Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent On The Meaning Of Federal Law?, Amanda Frost
Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent On The Meaning Of Federal Law?, Amanda Frost
Vanderbilt Law Review
The conventional wisdom is that state courts need not follow lower federal court precedent when interpreting federal law. Upon closer inspection, however, the question of how state courts should treat lower federal court precedent is not so clear. Although most state courts now take the conventional approach, a few contend that they are obligated to follow the lower federal courts, and two federal courts of appeals have declared that their decisions are binding on state courts. The Constitution's text and structure send mixed messages about the relationship between state and lower federal courts, and the Supreme Court has never squarely …
State Courts And The Interpretation Of Federal Statutes, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.
State Courts And The Interpretation Of Federal Statutes, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.
Vanderbilt Law Review
In the debate over how federal courts should interpret federal statutes, "faithful agent" theories stand pitted against "dynamic" theories of statutory interpretation. The following questions lie at the heart of the debate: Is the proper role of federal courts to strive to implement the commands of the legislature-in other words, to act as Congress's faithful agents? Or, is the proper role of federal courts to act as partners with Congress in the forward-looking making of federal law-in other words, to interpret statutes dynamically? Proponents of faithful agent theories include both "textualists" and "purposivists." Textualists have argued that federal courts best …
Separate But Not Sovereign: Reconciling Federal Commandeering Of State Courts, Tonya M. Gray
Separate But Not Sovereign: Reconciling Federal Commandeering Of State Courts, Tonya M. Gray
Vanderbilt Law Review
"The question is not what power the federal government ought to have but what powers in fact have been given by the people." Determining the division of power between the states and the federal government has been a debated issue throughout constitutional jurisprudence. Indeed, "[n]o problem has plagued the nation's constitutional history more." In joining the union, the states relinquished power to the federal government. The states were not left without power, as the Tenth Amendment guarantees that powers not enumerated to the federal government or restricted from the states are retained by the states. The broad language of the …
The Use Of Coerced Confessions In State Courts, J. A. Spanogle
The Use Of Coerced Confessions In State Courts, J. A. Spanogle
Vanderbilt Law Review
It is now well settled that involuntary confessions must be excluded from evidence in all criminal trials in state courts. It has been difficult, however, to distinguish a voluntary confession from an involuntary one, because the term "involuntary" is not well defined. This lack of definition, which creates great problems for state trial and appellate courts in attempting to apply the rule to individual cases, has, in turn, stemmed from a lack of understanding of the reasons for excluding involuntary confessions. The United States Supreme Court has handed down thirty-four coerced confession cases, holding confessions admissible in some factual situations …
Jurisdiction Of United States District Courts In Multiple-Claim Cases, Thomas F. Green Jr.
Jurisdiction Of United States District Courts In Multiple-Claim Cases, Thomas F. Green Jr.
Vanderbilt Law Review
The jurisdictional problem peculiar to a case which involves more than one claim is: Shall the court entertain the entire action when it would have jurisdiction of one or more of the claims, but not all, if they were sued separately?' The application of this question to the United States district courts raises conflicting considerations. On the one hand is the fact that most of the claims which would not be within federal jurisdiction if sued alone, present questions of state rather than federal law. In general the more appropriate tribunals to deal with such questions in the first instance …
The Common Law: An Account Of Its Reception In The United States, Ford W. Hall
The Common Law: An Account Of Its Reception In The United States, Ford W. Hall
Vanderbilt Law Review
The story of the extent to which the common law of England has been received and applied in the United States, is one of the most interesting and important chapters in American legal history. However, many courts and writers have shown a tendency simply to say that our colonial forefathers brought the common law of England with them, and there has often been little or no inclination to look further into the question. Nevertheless, the problem of the reception of the common law in America has at various times occupied the attention of many of our most eminent jurists and …
State Constitutions, State Courts And First Amendment Freedoms, Monrad G. Paulsen
State Constitutions, State Courts And First Amendment Freedoms, Monrad G. Paulsen
Vanderbilt Law Review
We have recently been reminded that one of the current and recurrent quandaries of the Supreme Court of the United States arises from the American constitutional system's counterpart of the philosophical problem of the One and the Many. When an individual's freedom is involved, the question is whether and to what degree state legislators, public officials and judicial officers shall be called upon to enforce standards of respect for personal liberties defined by the Federal Constitution and the United States Supreme Court; or, put another way, how far the first eight amendments of the Federal Constitution are incorporated into the …