Law Commons^™

When Judges Are Accused: An Initial Look At The New Federal Judicial Misconduct Rules, Arthur D. Hellman

Articles

On March 11, 2008, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the administrative policy-making body of the federal judiciary, approved the first set of nationally binding rules for dealing with accusations of misconduct by federal judges. The new rules implement recommendations made by a committee chaired by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Breyer Committee found that although the judiciary has been doing a very good overall job in handling complaints against judges, the error rate in high-visibility cases is far too high.

The new regulatory regime comes into existence at a time when federal judges have been accused of …

A Seed Germinates: Unjust Discharge Reform Heads Toward Full Flower, Theodore J. St. Antoine

Articles

In this paper, I shall briefly review the nature and limitations of the theories most frequently invoked by the courts in dealing with wrongful dismissal. I shall then examine the major arguments for and against a general overhaul of the doctrine of employment at will. Lastly, I shall discuss some of the particular questions that will have to be addressed in fashioning a statutory solution.

Allocation Of Scarce Goods Under Section 2-615 Of The Uniform Commercial Code: A Comparison Of Some Rival Models, James J. White

Articles

Section 2-615 of the Uniform Commercial Code authorizes a contract seller to allocate goods in short supply when full performance has become commercially impracticable. Most of the cases under and commentary on that section have focused on the issue of commercial impracticability. The allocation aspects of the section have attracted much more modest attention in the cases and in the scholarly journals. The purpose of this article is to examine critically the allocation rule set out in section 2-615(b). That subsection authorizes a seller, upon a finding of commercial impracticability, to allocate "in any manner which is fair and reasonable." …

Elfbrandt V. Russell: The Demise Of The Loyalty Oath, Jerold H. Israel

Articles

In Elfbrandt v. Russell, the Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, declared unconstitutional Arizona's requirement of a loyalty oath from state employees. At first glance, Elfbrandt appears to be just another decision voiding a state loyalty oath on limited grounds relating to the specific language of the particular oath. Yet, several aspects of Mr. Justice Douglas' opinion for the majority suggest that Elfbrandt is really of far greater significance: it may sharply limit the scope and coverage of loyalty oaths generally and, indeed, may presage a ruling invalidating all such oaths. Of course, only the Supreme Court can determine this. …