Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 13 of 13
Full-Text Articles in Law
Submerged Precedent, Elizabeth Y. Mccuskey
What If?: Human Experience And Supreme Court Decision Making On Criminal Justice, Christopher E. Smith
What If?: Human Experience And Supreme Court Decision Making On Criminal Justice, Christopher E. Smith
Marquette Law Review
None
Surrogate Testimony After Williams: A New Answer To The Question Of Who May Testify Regarding The Contents Of A Laboratory Report, Jennifer Alberts
Surrogate Testimony After Williams: A New Answer To The Question Of Who May Testify Regarding The Contents Of A Laboratory Report, Jennifer Alberts
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Determining Notoriety In Supreme Court Decisions , G. Edward White
Determining Notoriety In Supreme Court Decisions , G. Edward White
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Korematsu V. United States: A Tragedy Hopefully Never To Be Repeated , Erwin Chemerinsky
Korematsu V. United States: A Tragedy Hopefully Never To Be Repeated , Erwin Chemerinsky
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Reluctant Apology For Plessy: A Response To Akhil Amar, Barry P. Mcdonald
A Reluctant Apology For Plessy: A Response To Akhil Amar, Barry P. Mcdonald
Pepperdine Law Review
A response to the article "Plessy v. Ferguson and the Anti-Canon," by Akhil Amar, published in the November 2011 issue of the "Pepperdine Law Review," is presented. Topics include an examination of Justice Henry Billings Brown's decision in the case, the constitutionality of segregating U.S. citizens by race, and the impact of public opinion on U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Plessy V. Ferguson And The Anti-Canon, Akhil Reed Amar
Plessy V. Ferguson And The Anti-Canon, Akhil Reed Amar
Pepperdine Law Review
The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson, which dealt with the constitutionality of racial segregation in the U.S. Topics include the application of precedent in controversial U.S. Supreme Court cases, when the U.S. Constitution can overrule a court decision, and dissenting judicial opinions.
Circumstance And Strategy: Jointly Authored Supreme Court Opinions, Laura Krugman Ray
Circumstance And Strategy: Jointly Authored Supreme Court Opinions, Laura Krugman Ray
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Swing Votes On The Current Supreme Court: The Joint Opinion In Casey And Its Progeny, R. Randall Kelso, Charles D. Kelso
Swing Votes On The Current Supreme Court: The Joint Opinion In Casey And Its Progeny, R. Randall Kelso, Charles D. Kelso
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Foreword, Sam Hanson
Foreword, Sam Hanson
William Mitchell Law Review
Introduction to issue of Recent Decisions of the Minnesota Supreme Court (from 2002-03 term).
Law's Expression: The Promise And Perils Of Judicial Opinion Writing In Canadian Constitutional Law, Paul Horwitz
Law's Expression: The Promise And Perils Of Judicial Opinion Writing In Canadian Constitutional Law, Paul Horwitz
Osgoode Hall Law Journal
This article argues that there is a link between one's theory of constitutional law, and one's judgments about style in judicial opinion writing. It identifies several special functions of the constitutional opinion, including the democratic function of responding to the counter-majoritarian difficulty through an act of public justification, and the inter-generational function of provoking a temporally extended dialogue about constitutional values. Drawing on these functions, it argues for an opinion writing style dubbed "open-textured minimalism," that seeks to resolve cases narrowly, articulate fundamental values and principles, and spark long-term debates about the underlying constitutional values supporting each decision. The author …
Restrictions On Publication And Citation Of Judicial Opinions: A Reassessment, Robert J. Martineau
Restrictions On Publication And Citation Of Judicial Opinions: A Reassessment, Robert J. Martineau
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
In response to the "crisis of volume," state and federal appellate courts have been restricting the opinions they write to those opinions which will: (1) establish a new. rule of law or expand, alter, or modify an existing rule; (2) involve a legal issue of continuing public interest; (3) criticize existing law; or (4) resolve a conflict of authority. All other opinions are limited to brief statements of the reasons for the decision, go unpublished, and generally carry a prohibition against their being cited as precedent. Recently, critics have alleged a number of faults with this practice, including the supposed …
The Meaning Of Judicial Self-Restraint, Richard A. Posner
The Meaning Of Judicial Self-Restraint, Richard A. Posner
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.