Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- 42 U.S.C. 1395dd (1)
- Abortion law (1)
- Amici curiae (1)
- Amicus brief (1)
- Appellate courts (1)
-
- Brief amici curiae (1)
- Circuit court (1)
- Columbia Law Review (1)
- Court of Appeals (1)
- Cross-examination (1)
- EMTALA (1)
- Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (1)
- Emergency ruling (1)
- Empirical (1)
- Evidence (Law) (1)
- False testimony--Law and legislation (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Health law (1)
- Idaho v United States (1)
- Judicial opinions (1)
- Judicial process (1)
- Law of the future (1)
- Lower court (1)
- Mike Moyle (1)
- Mike Moyle Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives et al. Petitioners v. United States (1)
- Ninth Circuit (1)
- Partisanship (1)
- Reproductive rights (1)
- Stare divinatis (1)
- Stays and injunctions (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Brief For Amici Curiae Legal Scholars Supporting Respondent, Nicole Huberfeld, Timothy S. Jost, Linda C. Mcclain, Wendy E. Parmet, Erwin Chemerinsky, Elizabeth Mccuskey, Danielle Pelfrey Duryea, Gabriel Scheffler, George J. Annas
Brief For Amici Curiae Legal Scholars Supporting Respondent, Nicole Huberfeld, Timothy S. Jost, Linda C. Mcclain, Wendy E. Parmet, Erwin Chemerinsky, Elizabeth Mccuskey, Danielle Pelfrey Duryea, Gabriel Scheffler, George J. Annas
Faculty Scholarship
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, preempts Idaho law in the narrow but important circumstance where terminating a pregnancy is required to stabilize an emergency medical condition that would otherwise threaten serious harm to the pregnant woman’s health but the State prohibits an emergency-room physician from providing that care.
Partisan Panel Composition And Reliance On Earlier Opinions In The Circuit Courts, Stuart Minor Benjamin, Byungkoo Kim, Kevin M. Quinn
Partisan Panel Composition And Reliance On Earlier Opinions In The Circuit Courts, Stuart Minor Benjamin, Byungkoo Kim, Kevin M. Quinn
Faculty Scholarship
Does the partisan composition of three-judge panels affect how earlier opinions are treated and thus how the law develops? Using a novel data set of Shepard's treatments for all cases decided in the U.S. courts of appeals from 1974 to 2017, we investigate three different versions of this question. First, are panels composed of three Democratic (Republican) appointees more likely to follow opinions decided by panels of three Democratic (Republican) appointees than are panels composed of three Republican (Democratic) appointees? Second, does the presence of a single out-party judge change how a panel relies on earlier decisions compared to what …
False Accuracy In Criminal Trials: The Limits And Costs Of Cross Examination, Lisa Kern Griffin
False Accuracy In Criminal Trials: The Limits And Costs Of Cross Examination, Lisa Kern Griffin
Faculty Scholarship
According to the popular culture of criminal trials, skillful cross-examination can reveal the whole “truth” of what happened. In a climactic scene, defense counsel will expose a lying accuser, clear up the statements of a confused eyewitness, or surface the incentives and biases in testimony. Constitutional precedents, evidence theory, and trial procedures all reflect a similar aspiration—that cross-examination performs lie detection and thereby helps to produce accurate outcomes. Although conceptualized as a protection for defendants, cross-examination imposes some unexplored costs on them. Because it focuses on the physical presence of a witness, the current law of confrontation suggests that an …
The Foreshadow Docket, Bert I. Huang
The Foreshadow Docket, Bert I. Huang
Faculty Scholarship
Imagine the Supreme Court issuing an emergency order that signals interest in departing from precedent, as if foreshadowing a change in the law. Seeing this, should the lower courts start ruling in ways that also anticipate the law of the future? They need not do so in their merits rulings. That much is clear. Such a signal does not create new binding precedent. Rather, it reflects the Justices’ guess about the future of the law — and what if that guess is wrong?
Yet for a lower court ruling on a temporary stay or injunction, the task seems to call …