Law Commons^™

Idaho Lawyers Evaluate The Court Of Appeals, Donald L. Burnett Jr.

Articles

No abstract provided.

Error Correction, Lawmaking, And The Supreme Court’S Exercise Of Discretionary Review, Arthur D. Hellman

Articles

Controversies involving the United States Supreme Court generally center on the content of Court’s decisions, but in recent years, much attention has focused on the Court’s processes – in particular, two very different aspects of the Court’s modes of doing business. At one end of the spectrum, the number of cases receiving plenary consideration – full briefing, oral argument, and (almost invariably) a signed opinion – has shrunk to levels lower than any since the Civil War. At the other end, the Court has effectively resolved many high-profile disputes through unexplained orders granting or denying emergency relief in cases in …

Medical Dependency In Arizona, Mary E. Berkheiser

Scholarly Works

Analysis of In re Cochise County Juvenile Action No. 5666-J, 650 P.2d 459 (Ariz. 1982).

Inevitable Errors: The Preponderance Of The Evidence Standard In Civil Litigation, James Brook

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Presidential Immunity From Civil Liability, Aviva A. Orenstein

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

A Primer On Precedent In The Eleventh Circuit, Thomas E. Baker

Faculty Publications

This article is the third and final article in a series of articles written by Professor Baker considering the problems of precedent created by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1980. The Act divided the former Fifth Circuit into two autonomous judicial circuits: the new Fifth Circuit, composed of the District of the Canal Zone, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, and the new Eleventh Circuit, composed of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. In this article, Professor Baker seeks to provide an introduction to how the new Eleventh Circuit has treated antecedent Fifth Circuit precedents. First, Professor Baker identifies and …

Dam Federal Jurisdiction!, Thomas E. Baker

Faculty Publications

From the outset, the reader should be familiar with our script. Our threefold purpose in writing this essay is to be at once descriptive, evaluative, and prescriptive. We shall describe briefly the decisions of the United States Supreme Court during the 1981 Term in the broad field of federal jurisdiction, and shall compare and contrast those decisions with the past decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Section 14(E) Of The Williams Act And The Rule 10b-5 Comparisons, Mark J. Loewenstein

Publications

The passage of the Williams Act in 1968 added a set of provisions to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to govern tender offers. In this article, Professor Loewenstein examines the antifraud provision of the Williams Act, codified as section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the development of decisional law under it. After discussing the propriety of inferring a private cause of action from section 14(e), Professor Loewenstein argues that the judiciary's reliance on rule 10b-5 precedents to set the bounds of the 14(e) cause of action is unwarranted. He concludes: 1) that scienter should not …

An Attack On Categorical Approaches To Freedom Of Speech, Pierre J. Schlag

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Emergence Of A General Reformation Doctrine For Wills, Lawrence W. Waggoner, John H. Langbein

Articles

In this article, which both summarizes and updates an extensively footnoted article published last year ("Reformation of Wills on the Ground of Mistake: Change of Direction in American Law?" 130 University of Pennsylvania Law Rmiew 521 (1982)), we report on this new case law and discuss the analytic framework that we think it suggests and requires.

Confessions, Yale Kamisar

Book Chapters

The entry for 'Confessions' in the Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice, 1983

Collaboration Between Lawyers And Mental Health Professionals: Making It Work, Donald N. Duquette

Book Chapters

Many questions presented to the court in child welfare cases are resolved with the direction, professional advice, and judgment of mental health professionals. Lawyers and judges look to a number of different professions for this guidance; chief among them are psychiatrists, psychologists, and clinical social workers. The focus of this chapter is on ways for lawyers to enhance and improve the performance of the mental health professionals in the courtroom.

This chapter presents a step-b/step process for lawyer collaboration with mental health professionals in child protection and foster care cases, which is relevant for attorneys representing the child welfare agency, …

Honoring Judge Tuttle's Vision Of The Law, Alfred C. Aman

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Beyond Cases: Reconsidering Judicial Review, Janet S. Lindgren

Journal Articles

No abstract provided.

Sanctions In The Proposed Amendments To The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure: Some Questions About Power, Stephen B. Burbank

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Review Of The New Deal Lawyers, By Peter H. Irons, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This article reviews The New Deal Lawyers by Peter H. Irons (1982).

The government lawyers who helped shape and defend New Deal agencies have received little attention from scholars. Any oversight has now, however, been redressed. The New Deal Lawyers provides a detailed and careful study of the litigation process that preceded the New Deal's 1937 court triumphs. Peter Irons' book focuses on the activities of three key agencies and their general counsels: the National Recovery Administration (NRA) and Donald Richberg; the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) and Jerome Frank; and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Charles Fahy. Each …

Expository Justice, Girardeau A. Spann

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The task of the federal judiciary is seriously complicated by the fact that it has to play one role while pretending to play another. We ask the courts to pretend that they are resolving disputes between parties, but what we really want them to do is tell us how to conform our behavior to our fundamental values. Society needs a branch of government to implement its fundamental values, and the federal judiciary is well suited to that task because it possesses the precise balance of autonomy and public accountability needed to perform the function properly.

However, the dispute resolution charade …