Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- SelectedWorks (25)
- BLR (14)
- Duke Law (13)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (10)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (8)
-
- Selected Works (8)
- University of Colorado Law School (6)
- American University Washington College of Law (5)
- University of Georgia School of Law (4)
- Cleveland State University (3)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (3)
- Pepperdine University (3)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (3)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (3)
- University of San Diego (3)
- William & Mary Law School (3)
- Cornell University Law School (2)
- Florida State University College of Law (2)
- Liberty University (2)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (2)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (2)
- Brigham Young University Law School (1)
- Columbia Law School (1)
- Mitchell Hamline School of Law (1)
- New York Law School (1)
- Notre Dame Law School (1)
- Roger Williams University (1)
- Santa Clara Law (1)
- Seattle University School of Law (1)
- St. Mary's University (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Faculty Scholarship (17)
- ExpressO (14)
- Villanova Law Review (10)
- Scholarly Works (7)
- Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals (5)
-
- Indiana Law Journal (5)
- The Future of Natural Resources Law and Policy (Summer Conference, June 6-8) (4)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (3)
- Corey A Ciocchetti (3)
- Faculty Working Papers (3)
- Touro Law Review (3)
- Adam Lamparello (2)
- Donald J. Kochan (2)
- Faculty Publications (2)
- Pepperdine Law Review (2)
- Publications (2)
- Scholarly Publications (2)
- Thiago Luís Santos Sombra (2)
- University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series (2)
- Washington and Lee Law Review (2)
- Access*: Interdisciplinary Journal of Student Research and Scholarship (1)
- All Faculty Scholarship (1)
- All Maxine Goodman Levin School of Urban Affairs Publications (1)
- American Indian Law Review (1)
- Brian Farkas (1)
- Cleveland State Law Review (1)
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (1)
- Cornell Law School J.D. Student Research Papers (1)
- David R. Cleveland (1)
- Edsel F Tupaz (1)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 31 - 60 of 143
Full-Text Articles in Law
A Call For An Overhaul Of The U.S. Federal Court System, Huhnkie Lee
A Call For An Overhaul Of The U.S. Federal Court System, Huhnkie Lee
Huhnkie Lee
No abstract provided.
Prosecuting The Material Support Of Terrorism: Federal Courts, Military Commissions, Or Both?, P. Scott Rufener
Prosecuting The Material Support Of Terrorism: Federal Courts, Military Commissions, Or Both?, P. Scott Rufener
University of Massachusetts Law Review
This note argues that given the recent changes in the 2009 MCA the overall scheme for prosecuting material support of terrorism offenses is satisfactory (i.e., material support crimes should remain under the jurisdiction of both forums), but that the jurisdiction of military commissions over material support offenses should be limited to those providing material support to further specific acts of terrorism (as opposed to generalized support) and to those giving aid to terrorists or foreign terrorist organizations (hereinafter ―FTOs) in active theaters of war.
Why Chief Justice Roy Moore And The Alabama Supreme Court Just Made The Best Case For Same-Sex Marriage, Adam Lamparello
Why Chief Justice Roy Moore And The Alabama Supreme Court Just Made The Best Case For Same-Sex Marriage, Adam Lamparello
Adam Lamparello
The Alabama Court of the Judiciary should remove Roy Moore from the Supreme Court of Alabama for a second and final time. Over ten years after being ousted from the Alabama Supreme Court, Chief Justice Moore is embroiled in yet another controversy that involves disregarding the federal courts and creating chaos in the legal system. In fact, Moore recently stated that he would ignore the Supremacy Clause and not respect a U.S. Supreme Court decision invalidating same-sex marriage bans. That statement brings back memories of Governor Wallace’s infamous stand at the schoolhouse door. At least Wallace had a change of …
Jones, Lackey, And Teague, Richard Broughton
Jones, Lackey, And Teague, Richard Broughton
Richard Broughton
In a recent, high-profile ruling, a federal court finally recognized that a substantial delay in executing a death row inmate violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Courts have repeatedly rejected these so-called “Lackey claims,” making the federal court’s decision in Jones v. Chappell all the more important. And yet it was deeply flawed. This paper focuses on one of the major flaws in the Jones decision that largely escaped attention: the application of the non-retroactivity rule from Teague v. Lane. By comprehensively addressing the merits of the Teague bar as applied to Lackey claims, and making …
Stiffing The Arbitrators: The Problem Of Nonpayment In Commercial Arbitration, Brian Farkas, Neal M. Eiseman
Stiffing The Arbitrators: The Problem Of Nonpayment In Commercial Arbitration, Brian Farkas, Neal M. Eiseman
Brian Farkas
Commercial arbitration is a creature of contract; the parties are there because they choose to be, either including an arbitration clause in their written agreement or, after a dispute developed, electing to avoid litigation all together. Arbitration also comes with an up-front cost non-existent in litigation: the arbitrators. Taxpayers pay for their state and federal judges, but the parties themselves pay for their arbitrators. But what happens if one party refuses (or is otherwise unable) to pay the arbitrator? If the arbitrator then refuses to proceed, as is likely, should the dispute revert to court, in derogation of the prior …
Choosing A Court To Review The Executive, Joseph Mead, Nicholas Fromherz
Choosing A Court To Review The Executive, Joseph Mead, Nicholas Fromherz
All Maxine Goodman Levin School of Urban Affairs Publications
For more than one hundred years, Congress has experimented with review of agency action by single-judge district courts, multiple-judge district courts, and direct review by circuit courts. This tinkering has not given way to a stable design. Rather than settling on a uniform scheme—or at least a scheme with a discernible organizing principle—Congress has left litigants with a jurisdictional maze that varies unpredictably across and within statutes and agencies.In this Article, we offer a fresh look at the theoretical and empirical factors that ought to inform the allocation of the judicial power between district and circuit courts in suits challenging …
Choosing A Court To Review The Executive, Joseph Mead, Nicholas Fromherz
Choosing A Court To Review The Executive, Joseph Mead, Nicholas Fromherz
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
For more than one hundred years, Congress has experimented with review of agency action by single-judge district courts, multiple-judge district courts, and direct review by circuit courts. This tinkering has not given way to a stable design. Rather than settling on a uniform scheme—or at least a scheme with a discernible organizing principle— Congress has left litigants with a jurisdictional maze that varies unpredictably across and within statutes and agencies.
In this Article, we offer a fresh look at the theoretical and empirical factors that ought to inform the allocation of the judicial power between district and circuit courts in …
Weeds, Seeds, & Deeds Redux: Natural And Legal Evolution In The U.S. Seed Wars, Rebecca Stewart
Weeds, Seeds, & Deeds Redux: Natural And Legal Evolution In The U.S. Seed Wars, Rebecca Stewart
Rebecca K Stewart
Ever since the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office began issuing utility patents for plants, the United States has sat squarely on the frontlines of what have come to be known as the “seed wars.” In the last two decades, the majority of battles in the U.S. seed wars have been waged in the form of patent infringement lawsuits. Typically these suits are filed by biotechnology corporations such as Monsanto against farmers accused of saving and planting patented seed that self-replicates to produce progeny embodying—and thus infringing—the biotech corporations’ patented inventions.
Yet in recent years, the seed wars have begun to …
The Evolution Of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act; Changing Interpretations Of The Dmca And Future Implications For Copyright Holders, Hillary A. Henderson
The Evolution Of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act; Changing Interpretations Of The Dmca And Future Implications For Copyright Holders, Hillary A. Henderson
Hillary A Henderson
Copyright law rewards an artificial monopoly to individual authors for their creations. This reward is based on the belief that, by granting authors the exclusive right to reproduce their works, they receive an incentive and means to create, which in turn advances the welfare of the general public by “promoting the progress of science and useful arts.” Copyright protection subsists . . . in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or …
Patent Dialogue, Jonas Anderson
Patent Dialogue, Jonas Anderson
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
This Article examines the unique dialogic relationship that exists between the Supreme Court and Congress concerning patent law. In most areas of the law, Congress and the Supreme Court engage directly with each other to craft legal rules. When it comes to patent law, however, Congress and the Court often interact via an intermediary institution: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In patent law, dialogue often begins when Congress or the Supreme Court acts as a dialogic catalyst, signaling reform priorities to which the Federal Circuit often responds.
Appreciating the unique nature of patent dialogue has important …
Congress As A Catalyst Of Patent Reform At The Federal Circuit, Jonas Anderson
Congress As A Catalyst Of Patent Reform At The Federal Circuit, Jonas Anderson
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is the dominant institution in patent law. The court’s control over patent law and policy has led to a host of academic proposals to shift power away from the court and towards other institutions, including the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and federal district courts. Surprisingly, however, academics have largely dismissed Congress as a potential institutional check on the Federal Circuit. Congress, it is felt, is too slow, too divided, and too beholden to special interests to effectively monitor changes in innovation and respond with appropriate reforms. …
California Egg Toss - The High Costs Of Avoiding Unenforceable Surrogacy Contracts, Jennifer Jackson
California Egg Toss - The High Costs Of Avoiding Unenforceable Surrogacy Contracts, Jennifer Jackson
Jennifer Jackson
In an emotionally charged decision regarding surrogacy contracts, it is important to recognize the ramifications, costs, and policy. There are advantages to both “gestational carrier surrogacy” contracts and “traditional surrogacy” contracts. However, this paper focuses on the differences between these contracts using case law. Specifically, this paper will focus on the implications of California case law regarding surrogacy contracts. Cases such as Johnson v. Calvert and In Re Marriage of Moschetta provide a clear distinction between these contracts. This distinction will show that while gestational carrier surrogacy contracts are more expensive, public policy and court opinions will provide certainty and …
Jurisdiction Revisited: The Inherent Supervisory Power Of The Courts To Review Administrative Decisions - The Case Of R (Ignaoua) V Sshd [2013] Ewca Civ 1498, Patrick Matthew Hassan-Morlai
Jurisdiction Revisited: The Inherent Supervisory Power Of The Courts To Review Administrative Decisions - The Case Of R (Ignaoua) V Sshd [2013] Ewca Civ 1498, Patrick Matthew Hassan-Morlai
Patrick Matthew Hassan-Morlai
The Court of Appeal handed down its decision in R (Ignaoua) v SSHD on 21 November. Ignaoua emphasizes that Parliament does not purport to remove the court’s jurisdiction to entertain judicial review proceedings under Section 15 of the Justice and Security Act 2013. This paper argues that the provisions in both the primary and secondary legislation in Ignaoua are clear enough to convey Parliament’s intention to give the Home Secretary the power to terminate judicial review proceedings or appeal from judicial review proceedings relating to a direction to exclude a foreign national from the United Kingdom. However, the Court of …
"Standing" In The Shadow Of Erie: Federalism In The Balance In Hollingsworth V. Perry, Glenn Koppel
"Standing" In The Shadow Of Erie: Federalism In The Balance In Hollingsworth V. Perry, Glenn Koppel
Glenn Koppel
Abstract “Standing” in the Shadow of Erie: Federalism in the Balance in Hollingsworth v. Perry In Hollingsworth v. Perry, one of the two same-sex marriage cases decided by the Supreme Court in 2013, the Court declined to address the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, finding that the initiative proponents lacked standing to appeal the district court’s judgment declaring the proposition unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement. Since the State’s Governor and Attorney General declined to appeal, the proponents sought to assert the State’s particularized interest in the proposition’s validity. State law, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court, grants authority to …
Improving Parity In Personal Jurisdiction And Judgment Enforcement In International Cases: A Domestic Proposal To Help Revive The Hague Judgments Convention, Eric Porterfield
Improving Parity In Personal Jurisdiction And Judgment Enforcement In International Cases: A Domestic Proposal To Help Revive The Hague Judgments Convention, Eric Porterfield
Eric Porterfield
Two aspects of American law inadvertently discriminate against American consumers and businesses to the benefit of foreign nationals. Restrictive personal jurisdiction rules often prevent American courts from exercising jurisdiction over foreign nationals on the grounds that they lack sufficient “contact” with the forum. Foreign product manufacturers can use this to their advantage, structuring their business dealings to take advantage of confusing constitutional constraints on personal jurisdiction, reducing, if not eliminating, the risk of potential tort liability in American courts, often leaving American consumers without a remedy and disadvantaging American businesses. American companies, in contrast, cannot avoid American tort law at …
The Concept Of Objectivity In The Uk Supreme Court Through A Comparative Looking Glass, Vito Breda
The Concept Of Objectivity In The Uk Supreme Court Through A Comparative Looking Glass, Vito Breda
Vito Breda
This essay reports on the result of hermeneutical research entitled Objectivity in the UK Judicial Discourse. The concept of objectivity generates a plurality of analysis. For instance, in legal theory, MacCormick suggests the possibility of an objective interpretation of cases. Objectivity in the UK Judicial Discourse focuses on the interpretation of the concept by common law judges. In particular, the project sought to map out the cluster of interpretations (and arguments derived therefrom) on the concept of objectivity by the House of Lords and the UK Supreme Court. The result of the study shows that within UK law there …
Class Denied! Go Directly To State Court. Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200, Kevin Dulaney
Class Denied! Go Directly To State Court. Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200, Kevin Dulaney
Kevin Dulaney
No abstract provided.
Three-Dimensional Sovereign Immunity, Sarah L. Brinton
Three-Dimensional Sovereign Immunity, Sarah L. Brinton
Sarah L Brinton
The Supreme Court has erred on sovereign immunity. The current federal immunity doctrine wrongly gives Congress the exclusive authority to waive immunity (“exclusive congressional waiver”), but the Constitution mandates that Congress share the waiver power with the Court. This Article develops the doctrine of a two-way shared waiver and then explores a third possibility: the sharing of the immunity waiver power among all three branches of government.
Deciding Who Decides: Searching For A Deference Standard When Agencies Preempt State Law, John R. Ablan
Deciding Who Decides: Searching For A Deference Standard When Agencies Preempt State Law, John R. Ablan
John R Ablan
When a federal agency determines that the statute that it administers or regulations it has promulgated preempt state law, how much deference must a federal court give to that determination? In Wyeth v. Levine, the Supreme Court expressly declined to decide what standard of deference courts should apply when an agency makes a preemption determination pursuant to a specific congressional delegation to do so. Under this circumstance, this Article counsels against applying any single deference standard to an agency’s entire determination. Instead, it observes that preemption determinations are a complex inquiry involving questions of federal law, state law, and …
In Defense Of Implied Injunctive Relief In Constitutional Cases, John F. Preis
In Defense Of Implied Injunctive Relief In Constitutional Cases, John F. Preis
John F. Preis
Investment Dispute Resolution Under The Transpacific Partnership Agreement: Prelude To A Slippery Slope?, Leon E. Trakman Professor
Investment Dispute Resolution Under The Transpacific Partnership Agreement: Prelude To A Slippery Slope?, Leon E. Trakman Professor
Leon E Trakman Dean
Intense debate is currently brewing over the multistate negotiation of the Transpacific Partnership Agreement [TPPA], led by the United States. The TPPA will be the largest trade and investment agreement after the European Union, with trillions of investment dollars at stake. However, there is little understanding of the complex issues involved in regulating inbound and outbound investment. The negotiating of the TPPA is shrouded in both mystery and dissension among negotiating countries. NGOs, investor and legal interest groups heatedly debate how the TPPA ought to regulate international investment. However this dissension is resolved, it will have enormous economic, political and …
International Money Laundering: The Need For Icc Investigative And Adjudicative Jurisdiction, Michael R. Anderson
International Money Laundering: The Need For Icc Investigative And Adjudicative Jurisdiction, Michael R. Anderson
Michael Anderson
Money laundering is one of the most pressing issues in the realm of international financial crimes. One of the biggest issues involved in international money laundering is the problem of adjudication. There is no international organization that currently hears these sorts of claims, forcing nations to adjudicate these crimes on their own, often without adequate resources to effectively investigate and enforce their money laundering statutes.
This article argues that, in order to more effectively prevent and adjudicate international money laundering offenses, the International Criminal Court should adopt an international money laundering statute designating these activities as a crime within the …
Teaching U.S. V. Windsor: The Defense Of Marriage Act And Its Constitutional Implications, Corey A. Ciocchetti
Teaching U.S. V. Windsor: The Defense Of Marriage Act And Its Constitutional Implications, Corey A. Ciocchetti
Corey A Ciocchetti
Students are captivated by contemporary, high-profile Supreme Court cases. They recognize the litigants featured on the news, they debate the public policy, sociological and other real world implications of the arguments in school and their peers and parents prod them to discuss their opinions outside of class. I incorporate very recent and noteworthy Supreme Court cases in my legal studies courses with great success. My students are more engaged and prepared than when I assign a textbook chapter (students would rather track the law as it develops in real time). They tend to recall the arguments and legal theories well …
Teaching The U.S. V. Windsor Same Sex Marriage/Equal Protection/Doma Case, Corey A. Ciocchetti
Teaching The U.S. V. Windsor Same Sex Marriage/Equal Protection/Doma Case, Corey A. Ciocchetti
Corey A Ciocchetti
The same sex marriage cases are proving to be the hottest of topics during a very eventful Supreme Court term. The U.S. v. Windsor case is a fitting vehicle to cover the topic. These slides help tell the story and can be used to teach the case as well as important constitutional law issues such as: (1) equal protection, (2) federalism, (3) executive discretion to defend federal laws, (4) incorporation and more.
Article Iii: Cases & Controversies - Teaching The Already V. Nike Case, Corey A. Ciocchetti
Article Iii: Cases & Controversies - Teaching The Already V. Nike Case, Corey A. Ciocchetti
Corey A Ciocchetti
Nike is the market leader selling athletic shoes worldwide. Already markets its products to a smaller segment of the athletic shoe market. These two companies battled at the intersection of the intellectual property, federal court jurisdiction and constitutional law. These slides help teach the Already v. Nike Supreme Court case. These slides cover issues such as Article III cases & controversies, intellectual property rights in trademarks and patents as well as mootness and standing doctrines.
Ending Judgment Arbitrage: Jurisdictional Competition And The Enforcement Of Foreign Money Judgments In The United States, Gregory Shill
Ending Judgment Arbitrage: Jurisdictional Competition And The Enforcement Of Foreign Money Judgments In The United States, Gregory Shill
Gregory Shill
Recent multi-billion-dollar damage awards issued by foreign courts against large American companies have focused attention on the once-obscure, patchwork system of enforcing foreign-country judgments in the United States. That system’s structural problems are even more serious than its critics have charged. However, the leading proposals for reform overlook the positive potential embedded in its design.
In the United States, no treaty or federal law controls the domestication of foreign judgments; the process is instead governed by state law. Although they are often conflated in practice, the procedure consists of two formally and conceptually distinct stages: foreign judgments must first be …
Legitimacy And Lawmaking: A Tale Of Three International Courts, Laurence R. Helfer, Karen J. Alter
Legitimacy And Lawmaking: A Tale Of Three International Courts, Laurence R. Helfer, Karen J. Alter
Faculty Scholarship
This article explores the relationship between the legitimacy of international courts and expansive judicial lawmaking. We compare lawmaking by three regional integration courts — the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the Andean Tribunal of Justice (ATJ), and the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice (ECCJ). These courts have similar jurisdictional grants and access rules, yet each has behaved in a strikingly different way when faced with opportunities to engage in expansive judicial lawmaking. The ECJ is the most activist, but its audacious legal doctrines have been assimilated as part of the court’s legitimate authority. The ATJ and ECOWAS have been more …
Treating Juveniles Like Juveniles: Getting Rid Of Transfer And Expanded Adult Court Jurisdiction, Christopher Slobogin
Treating Juveniles Like Juveniles: Getting Rid Of Transfer And Expanded Adult Court Jurisdiction, Christopher Slobogin
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
The number of juveniles transferred to adult court has skyrocketed in the past two decades and has only recently begun to level off. This symposium article argues that, because it wastes resources, damages juveniles, and decreases public safety, transfer should be abolished. It also argues that the diminished culpability rationale that has had much-deserved success at eliminating the juvenile death penalty and mandatory life without parole for juveniles is not likely to have a major impact on the much more prevalent practices of transferring mid- and older-adolescents to adult court and expanding adult court jurisdiction to adolescents; neither the law …
Judging The Flood Of Litigation, Marin K. Levy
Judging The Flood Of Litigation, Marin K. Levy
Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court has increasingly considered a particular kind of argument: that it should avoid reaching decisions that would “open the floodgates of litigation.” Despite its frequent invocation, there has been little scholarly exploration of what a floodgates argument truly means, and even less discussion of its normative basis. This Article addresses both subjects, demonstrating for the first time the scope and surprising variation of floodgates arguments, as well as uncovering their sometimes-shaky foundations. Relying on in-depth case studies from a wide array of issue areas, the Article shows that floodgates arguments primarily have been used to protect three institutions: …
Rejection Of Nonresidential Leases Of Real Property In Bankruptcy: What Happens To The Mortgagee's Security Interest? , William E. Winfield
Rejection Of Nonresidential Leases Of Real Property In Bankruptcy: What Happens To The Mortgagee's Security Interest? , William E. Winfield
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.