Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Authority (2)
- Circuit courts (2)
- Ambiguity (1)
- Appellate models (1)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal (1)
-
- Attendence (1)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (1)
- Book reviews (1)
- Clear-Statement Approach (1)
- Comity (1)
- Congress (1)
- Constitutional cases (1)
- District courts (1)
- Easterbrook (Frank) (1)
- Fair Assessment in Real Estate Association v. McNary (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
- Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Federal courts of appeals (1)
- Federal judges (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Hibbs v. Winn (1)
- Hierarchies (1)
- Inherent powers (1)
- Judicial decisions (1)
- Judicial review (1)
- Judiciary (1)
- Legalism (1)
- Notice pleadings (1)
- Originalism (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Tax Injunction Act And Federal Jurisdiction: Reasoning From The Underlying Goals Of Federalism And Comity, David Fautsch
The Tax Injunction Act And Federal Jurisdiction: Reasoning From The Underlying Goals Of Federalism And Comity, David Fautsch
Michigan Law Review
States routinely contest federal jurisdiction when a state tax is challenged in federal district court on federal constitutional grounds. States argue that the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341 (2006), bars jurisdiction and, even if the Tax Injunction Act does not apply, the principals of federalism and comity require abstention. The United States Supreme Court has not squarely addressed the scope of federalism and comity in relation to the Tax Injunction Act, and federal courts of appeal are split. In the Fourth and Tenth Circuits, federalism and comity require federal district courts to abstain even where the Tax Injunction …
When A Company Confesses, Christopher Jackson
When A Company Confesses, Christopher Jackson
Michigan Law Review
Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a defendant is normally obligated to attend all of the proceedings against her. However Rule 43(b)(2) carves out an exception for organizational defendants, stating that they "need not be present" if represented by an attorney. But on its face, the language of 43(b)(2) is ambiguous: is it the defendant or the judge who has the discretion to decide whether the defendant appears? That is, may a judge compel the presence of an organizational defendant? This Note addresses the ambiguity in the context of the plea colloquy, considering the text of several of the …
Pleading With Congress To Resist The Urge To Overrule Twombly And Iqbal, Michael R. Huston
Pleading With Congress To Resist The Urge To Overrule Twombly And Iqbal, Michael R. Huston
Michigan Law Review
In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court changed the rhetoric of the federal pleading system. Those decisions have been decried by members of the bar, scholars, and legislators as judicial activism and a rewriting of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such criticism has led members of both houses of Congress to introduce legislation to overrule the decisions and return to some variation of the "notice pleading" regime that existed before Twombly. This Note argues that both of the current proposals to overrule Twombly and Iqbal should be rejected. Although the bills take different …
A Review Of Richard A. Posner, How Judges Think (2008), Jeffrey S. Sutton
A Review Of Richard A. Posner, How Judges Think (2008), Jeffrey S. Sutton
Michigan Law Review
I was eager to enter the judiciary. I liked the title: federal judge. I liked the job security: life tenure. And I could tolerate the pay: the same as Richard Posner's. That, indeed, may have been the most flattering part of the opportunity-that I could hold the same title and have the same pay grade as one of America's most stunning legal minds. Don't think I didn't mention it when I had the chance. There is so much to admire about Judge Posner-his lively pen, his curiosity, his energy, his apparent understanding of: everything. He has written 53 books, more …
Structure And Precedent, Jeffrey C. Dobbins
Structure And Precedent, Jeffrey C. Dobbins
Michigan Law Review
The standard model of vertical precedent is part of the deep structure of our legal system. Under this model, we rarely struggle with whether a given decision of a court within a particular hierarchy is potentially binding at all. When Congress or the courts alter the standard structure and process offederal appellate review, however, that standard model of precedent breaks down. This Article examines several of these unusual appellate structures and highlights the difficulties associated with evaluating the precedential effect of decisions issued within them. For instance, when Congress consolidates challenges to agency decision making in a single federal circuit, …