Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
-
- Corey A Ciocchetti (3)
- Adam Lamparello (2)
- Donald J. Kochan (2)
- Thiago Luís Santos Sombra (2)
- Brian Farkas (1)
-
- David R. Cleveland (1)
- Edsel F Tupaz (1)
- Eric Porterfield (1)
- Glenn Koppel (1)
- Gregory Shill (1)
- Hillary A Henderson (1)
- Huhnkie Lee (1)
- Jennifer Jackson (1)
- Jennifer M. Pacella, Esq. (1)
- John F. Preis (1)
- John R Ablan (1)
- Kevin Dulaney (1)
- Leon E Trakman Dean (1)
- Lumen N. Mulligan (1)
- Michael Anderson (1)
- Michael J. Nolan (1)
- Nehal A. Patel (1)
- Patrick Matthew Hassan-Morlai (1)
- Rebecca K Stewart (1)
- Richard Broughton (1)
- Sarah L Brinton (1)
- Scott Dodson (1)
- Vito Breda (1)
- File Type
Articles 31 - 33 of 33
Full-Text Articles in Law
Ripe Standing Vines And The Jurisprudential Tasting Of Matured Legal Wines – And Law & Bananas: Property And Public Choice In The Permitting Process, Donald J. Kochan
Ripe Standing Vines And The Jurisprudential Tasting Of Matured Legal Wines – And Law & Bananas: Property And Public Choice In The Permitting Process, Donald J. Kochan
Donald J. Kochan
From produce to wine, we only consume things when they are ready. The courts are no different. That concept of “readiness” is how courts address cases and controversies as well. Justiciability doctrines, particularly ripeness, have a particularly important role in takings challenges to permitting decisions. The courts largely hold that a single permit denial does not give them enough information to evaluate whether the denial is in violation of law. As a result of this jurisprudential reality, regulators with discretion have an incentive to use their power to extract rents from those that need their permission. Non-justiciability of permit denials …
A Unified Theory Of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Jurisdiction, Lumen N. Mulligan
A Unified Theory Of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Jurisdiction, Lumen N. Mulligan
Lumen N. Mulligan
Title 28, section 1331 of the United States Code provides the jurisdictional grounding for the majority of cases heard in the federal courts, yet it is not well understood. The predominant view holds that section 1331 doctrine both lacks a focus upon congressional intent and is internally inconsistent. I seek to counter both these assumptions by re-contextualizing the Court’s section 1331 jurisprudence in terms of the contemporary judicial usage of “right” (i.e., clear, mandatory obligations capable of judicial enforcement) and cause of action (i.e., permission to vindicate a right in court). In conducting this reinterpretation, I argue that section 1331 …
Much Ado About Pluralities: Pride And Precedent Amidst The Cacophy Of Concurrences, And Re-Percolation After Rapanos, Donald J. Kochan, Melissa M. Berry, Matthew J. Parlow
Much Ado About Pluralities: Pride And Precedent Amidst The Cacophy Of Concurrences, And Re-Percolation After Rapanos, Donald J. Kochan, Melissa M. Berry, Matthew J. Parlow
Donald J. Kochan
Conflicts created by concurrences and pluralities in court decisions create confusion in law and lower court interpretation. Rule of law values require that individuals be able to identify controlling legal principles. That task is complicated when pluralities and concurrences contribute to the vagueness or uncertainty that leaves us wondering what the controlling rule is or attempting to predict what it will evolve to become. The rule of law is at least handicapped when continuity or confidence or confusion infuse our understanding of the applicable rules. This Article uses the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rapanos v. United States to …