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

Law Commons

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

Vanderbilt University Law School

1999

Discipline
Keyword
Publication
Publication Type

Articles 121 - 123 of 123

Full-Text Articles in Law

How Do Judges Think About Risk?, W. Kip Viscusi Jan 1999

How Do Judges Think About Risk?, W. Kip Viscusi

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

A sample of almost 100 judges exhibited well-known patterns of biases in risk beliefs and reasonable implicit values of life. These biases and personal preferences largely do not affect attitudes toward judicial risk decisions, though there are some exceptions, such as ambiguity aversion, misinterpretation of negligence rules, and retrospective risk assessments in accident cases, which is a form of hindsight bias. Although judges avoided many pitfalls exhibited by jurors and the population at large, they nevertheless exhibited systematic errors, particularly for small probability-large loss events. These findings highlighted the importance of judicial review and the input of expert risk analysts …


The First Constitutional Tort: The Remedial Revolution In Nineteenth-Century State Just Compensation Law, Robert Brauneis Jan 1999

The First Constitutional Tort: The Remedial Revolution In Nineteenth-Century State Just Compensation Law, Robert Brauneis

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article traces the change in the remedial framework of nineteenth-century owner-initiated state constitutional just compensation litigation, and explores the relationship between that change and substantive changes in just compensation doctrine. Through the Civil War, owners complaining of government-sanctioned seizure of their property brought common-law tort actions against whomever might be held liable under ordinary tort and agency law. Defendants in those suits claimed that some piece of legislation altered tort law to shield them from liability for their acts. Plaintiff owners responded that the legislation on which defendants relied was void, because it purported to authorize acts that amounted …


Separate But Not Sovereign: Reconciling Federal Commandeering Of State Courts, Tonya M. Gray Jan 1999

Separate But Not Sovereign: Reconciling Federal Commandeering Of State Courts, Tonya M. Gray

Vanderbilt Law Review

"The question is not what power the federal government ought to have but what powers in fact have been given by the people." Determining the division of power between the states and the federal government has been a debated issue throughout constitutional jurisprudence. Indeed, "[n]o problem has plagued the nation's constitutional history more." In joining the union, the states relinquished power to the federal government. The states were not left without power, as the Tenth Amendment guarantees that powers not enumerated to the federal government or restricted from the states are retained by the states. The broad language of the …