Law Commons^™

The Last Common Law Justice: The Personal Jurisdiction Jurisprudence Of Justice John Paul Stevens, Rodger D. Citron

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

An Illusory Right To Appeal: Substantial Constitutional Questions At The New York Court Of Appeals, Meredith R. Miller

Scholarly Works

The jurisdiction of the New York Court of Appeals has long been shrouded in mystery. When the Court dismisses an appeal, it provides a boilerplate, one-sentence decretal entry, which gives the litigants little, if any, meaningful indication of the Court’s reasons for dismissal. In February 2010, however, the world received a rare glimpse into the Court’s jurisdiction when, in Kachalsky v. Cacace, 925 N.E.2d 80 (N.Y. 2010), Judge Robert Smith dissented from the Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the appeal. Judge Smith voted to retain the appeal, arguing that the Court was using the requirement of “substantiality” to invoke discretion …

Mandatory Binding Arbitration And The Demise Of The Seventh Amendment Right To A Jury Trial, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

How can the body of law which protects the federal constitutional jury trial right be reconciled with a body of arbitration law which often states such propositions as (1) arbitration is favored; (2) arbitration clauses may be upheld absent a showing of voluntary, knowing, or intentional consent; (3) the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proof; (4) arbitration can sometimes be imposed using unsigned envelope "stuffers," handbooks, and warranties; and (5) ambiguous contracts should be construed broadly to support arbitration? To be valid, in most courts the waiver and whether it was actually state arbitration clauses need not be …

Book Review, David S. Tanenhaus

Scholarly Works

In his engaging The Supreme Court and Juvenile Justice, political scientist Christopher P. Manfredi argues that Americans in the 1990s are still feeling the powerful and unintended consequences of a trilogy of Supreme Court decisions, Kent v. United States (1966), In re Gault (1967), and In re Winship (1970). In Gault, the most famous of these cases, Justice Abe Fortas announced that it was time for the “constitutional domestication” of the nation’s juvenile courts and began this process by extending limited due process protection to offenders during adjudicatory hearings. Fortas believed that these protections would shield juveniles from unlimited …

Forum Shopping For Arbitration Decisions: Federal Courts' Use Of Antisuit Injunctions Against State Courts, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

Arbitration clauses, which are supposed to do away with litigation, have ironically spawned many complicated and expensive court fights. Some of the most complex cases involve both forum shopping by the parties and jurisdictional turf battles between federal and state courts. Federal courts have, on quite a few occasions, actually gone so far as to enjoin a state court from continuing to consider a pending case because the federal court concluded that the matter ought to be arbitrated. The Supreme Court, however, has never ruled on whether or when such "arbitral antisuit injunctions" are permissible. In Moses H. Cone Memorial …

Gateway Widens Doorway To Imposing Unfair Binding Arbitration On Consumers, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

Hill v. Gateway, is but the most extreme example of a series of court decisions that allow large companies to impose potentially unfair binding arbitration agreements on unwitting consumers. The outcome in Gateway, however, is questionable on federal statutory, common law, and constitutional grounds.

Reflections On The Constitutional Scholarship Of Charles Black: A Look Back And A Look Forward, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

Charles L. Black Jr. has been one of the most important constitutional scholars in the United States for more than four decades. Professor Black's writings have helped shape the debate in a wide variety of constitutional areas, from racial equality and welfare rights to constitutional amendment, impeachment, and the death penalty. In this essay, Levine briefly surveys a number of Professor Black's articles, focusing on two areas of his scholarship: unnamed human rights and racial justice. By analyzing these two topics, which represent, respectively, Black's most recent scholarship and his most significant early work, Levine attempts to show certain principles …

The Progeny Of Lee V. Weisman: Can Student-Invited Prayer At Public School Graduation Still Be Constitutional?, Thomas A. Schweitzer

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Mandatory Non-Anonymous Testing Of Newborns For Hiv: Should It Ever Be Allowed?, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

In response to cries from both the public and the medical community for increased research and improved treatments with respect to pediatric AIDS, some state legislatures have attempted to enact legislation that would require routine mandatory testing of newborns for HIV on a non-anonymous basis.

Those who favor mandatory testing of newborns contend that such testing is necessary in order to protect the health of newborns and to ensure that the newborns' doctors provide them with adequate care. Moreover, testing advocates argue that because most hospitals already screen anonymously, failing to inform parents of the test results is inappropriate and …