Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Courts (2)
- Audiences (1)
- Avoidance (1)
- Canons of construction (1)
- Charming Betsy (1)
-
- Child Welfare (1)
- Child Welfare Hearings (1)
- Civil procedure (1)
- Clear statement rules (1)
- Confidentiality Laws (1)
- Court Records (1)
- Dynamic interpretation (1)
- Faithful agency (1)
- Family Law (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Implementing doctrines (1)
- Indian canon (1)
- Intentionalism (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Lawyers (1)
- Legal Arguments (1)
- Legal Reasoning (1)
- Legislative supremacy (1)
- Lenity (1)
- Narratives (1)
- Persuasion (1)
- Privacy (1)
- Procedure (1)
- Purposivism (1)
- Rhetoricians (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Argument, Analogy, And Audience: Using Persuasive Comparisons While Avoiding Unintended Effects, Bruce Ching
Argument, Analogy, And Audience: Using Persuasive Comparisons While Avoiding Unintended Effects, Bruce Ching
Journal Articles
No abstract provided.
Stories Told And Untold: Confidentiality Laws And The Master Narrative Of Child Welfare, Matthew I. Fraidin
Stories Told And Untold: Confidentiality Laws And The Master Narrative Of Child Welfare, Matthew I. Fraidin
Journal Articles
In most states, child welfare hearings and records are sealed or confidential. This means that by law, court hearings and records may not be observed. The same laws and court rules also preclude those who are authorized to enter and watch from discussing anything learned or observed in a closed courtroom or from a sealed court record with anyone not involved in the case. It is the restriction on speech—on telling stories about child welfare—with which this Article is concerned. I will argue in this Article that the insights of narrative theory and agenda-setting studies help us understand the damaging …
Substantive Canons And Faithful Agency, Amy Coney Barrett
Substantive Canons And Faithful Agency, Amy Coney Barrett
Journal Articles
Federal courts have long employed substantive canons of construction in the interpretation of statutes. For example, they apply the rule of lenity, which directs that ambiguous criminal statutes be interpreted in favor of the defendant, and the avoidance canon, which directs that statutes be interpreted in a manner that prevents the court from having to address serious constitutional questions. They also apply so-called “clear statement” rules — for example, absent a clear statement from Congress, a federal court will not interpret a statute to abrogate state sovereign immunity. While some commentators have attempted to rationalize these and other substantive canons …
Resolving Cases On The Merits, Jay Tidmarsh
Resolving Cases On The Merits, Jay Tidmarsh
Journal Articles
Prepared for a Symposium on Civil Justice Reform, this essay examines the role of the “on the merits” principle in modern American procedure. After surveying the possible meanings of the phrase, the essay critiques its most common understanding due to its economic inefficiency and its lack of strong philosophical support. Relying on the recent work of Amartya Sen, the essay proposes that the principle be replaced with a “fair outcome” principle that melds both “procedural” and “substantive” concerns.
Stare Decisis As Judicial Doctrine, Randy J. Kozel
Stare Decisis As Judicial Doctrine, Randy J. Kozel
Journal Articles
Stare decisis has been called many things, among them a principle of policy, a series of prudential and pragmatic considerations, and simply the preferred course. Often overlooked is the fact that stare decisis is also a judicial doctrine, an analytical system used to guide the rules of decision for resolving concrete disputes that come before the courts.
This Article examines stare decisis as applied by the U.S. Supreme Court, our nation’s highest doctrinal authority. A review of the Court’s jurisprudence yields two principal lessons about the modern doctrine of stare decisis. First, the doctrine is comprised largely of malleable factors …