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

Law Commons

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

Litigation

University of Richmond

Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

Testamentary Capacity Litigation In Virginia, F. Philip Manns Jr. Jan 2015

Testamentary Capacity Litigation In Virginia, F. Philip Manns Jr.

Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest

In Rust v. Reid, a 1918 case involving testamentary capacity, the Supreme Court of Virginia wrote the "cases upon this subject are almost without number, and they are not to be reconciled," but Rust referred to "all of the decisions of this court on the subject of competency of jurors," which also had been at issue in the case. However, in its decision in Rust, the Court easily could have leveled the same self-criticism about its cases deciding (1) which party bears the burden of proof in testamentary capacity litigation; (2) whether a presumption of testamentary capacity exists; and (3) …


The Mosaic Theory In Individual Rights Litigation: On The Genealogy And Expansion Of A Concept, Robert M. Pallitto Jan 2013

The Mosaic Theory In Individual Rights Litigation: On The Genealogy And Expansion Of A Concept, Robert M. Pallitto

Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest

This article explores the use of the concept of "mosaics" in individual rights litigation, a topic that has received virtually no scholarly attention. Originally a construct used in analysis of intelligence data, the mosaic theory has been transposed to the litigation context and applied in a range of recent case law. Here, the article examines the theory's use in two settings that have important implications for individual liberties: to support the state secrets privilege as a form of information control, and to defeat habeas petitions filed by "war on terror" detainees. In these areas, the mosaic concept is used in …


Plausible Screening: A Defense Of Twombly And Iqbal's Plausibility Pleading, Michelle Kallen Jan 2010

Plausible Screening: A Defense Of Twombly And Iqbal's Plausibility Pleading, Michelle Kallen

Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest

Part I of the article describes the vision of the 1938 reformers and the changes to the litigation landscape since. Part II describes the Twombly and Iqbal cases in relation to prior pleading standards. Part III builds on Twombly and Iqbal's language to set forth an account of plausibility pleadings that addresses the problems with today's system of litigation. Part IV describes some of the major critiques to plausibility pleading and explains why these critiques do not pose a threat to the account of plausibility pleading set forth in Part III.


Compelling The Courts To Question Gonzalez V. O Centro: A Public Harms Approach To Free Exercise Analysis, Ari B. Fontecchio Jan 2010

Compelling The Courts To Question Gonzalez V. O Centro: A Public Harms Approach To Free Exercise Analysis, Ari B. Fontecchio

Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest

Part I will set forth the analytical framework established by the Supreme Court in the RFRA and RLUIPA contexts before 0 Centro." This Part will provide a brief background to RFRA and RLUIPA and set forth the definition of "compelling interest" before 0 Centro. Part II will focus on the decision in 0 Centro; specifically, how the Supreme Court's redefinition of "compelling interest" significantly elevates the government's burden. Part III will compare the government's chance of winning on a "compelling interest" argument before 0 Centro" with the chance of winning in its wake. This Part will discuss the merits, flaws, …


Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel, F. Emmit Fitzpatrick, Nialena Caravasos Jan 2000

Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel, F. Emmit Fitzpatrick, Nialena Caravasos

Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest

As an accompaniment to the surge of litigation, we have also witnessed an increase in the claims of ineffective representation by counsel. As more and more litigants are called upon to respond to such claims, the appellate courts have been forced to delineate a basic threshold of competence. Not only is the standard by which counsel is deemed effective or ineffective constantly changing, but also decisions of the higher courts have been devoid of a guideline through which future problems may be anticipated. The review of case law below traces the evolution of both state and federal decisions during approximately …