Law Commons^™

Bringing Light To The Halls Of Shadow, Richard J. Peltz-Steele

Faculty Publications

Appellate judges operate in the shadows. Though they don’t see it that way. “We are judged by what we write,” said U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. True too, court proceedings and records are presumptively open to the public. The West Wing of the White House is certainly not so vulnerable to public scrutiny, and the backrooms of legislative chambers are famously smoke-filled. Yet the parts of court activity that we see and hear seem only to whet our appetite for the rest of the process. In this Preface, the author introduces the subject of the journalist and the court, …

Investigating The Justice System Response To Domestic Violence In Missouri, Mary M. Beck, Brandi L. Byrd, M. Meghan Davidson, Niels C. Beck, Gregory F. Petroski

Faculty Publications

One in four women will experience domestic violence in their lifetimes. Each year, 5.3 million domestic violence assaults occur in the United States alone and domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women. Yet, despite the prevalence of domestic violence, little empirical research on the justice system's response to it exists. This paper seeks to describe a state funded project that was created to assess and compare responses to domestic violence throughout the state of Missouri. The project lasted for three years and was conducted by an interdisciplinary team of University of Missouri-Columbia (MU) professors and students.

Jurisdiction, Merits, And Substantiality, Howard M. Wasserman

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Doctors & Juries, Philip G. Peters Jr.

Faculty Publications

Legislation is pending in both houses of Congress to transfer medical malpractice cases from civil juries to administrative health courts. The Institute of Medicine also wants to take malpractice cases away from juries through a system of binding early settlement offers. Each of these proposals is premised on the assumption that juries lack the capacity to resolve medical malpractice disputes fairly. This article evaluates that premise. It collects and synthesizes three decades of empirical research on jury decision-making, updating the seminal review done by Neil Vidmar over a decade ago.Four important findings emerge from the data. First, negligence matters. Plaintiffs …

What We Know About Malpractice Settlements, Philip G. Peters Jr.

Faculty Publications

The enclosed article is the first comprehensive synthesis of two decades of empirical research on medical malpractice settlement. The portrait that emerges from this synthesis is both more reassuring and more complex than popular portrayals. Although the fit is not perfect, the merits generally drive the settlement process. Weak claims consistently fare the worst, toss-ups cases do better, and strong cases have the most success.Prior scholarship on malpractice outcomes has understated the strength of this correlation because it has focused principally on the impact of negligence on the settlement rates and has largely ignored the importance of settlement amount. The …

Politics Of Deference And Inclusion: Toward A Uniform Framework For The Analysis Of ‘Fundamental Alteration’ Under The Ada, Kerri Lynn Stone

Faculty Publications

In 2001, a disabled professional golfer prevailed in his claim to use a golf cart on the PGA Tour in the Supreme Court case of PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin. While the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) mandates that essential and reasonable accommodations be made for plaintiffs like Martin, it does not require any actions that would fundamentally alter the nature of a defendant’s “goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations.” This article surveys federal opinions that undertook the fundamental alteration query posed by Titles II and III of the ADA in the five years since Martin was decided, and …

But Can It Be Fixed? A Look At Constitutional Challenges To Lethal Injection Executions, Ellen Kreitzberg, David Richter

Faculty Publications

This article argues that California's Procedure 770 as currently implemented is unconstitutional. Judge Fogel, after an exhaustive review of evidence from all parties,agrees. Although Judge Fogel believes that the lethal injection system, while broken "can be fixed," we argue that lethal injection, as a method of execution, is always unconstitutional because the procedures employed in its administration can never ensure against unnecessary risk of pain to the inmate. We also argue that the California legislature must step in to publicly review lethal injection executions and to investigate the conduct of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in the …

Anti-Federalist Procedure, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

"[T]he new federal government will ... be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the prerogatives of their governments."

"[T]he Constitution of the United States ... recognizes and preserves the autonomy and independence of the States-independence in their legislative and independence in their judicial departments. . . . Any interference with either, except as [constitutionally] permitted, is an invasion of the authority of the State and, to that extent, a denial of its independence."

The understanding expressed by these opening quotes-that the national government was designed to be one of limited powers that would refrain from encroaching …

Constitutional Avoidance And The Roberts Court, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The "Federalism Five" As Supreme Court Nominees, 1971-1991, John Q. Barrett

Faculty Publications

This article looks back at the Senate confirmation hearing testimonies of five Supreme Court nominees. Following their appointments to the Court, these justices—Chief Justice Rehnquist and Associate Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas—generally voted together in path-breaking federalism cases. They reinvigorated constitutional law limits or decreed new ones on national legislative power, supported the "sovereignty" of state governments, and thus came to be known in some circles as the Rehnquist Court's "Federalism Five." As nominees testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, however, these "federalism" justices did not announce, or for the most part even much hint at, what came to …

The D'Oh! Of Popular Constiutitonalism, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Judging International Judgments, Mark L. Movsesian

Faculty Publications

What effect should rulings of international courts have in domestic courts? In the U.S., debate has centered on a series of rulings by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the application of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). The VCCR, a multilateral treaty that the United States ratified in 1969, grants foreign nationals the right to seek the assistance of their consulates in the event that local authorities arrest them. An Optional Protocol to the VCCR gives the ICJ jurisdiction over disputes relating to the interpretation and application of the treaty. Since the late 1990s, the ICJ repeatedly …