Law Commons^™

The Proposed Federal Rules Of Evidence: Of Privileges And The Division Of Rule-Making Power, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note proposes that the lower federal courts accord the same binding authority to the Proposed Rules that they give those judicially promulgated procedural rules, such as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that have been implicitly approved by Congress.

Part I of the Note analyzes the constitutional division of the rule-making power by examining both the policy considerations involved and the relevant constitutional language and doctrines. That examination indicates that the power to establish such rules is shared by Congress and the Supreme Court. To determine when that power is appropriately exercised by one branch rather than the other, …

Young Adults As A Cognizable Group In Jury Selection, Donald H. Zeigler

Michigan Law Review

In support of its thesis, this Article presents what the literature has failed to provide: a comprehensive analysis of the concept of cognizability and empirical data. Part I traces the history of cognizability; identifies the sources of the cross-sectional right; and defines the criteria of cognizability, drawing special attention to the interests which a designation of cognizability protects. Part I also discusses the different approaches courts have taken to cognizability and suggests several factors which may explain the many treatments of the concept.

Part II reviews the case law concerning the cognizability of young adults in particular. That Part also …

The Evolution Of State Supreme Courts, Robert A. Kagan, Bliss Cartwright, Lawrence M. Friedman, Stanton Wheeler

Michigan Law Review

Part I of this Article describes in broad quantitative terms the changing relationship between the caseload of supreme courts and the population of the states in which these courts sit. Part II examines the various means states used to control supreme court caseloads, the political problems involved, and the types of courts that have resulted. Part III presents evidence that changes in court organization in response to caseload pressure are accompanied by changes in the kinds of cases state supreme courts hear, the style of their opinions, and the results of the cases.