Law Commons^™

Aedpa Repeal, Brandon L. Garrett, Kaitlin Phillips

Faculty Scholarship

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) dramatically altered the scope of federal habeas corpus. Enacted in response to a domestic terrorism attack, followed by a capital prosecution, and after decades of proposals seeking to limit post conviction review of death sentences, and Supreme Court rulings severely limiting federal habeas remedies, AEDPA was ratified with little discussion or deliberation. The law and politics of death penalty litigation, which had been particularly active since the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated all death penalty schemes in its 1972 ruling in Furman v. Georgia, culminated in restrictions for all federal habeas …

Reign Of Error: District Courts Misreading The Supreme Court Over Rooker–Feldman Analysis, Thomas D. Rowe Jr., Edward L. Baskauskas

Faculty Scholarship

Seventeen decisions in nine U.S. district courts from 2006 through 2019 have taken a demonstrably misgrounded starting point for Rooker–Feldman analysis. The cases have read language from a 2006 Supreme Court opinion, in which the Court quoted criteria stated by the lower court, as their guideline. But the Court summarily vacated the lower court’s judgment, and it had previously articulated, and has repeated, different criteria for federal courts to follow. The district-court decisions all appear to have reached correct results, but the mistake about criteria should be recognized and avoided as soon as possible before it creates potential mischief. And …

Panel Assignment In The Federal Courts Of Appeals, Marin K. Levy

Faculty Scholarship

It is common knowledge that the federal courts of appeals typically hear cases in panels of three judges and that the composition of the panel can have significant consequences for case outcomes and for legal doctrine more generally. Yet neither legal scholars nor social scientists have focused on the question of how judges are selected for their panels. Instead, a substantial body of scholarship simply assumes that panel assignment is random. This Article provides what, up until this point, has been a missing account of panel assignment. Drawing on a multiyear qualitative study of five circuit courts, including in-depth interviews …

Challenging The Randomness Of Panel Assignment In The Federal Courts Of Appeals, Adam S. Chilton, Marin K. Levy

Faculty Scholarship

A fundamental academic assumption about the federal courts of appeals is that the three-judge panels that hear cases have been randomly configured. Scores of scholarly articles have noted this “fact,” and it has been relied on heavily by empirical researchers. Even though there are practical reasons to doubt that judges would always be randomly assigned to panels, this assumption has never been tested. This Article fill this void by doing so.

To determine whether the circuit courts utilize random assignment, we have created what we believe to be the largest dataset of panel assignments of those courts constructed to date. …

Simplifying The Standard Of Review In North Carolina Administrative Appeals, Sarah H. Ludington

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amica Curiae, Deborah A. Demott In Support Of The Petitioner, Maples V. Thomas, Deborah A. Demott

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Appellate Courts, Michael E. Tigar

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Critical Assessment Of The Cultural And Institutional Roles Of Appellate Courts (Review Essay), Paul D. Carrington

Faculty Scholarship

Reviewing, Daniel Meador et al., Appellate Courts: Structures, Functions, Processes, and Personnel (2d ed. 2006)

Stepping Into The Same River Twice: Rapidly Changing Facts And The Appellate Process, Stuart M. Benjamin

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Defining Finality And Appealability By Court Rule: A Comment On Martineau’S Right Problem, Wrong Solution, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Curing Defects Of Natural Justice By Appeal, Lawrence G. Baxter

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Ceremony And Realism: Demise Of Appellate Procedure, Paul D. Carrington

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.