande*plicitbartotheuseoffederalfundsforconstructionofhighwaysthroughparks—onlythemostunusualsituationsaree*empted.需要使用任何公園的土地，除非〔1〕沒有可行的、慎重的替代性的可利用土地，而且〔2〕這樣的程序包括所有可能的方案，盡量減少對公園的損害。這句話清楚并明確的限制用聯(lián)邦資金來建立穿越公園的公用道路——除非一些極具特殊的情形出現(xiàn)。

121P6Despitetheclarityofthestatutorylanguage,respondentsarguethattheSecretaryhaswidediscretion.盡管有明確的法定條款規(guī)定，被告認(rèn)為，秘書長有廣泛的自由裁量權(quán)。Theyrecognizethattherequirementthattherebeno“feasible〞alternativerouteadmitsoflittleadministrativediscretion他們認(rèn)識到需要在沒有“可行的〞替代路線的情況下才成認(rèn)較小的行政自由裁量權(quán)……Respondentsargue,however,thattherequirementthattherebenoother〞prudent〞routerequirestheSecretarytoengageinawide—rangingbalancingofpetinginterests.然而，被告認(rèn)為，這一要求沒有其他“考慮周全〞的路線，需要秘書長參與到廣泛的利益平衡競爭中。TheycontendthattheSecretaryshouldweighthedetrimentresultingfromthedestructionofparklandagainstthecostofotherroutes,safetyconsiderations,andotherfactors,anddetermineonthebasisoftheimportancethatheattachestothereotherfactorswhether,onbalance,alternativefeasiblerouteswouldbe“prudent〞.他們認(rèn)為，秘書長應(yīng)權(quán)衡破壞公園所造成的損害和使用其他路線的本錢，包括平安的考慮和其他因素，確定重要性的根底上，他需重視是否有其他因素，總而言之，替代可行的路線將是“慎重〞。122p2最高法意見：Butnosuchwide–rangingendeavorwasintended.itisobviousthat,inmostcases,considerationsofcost,directnessofroute,andmunitydisruptionwillindicatethatparklandshouldbeusedforhighwayconstructionwheneverpo