Law Commons^™

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 …

Strategic Publication, Ben Grunwald

Faculty Scholarship

Under the standard account of judicial behavior when a panel of appellate court judges cannot agree on the outcome of a case, the panel has two options. First, it can publish a divided decision with a majority opinion and a dissent. Panels usually do not take this route because a dissent dramatically increases the probability of reversal. The second and more common option is for the panel to bargain and compromise over the reasoning of the decision and then publish a unanimous opinion.

This Article argues that a divided panel has a third option: strategic publication. The panel can choose …

Rewriting Judicial Opinions And The Feminist Scholarly Project, Bridget J. Crawford

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

In 1995, the authors of a law review article examining “feminist judging” focused on the existing social science data concerning women judges and compared the voting records and opinions of the only female Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor. Based on this review, the authors concluded that appointing more women as judges would make little difference to judicial outcomes or processes. The authors accused those who advocated for more women on the bench of having a hidden feminist agenda and bluntly concluded that “[b]y any measure, feminist judges fit very uneasily in most …

Korematsu V. United States: A Tragedy Hopefully Never To Be Repeated , Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Submerged Precedent, Elizabeth Y. Mccuskey

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Judicial Retirements And The Staying Power Of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, Stuart M. Benjamin, Georg Vanberg

Faculty Scholarship

The influence of U.S. Supreme Court majority opinions depends critically on how these opinions are received and treated by lower courts, which decide the vast majority of legal disputes. We argue that the retirement of Justices on the Supreme Court serves as a simple heuristic device for lower court judges in deciding how much deference to show to Supreme Court precedent. Using a unique dataset of the treatment of all Supreme Court majority opinions in the courts of appeals from 1953 to 2012, we find that negative treatments of Supreme Court opinions increase, and positive treatments decrease, as the Justices …

What If?: Human Experience And Supreme Court Decision Making On Criminal Justice, Christopher E. Smith

Marquette Law Review

None

The Distinctive Role Of Justice Samuel Alito: From A Politics Of Restoration To A Politics Of Dissent, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

Justice Samuel Alito is regarded by both his champions and his critics as the most consistently conservative member of the current Supreme Court. Both groups seem to agree that he has become the most important conservative voice on the Court. Chief Justice John Roberts has a Court to lead; Justice Antonin Scalia and his particular brand of originalism have passed on; Justice Clarence Thomas is a stricter originalist and so writes opinions that other Justices do not join; and Justice Anthony Kennedy can be ideologically unreliable. Justice Alito, by contrast, is unburdened by the perceived responsibilities of being Chief Justice, …

Newsroom: Logan On Justice Scalia's Vitriol, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

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.

Book Review. Epstein, L., Et. Al., The Behavior Of Federal Judges: A Theoretical And Empirical Study Of Rational Choice, Ashley A. Ahlbrand

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

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

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

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

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

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

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The New Old Legal Realsim, Tracey E. George, Mitu Gulati, Ann C. Mcginley

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Judges produce opinions for numerous purposes. A judicial opinion decides a case and informs the parties whether they won or lost. But in a common law system, the most important purpose of the opinion, particularly the appellate opinion, is to educate prospective litigants, lawyers, and lower court judges about the law: what it is and how it applies to a specific set of facts. Without this purpose, courts could more quickly and efficiently issue one-sentence rulings rather than set forth reasons. By issuing opinions, courts give actors a means of evaluating whether their actions are within the bounds of law. …

The Role Of Case Studies In Natural Resources Law [Summary], John Copeland Nagle

The Future of Natural Resources Law and Policy (Summer Conference, June 6-8)

4 pages.

"John Nagle, Univ. of Notre Dame Law School" -- Agenda

Judicial Triage: Reflections On The Debate Over Unpublished Opinions, Mitu Gulati, David C. Vladeck

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Mr. Justice Posner? Unpacking The Statistics, Stephen J. Choi, Mitu Gulati

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Foreword, Sam Hanson

William Mitchell Law Review

Introduction to issue of Recent Decisions of the Minnesota Supreme Court (from 2002-03 term).

The Dynamic Judicial Opinion, William D. Popkin

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Eskridge's article on Dynamic Statutory Interpretation advances an aggressively pragmatic theory of interpretation but has had more influence among academics than judges because of a failure to attend to the problems of writing a candid, pragmatic and dynamic judicial opinion. This article argues that, although not free from doubt, a candid judicial opinion is preferable, and discusses how to write such an opinion - suggesting that judges rely on the "intent of the statute," not legislative intent; and adopt a personal/exploratory style in presenting their views.

Now You See It, Now You Don't: Depublication And Nonpublication Of Opinions Raise Motive Questions, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The basis for these comments is a decision last year by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Anastasoff v. United States. The court held that an Eighth Circuit local rule, which authorized nonpublication of opinions and explicitly stated that unpublished opinions were to have no precedential effect, was unconstitutional. The panel, in an opinion by Judge Richard S. Arnold, reasoned that a court rule purporting to confer upon appellate judges an absolute power to decide which decisions would be binding and which would not be binding went well beyond the “judicial power” within the meaning of Article III of …

Piercing The Veil: William J. Brennan's Account Of Regents Of The University Of California V. Bakke, Lee Epstein, Jack Knight

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

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 …

The Arkansas Supreme Court And The Civil War, L. Scott Stafford

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Will The Federal Courts Of Appeals Perish If They Publish? Or Does The Declining Use Of Opinions To Explain And Justify Judicial Decisions Pose A Greater Threat?, Martha Dragich

Faculty Publications

This Article examines three of those practices: selective publication, summary disposition, and vacatur upon settlement.

What's An Opinion For? (Special Issue: Judicial Opinion Writing), James Boyd White

Articles

The question the papers in this Special Issue address is whether it matters how judicial opinions are written, and if so why. My hope here is to suggest a way of elaborating the ques­tion that may provide the reader with a useful point of departure for reading the more extensive papers that follow.

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 …