Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons™

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Judges

Selected Works

Judges

Articles 61 - 80 of 80

Full-Text Articles in Law

Appellate Justice Bureaucracy And Scholarship, William M. Richman, William L. Reynolds Feb 2011

Appellate Justice Bureaucracy And Scholarship, William M. Richman, William L. Reynolds

William L. Reynolds

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Justice Stevens' Jurisprudence Of Respect, Nancy S. Marder Dec 2010

Justice Stevens' Jurisprudence Of Respect, Nancy S. Marder

Nancy S. Marder

No abstract provided.

Go to article

The Rise Of The Common Law Of Federal Pleading: Iqbal, Twombly And The Application Of Judicial Experience, Henry S. Noyes Dec 2010

The Rise Of The Common Law Of Federal Pleading: Iqbal, Twombly And The Application Of Judicial Experience, Henry S. Noyes

Henry S. Noyes

With its decisions in Twombly and Iqbal, the Supreme Court established a new federal pleading standard: a complaint must state a plausible claim for relief. Many commentators have written about the meaning of plausibility. None has focused on the Court’s statement that “[d]etermining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief...will be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” In this article, I make and support several claims about the meaning and application of judicial experience. First, in order to understand and define the plausibility standard, one must understand …

Go to article

The Legacy Of A Supreme Court Clerkship: Stephen Breyer And Arthur Goldberg, Laura Ray Dec 2009

The Legacy Of A Supreme Court Clerkship: Stephen Breyer And Arthur Goldberg, Laura Ray

Laura K. Ray

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Public Confidence And Judicial Campaigns, Michael R. Dimino Dec 2009

Public Confidence And Judicial Campaigns, Michael R. Dimino

Michael R Dimino

My purpose in this essay is to evaluate one of the alternative grounds suggested by Professor Geyh: that the elimination of judicial elections and limits on judicial candidates’ speech can be defended as means of "preserv[ing] public confidence in the courts." Such confidence is necessary, the argument goes, because the people would refuse to "acquiesce[] in the orderly administration of justice" if they believed that judges were deciding cases on the basis of their own preferences (or the electorate’s) rather than on the law.

Go to article

Judicial Decision Making About Forensic Mental Health Evidence, Richard E. Redding, Daniel C. Murrie Dec 2009

Judicial Decision Making About Forensic Mental Health Evidence, Richard E. Redding, Daniel C. Murrie

Richard E. Redding

Judges play a central role in decision making in the justice system. This chapter reviews the extant empirical research on judicial decision making in criminal, juvenile, and civil cases. We discuss judges’ decision making about forensic mental health evidence introduced in these cases, judicial receptivity to various kinds of evidence, and their understanding of clinical and scientific evidence as well as the ways they make rulings about such evidence. We focus on decision making at the trial court level, in those arenas that are most relevant to the forensic mental health practitioner (psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker) who is called …

Go to article

Judicial Decision Making About Forensic Mental Health Evidence, Richard E. Redding, Daniel C. Murrie Dec 2009

Judicial Decision Making About Forensic Mental Health Evidence, Richard E. Redding, Daniel C. Murrie

Richard E. Redding

Judges play a central role in decision making in the justice system. This chapter reviews the extant empirical research on judicial decision making in criminal, juvenile, and civil cases. We discuss judges’ decision making about forensic mental health evidence introduced in these cases, judicial receptivity to various kinds of evidence, and their understanding of clinical and scientific evidence as well as the ways they make rulings about such evidence. We focus on decision making at the trial court level, in those arenas that are most relevant to the forensic mental health practitioner (psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker) who is called …

Go to article

Here Comes The Judge! Gender Distortion On Tv Reality Court Shows, Taunya Lovell Banks Sep 2009

Here Comes The Judge! Gender Distortion On Tv Reality Court Shows, Taunya Lovell Banks

Taunya Lovell Banks

In the judicial world of television court shows women constitute a majority of the judges and where non-white women and men dominate. In real life most judges are white and male. This essay looks at the gender and racial composition and demeanor of these television reality judges. It asks whether women TV reality judges behave differently from their male counterparts and whether women’s increased visibility as judges on daytime reality court shows reinforces or diminishes traditional negative stereotypes about women, especially non-white women.

Go to article

Juristocracy In The Trenches: Problem-Solving Judges And The Therapeutic Jurisprudence In Drug Treatment Courts And Unified Family Courts, Richard C. Boldt, Jana B. Singer Apr 2009

Juristocracy In The Trenches: Problem-Solving Judges And The Therapeutic Jurisprudence In Drug Treatment Courts And Unified Family Courts, Richard C. Boldt, Jana B. Singer

Jana B. Singer

This article explores the role of judges on two types of “problem-solving courts”: drug treatment courts and unified family courts. It compares the behavior these “problem-solving” judges to more traditional models of judicial behavior and to activist judging at the appellate level. The authors conclude that the judges who serve on these problem-solving courts have largely repudiated the classical judicial virtues of restraint, disinterest and modesty in favor of a more activist and therapeutic stance. However, the causes and consequences of this role-shift are complex. In particular, the authors suggest that the proliferation of problem solving courts and judges is …

Go to article

L'Épreuve Orale. Les Magistrats Administratifs Face Aux Audiences De Reconduite À La Frontière, Mathilde Cohen Dec 2008

L'Épreuve Orale. Les Magistrats Administratifs Face Aux Audiences De Reconduite À La Frontière, Mathilde Cohen

Mathilde Cohen

This article studies a special type of deportation hearings and its status in French administrative courts. Until a 2006 legislative reform, this proceeding was the only one in French administrative litigation giving rise to hearings where all the parties were present, including: the claimants, their counsel, and the representatives of the immigration agency. Each party could set out its case and cross-examine the other party. The paper analyzes the way in which administrative judges deal with this irruption of orality in their work, traditionally dominated by a written procedure, and the meaning they give to the hearing in (re)defining their …

Go to article

We Have Met The Special Interests, And We Are They, Michael R. Dimino Dec 2008

We Have Met The Special Interests, And We Are They, Michael R. Dimino

Michael R Dimino

My purpose here is to broaden our focus and argue that, while the influence of campaign contributors is likely to draw most of the popular attention surrounding the power of special interests within the judiciary, the exercise of judicial power will advantage certain interests at the expense of others regardless of the method of judicial selection a particular state uses. Accordingly, we should be careful that attempts to control the influence of special interests do not, in fact, simply advantage one set of special interests.

Go to article

Reason Giving In Court Practice: Decision-Makers At The Crossroads, Mathilde Cohen Dec 2007

Reason Giving In Court Practice: Decision-Makers At The Crossroads, Mathilde Cohen

Mathilde Cohen

According to liberal democratic theory, public institutions’ practice—and sometimes duty—to give reasons is required so that each individual may view the state as reasonable and, therefore, legitimate. Does the giving of reasons in actual court practice achieve these goals? Drawing on empirical research carried out in a French court, this Article shows that, in practice, reason-giving often falls either short of democracy or beyond democracy. Reasons fall short of democracy in the first case because they are transformed from a device designed to “protect” citizens from arbitrariness into a professional norm intended to “protect” the judges themselves and perhaps further …

Go to article

Of Metaphor, Metonymy, And Corporate Money: Rhetorical Choices In Supreme Court Decisions On Campaign Finance Regulation, Linda L. Berger Dec 2006

Of Metaphor, Metonymy, And Corporate Money: Rhetorical Choices In Supreme Court Decisions On Campaign Finance Regulation, Linda L. Berger

Linda L. Berger

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Reconciling The Booker Conflict: A Substantive Sixth Amendment In A Real Offense Sentencing System, Bertrall L. Ross Dec 2005

Reconciling The Booker Conflict: A Substantive Sixth Amendment In A Real Offense Sentencing System, Bertrall L. Ross

Bertrall L Ross

No abstract provided.

Go to article

The Worst Way Of Selecting Judges—Except All The Others That Have Been Tried, Michael R. Dimino Dec 2004

The Worst Way Of Selecting Judges—Except All The Others That Have Been Tried, Michael R. Dimino

Michael R Dimino

This Essay critiques the arguments leveled at judicial elections. For each criticism--which I have discovered through a reasonably thorough review of cases and law review commentary--I assess the degree to which the criticism is valid, and also the degree to which other judicial-selection methods fall prey to the same criticism. I argue that the flaws of judicial elections, though often considerable, are shared in large part by alternative selection systems. Beyond, however, being simply equivalent in malignity to other selection methods, elections have--or, rather, may have, depending on the content of judicial election campaigns--one advantage over other systems that instigated …

Go to article

The Non-Political Branch (Reviewing Lee Epstein & Jeffrey A. Segal, Advice And Consent: The Politics Of Judicial Appointments (2005)), Michael R. Dimino Dec 2004

The Non-Political Branch (Reviewing Lee Epstein & Jeffrey A. Segal, Advice And Consent: The Politics Of Judicial Appointments (2005)), Michael R. Dimino

Michael R Dimino

The realization that judicial ideology matters to case outcomes may have driven the judicial selection process to become increasingly ideological and partisan, but to some degree it has brought ideology and partisanship to bear on the selection process from the time of the Founding. As the authors note, “Presidents, senators, and
interest groups alike realize that the judges themselves are political.” Judging may in some ways be different from politics, but politicians’ judgments about judging most certainly are not.

Go to article

The Futile Quest For A System Of Judicial “Merit” Selection, Michael R. Dimino Dec 2003

The Futile Quest For A System Of Judicial “Merit” Selection, Michael R. Dimino

Michael R Dimino

Others have discussed exhaustively the merits and demerits of merit selection, and I do not intend in this essay to debate the“ success” or “failure,” per se, of merit selection since its introduction in Missouri in 1940. Instead, I wish to discuss the effect merit selection has on squelching public debate about the judiciary. Once that effect is demonstrated, I then wish to assess this antidemocratic tendency against the purported goal of merit selection: maintaining some measure of accountability in a selection system nonetheless designed to make judges confident enough in their independence to render decisions according to the law …

Go to article

A Great Loss, Robert C. Power Dec 2003

A Great Loss, Robert C. Power

Robert C Power

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Pay No Attention To That Man Behind The Robe: Judicial Elections, The First Amendment, And Judges As Politicians, Michael R. Dimino Dec 2002

Pay No Attention To That Man Behind The Robe: Judicial Elections, The First Amendment, And Judges As Politicians, Michael R. Dimino

Michael R Dimino

The question this Article seeks to answer is whether the First Amendment can maintain a distinction between the two types of races. Specifically, I discuss whether the governmental interests in maintaining an independent,
impartial judiciary and in protecting the appearance of the judiciary as independent and impartial can provide justification for the suppression of speech, where such suppression would be held impermissible in elections for
other offices. I conclude that it cannot. My recommendation, therefore, is to subject restrictions on legislative, executive, and judicial campaign speech to the same exacting scrutiny.

Go to article

Europäische Und Amerikanische Richterbilder, Laurent Mayali, Andre Gouron, Dieter Simon Dec 1995

Europäische Und Amerikanische Richterbilder, Laurent Mayali, Andre Gouron, Dieter Simon

Laurent Mayali

No abstract provided.

Go to article

First Prev