Digital Commons Network^™

The Equal Rights Amendment And The Courts, Mary C. Dunlap

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Judicial Politics Of Obscenity , Robert Rosenblum

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

To Impeach Or Not To Impeach: The Stability Of Juror Verdicts In Federal Courts, Paul Jeffrey Wallin

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Wasting The Corporate Waste Doctrine: Why Waste Claims Are Obsolete In Delaware Corporate Law And Why The Waste Doctrine Is The Wrong Solution To The Problem Of Executive Compensation, Kris S. Swift

Kris S. Swift

Abstract

Kristen S. Swift

This Note makes several points, drawn from Delaware litigation history, on the futility of pleading corporate waste in Delaware. At inception, the waste doctrine was a tool for shareholder protection and empowerment; however, as calculated business risk became encouraged and later formally protected by the business judgment rule, the waste doctrine evolved to protect officers and boards and now sets a nearly impossible benchmark for misconduct that would allow shareholders to recover on a waste claim. The waste doctrine is inextricably tied to how business risk-taking is perceived by Delaware courts and shifting attitudes toward risk …

Similarities And Differences Between Judges In The Judicial Branch And The Executive Branch: The Further Evolution Of Executive Adjudications Under The Administrative Central Panel, Christopher B. Mcneil

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

From Gridlock To Groundbreaking: Realizing Reliability In Forensic Science, Jessica D. Gabel

Jessica Gabel Cino

In 2009, The National Academy of Sciences published a scathing report announcing that forensic science is broken and needs to be overhauled. Weaknesses have plagued forensic evidence for decades, and the resulting legal challenges have been hard fought but met with few victories. What we do know is a harsh truth: that faulty forensic science has contributed to the conviction of innocent people—and will continue to do so if the status quo persists.

In recent years, the reality of wrongful convictions has become mainstream through the work of the Innocence Project and other organizations. Out of the 305 DNA-based exonerations …

Reaching Out Or Overreaching: Judicial Ethics And Self-Represented Litigants , Cynthia Gray

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Hyperactive Judges: An Empirical Study Of Judge-Dependent "Judicial Hyperactivity" In The Federal Circuit, Ted L. Field

Ted L. Field

This article presents an empirical study of the extent to which individual judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit—which has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals—engage in what William C. Rooklidge and Matthew F. Weil call “judicial hyperactivity.” This article defines “judicial hyperactivity” as a form of judicial activism in which a judge improperly “elevate[s] his or her judgment above that of another constitutionally significant actor (e.g., Congress, the President, [or] other Article III courts),” where this improper behavior is not necessarily driven by politics or ideology as is traditional judicial activism. This study considers the extent …

Holmes And The Common Law: A Jury's Duty, Matthew P. Cline

Matthew P Cline

The notion of a small group of peers whose responsibility it is to play a part in determining the outcome of a trial is central to the common conception of the American legal system. Memorialized in the Constitution of the United States as a fundamental right, and in the national consciousness as the proud, if begrudged, duty of all citizens, juries are often discussed, but perhaps not always understood. Whatever misunderstandings have come to be, certainly many of them sprang from the juxtaposition of jury and judge. Why do we have both? How are their responsibilities divided? Who truly decides …

Cause Judging, Justin Hansford

Justin Hansford

Building on the framework of “cause lawyering” scholarship, this Article explores the fact that, in a similar tradition as a “cause lawyering” law practice animated by dedication to a cause, “cause judging” exists as well. This insight has implications for judicial ethics norms. The hyper-partisan nature of modern American life has already cast doubt on the possibility that politically appointed judges can ever truly attain the “appearance of impartiality” demanded by judicial recusal standards. Instead, judicial ethics norms should embrace the fact that judges have moral and political ideals that inform their rulings when they exercise judicial discretion, and that …

At&T V. Concepcion: The Problem Of A False Majority, Lisa Tripp, Evan R. Hanson

Lisa Tripp

The Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in AT&T v. Concepcion is the first case where the Supreme Court explores the interplay between state law unconscionability doctrine and the vast preemptive power of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Although it is considered by many to be a landmark decision which has the potential for greatly expanding the already impressive preemptive power of the FAA, something is amiss with Concepcion.

AT&T v. Concepcion is ostensibly a 5-4 majority decision with a concurring opinion. However, the differences in the majority and concurring opinions are so profound that it appears that Justice Thomas actually …

Much Ado About Nothing?: What The Numbers Tell Us About How State Courts Apply The Unconscionability Doctrine, Susan D. Landrum

Susan Landrum

No abstract provided.

Class Denied! Go Directly To State Court. Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200, Kevin Dulaney

Kevin Dulaney

No abstract provided.

Kill-Lists And Accountability, Gregory S. Mcneal

Gregory S. McNeal

This article is a comprehensive examination of the U.S. practice of targeted killings. It is based in part on field research, interviews, and previously unexamined government documents. The article fills a gap in the literature, which to date lacks sustained scholarly analysis of the accountability mechanisms associated with the targeted killing process. The article makes two major contributions: 1) it provides the first qualitative empirical accounting of the targeted killing process, beginning with the creation of kill-lists extending through the execution of targeted strikes; 2) it provides a robust analytical framework for assessing the accountability mechanisms associated with those processes. …

Traffic Stops And The New Exclusionary Rule Regime: Why Harris, Hudson, And Herring Mandate That The Discovery Of An Outstanding Arrest Warrant Attenuate The Taint Of An Illegal Traffic Stop Except In The Case Of A Flagrant Fourth Amendment Violation, Risher G. Caves

Risher G Caves

Suppose that during the course of an illegal traffic stop officers discover an outstanding arrest warrant for the driver, make the arrest, and then discover evidence such as narcotics in the driver’s pocket. Under the exclusionary rule, should the narcotics be considered the “fruit” of the illegal stop or does the discovery of the arrest warrant attenuate the taint? This article explores the longstanding circuit split on this question and contends that the discovery of an outstanding arrest warrant should attenuate the taint unless the initial illegal traffic stop was a flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment. Almost all courts …

Three-Dimensional Sovereign Immunity, Sarah L. Brinton

Sarah L Brinton

The Supreme Court has erred on sovereign immunity. The current federal immunity doctrine wrongly gives Congress the exclusive authority to waive immunity (“exclusive congressional waiver”), but the Constitution mandates that Congress share the waiver power with the Court. This Article develops the doctrine of a two-way shared waiver and then explores a third possibility: the sharing of the immunity waiver power among all three branches of government.

Toward Adequacy, Sarah L. Brinton

Sarah L Brinton

Each year, hundreds of people, companies, organizations, and associations sue the federal government for injuries they have suffered at the hands of federal agencies. Such suits are often brought under the judicial review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), which Congress enacted expressly to allow broad access to courts in an age of increasing administrative agency action. By the terms of the APA itself, all final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court is reviewable under the APA.

But the very language meant to welcome such suits into court also acts as a …

Bad Briefs, Bad Law, Bad Markets: Documenting The Poor Quality Of Plaintiffs’ Briefs, Its Impact On The Law, And The Market Failure It Reflects, Scott A. Moss

Scott A Moss

For a major field, employment discrimination suffers surprisingly low-quality plaintiff’s lawyering. This Article details a study of several hundred summary judgment briefs, finding as follows: (1) the vast majority of plaintiffs’ briefs omit available caselaw rebutting key defense arguments, many falling far below basic professional standards with incoherent writing or no meaningful research; (2) low-quality briefs lose at over double the rate of good briefs; and (3) bad briefs skew caselaw evolution, because even controlling for won/loss rate, bad plaintiffs’ briefs far more often yield decisions crediting debatable defenses. These findings are puzzling; in a major legal service market, how …

Deciding Who Decides: Searching For A Deference Standard When Agencies Preempt State Law, John R. Ablan

John R Ablan

When a federal agency determines that the statute that it administers or regulations it has promulgated preempt state law, how much deference must a federal court give to that determination? In Wyeth v. Levine, the Supreme Court expressly declined to decide what standard of deference courts should apply when an agency makes a preemption determination pursuant to a specific congressional delegation to do so. Under this circumstance, this Article counsels against applying any single deference standard to an agency’s entire determination. Instead, it observes that preemption determinations are a complex inquiry involving questions of federal law, state law, and …

Ideological Voting Applied To The School Desegregation Cases In The Federal Courts Of Appeals From The 1960’S And 70’S, Joe Custer

Joe Custer

This paper considers a research suggestion from Cass Sunstein to analyze segregation cases from the 1960's and 1970's and whether three hypothesis he projected in the article "Ideological Voting on Federal Courts of Appeals: A Preliminary Investigation," 90 Va. L. Rev. 301 (2004), involving various models of judicial ideology, would pertain. My paper considers Sunstein’s three hypotheses in addition to other judicial ideologies to try to empirically determine what was influencing Federal Court of Appeals Judges in regard to Civil Rights issues, specifically school desegregation, in the 1960’s and 1970’s.

A Home With Dignity: Domestic Violence And Property Rights, Margaret Johnson

Margaret E Johnson

This Article argues that the legal system should do more to address intimate partner violence and each party’s need for a home for several reasons. First, domestic violence is a leading cause of homelessness and family homelessness. Second, the struggle over rights to a shared home can increase the violence to which the woman is subjected. And third, a woman who decides that continuing to share a home with the person who abused her receives little or no system support, despite the evidence that this decision could most effectively reduce the violence. The legal system’s current failings result from its …

The Jury As Constitutional Identity, Andrew G. Ferguson

Andrew G Ferguson

This article seeks to re-conceptualize jury service in America. It suggests a new theory that looks at jury service not as a discrete task, but an on-going constitutional identity. Building off a historical tradition that dates from the Founding, but can be traced through the Suffrage Movement and the Civil Rights Era, this theory focuses on reclaiming the lost constitutional connection of jury service.

Juries once existed at the core of American constitutional identity. At the founding of the country, jury service and voting were twin political rights, equal in stature and importance. Some founders even considered the jury more …

In Defense Of Implied Injunctive Relief In Constitutional Cases, John F. Preis

John F. Preis

The Arbitration Clause As Super Contract, Richard Frankel

Richard Frankel

It is widely acknowledged that the purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act was to place arbitration clauses on equal footing with other contracts. Nonetheless, federal and state courts have turned arbitration clauses into “super contracts” by creating special interpretive rules for arbitration clauses that do not apply to other contracts. In doing so, they have relied extensively, and incorrectly, on the Supreme Court’s determination that the FAA embodies a federal policy favoring arbitration.

While many scholars have focused attention on the public policy rationales for and against arbitration, few have explored how arbitration clauses should be interpreted. This article fills …

Parallel Justice: Creating Causes Of Action For Mandatory Mediation, Marie A. Failinger

Marie A. Failinger

. This article proposes that the American common law system should adopt court-connected mandatory mediation as a parallel system of justice for some cases currently not justiciable, such as wrongs caused by constitutionally protected behavior. It describes systemic and ethical parallels between court-connected mediation and the rise of the equity courts, discusses practical objections to the idea of mandatory mediation, and tests the idea of "mandatory mediation-only" causes of action using constitutional hate speech and invasion of privacy examples.

Investment Dispute Resolution Under The Transpacific Partnership Agreement: Prelude To A Slippery Slope?, Leon E. Trakman Professor

Leon E Trakman Dean

Intense debate is currently brewing over the multistate negotiation of the Transpacific Partnership Agreement [TPPA], led by the United States. The TPPA will be the largest trade and investment agreement after the European Union, with trillions of investment dollars at stake. However, there is little understanding of the complex issues involved in regulating inbound and outbound investment. The negotiating of the TPPA is shrouded in both mystery and dissension among negotiating countries. NGOs, investor and legal interest groups heatedly debate how the TPPA ought to regulate international investment. However this dissension is resolved, it will have enormous economic, political and …

Report To The Connecticut Judicial Branch Access To Justice Commission, Melanie B. Abbott, Leslie C. Levin, Stephen Wizner

Leslie C. Levin

No abstract provided.

International Money Laundering: The Need For Icc Investigative And Adjudicative Jurisdiction, Michael R. Anderson

Michael Anderson

Money laundering is one of the most pressing issues in the realm of international financial crimes. One of the biggest issues involved in international money laundering is the problem of adjudication. There is no international organization that currently hears these sorts of claims, forcing nations to adjudicate these crimes on their own, often without adequate resources to effectively investigate and enforce their money laundering statutes.

This article argues that, in order to more effectively prevent and adjudicate international money laundering offenses, the International Criminal Court should adopt an international money laundering statute designating these activities as a crime within the …

Controversial Five-To-Four Supreme Court Decisions And The Majority Of One, Steven I. Friedland

Steven I. Friedland

Five-to-Four Supreme Court decisions in controversial cases have sparked public backlash in recent years, which has served to reframe the decisions as partisan politics. While judicial decision-making is designed to follow the doctrine of stare decisis, the view that Supreme Court justices have become hemmed in by their ideologies – with perhaps the notable exception of the swing vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy -- has been popularized in the media and blogs. While the Court’s decisions might be intersubjective, meaning bounded by moveable and socially constructed understandings, the real danger is for the justices to feed the perception that the …

Chief Justice Roberts' Individual Mandate: The Lawless Medicine Of Nfib V. Sebelius, Gregory Magarian

Gregory P. Magarian

After the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius held nearly all of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act constitutional, praise rained down on Chief Justice John Roberts. The Chief Justice’s lead opinion broke with his usual conservative allies on the Court by upholding the Act’s individual mandate under the Taxing Clause. Numerous academic and popular commentators have lauded the Chief Justice for his political courage and institutional pragmatism. In this essay, Professor Magarian challenges the heroic narrative surrounding the Chief Justice’s opinion. The essay contends that the opinion is, in two distinct senses, fundamentally …