Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Litigation (3)
- Civil Law (2)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (2)
- International Law (2)
- Civil Procedure (1)
-
- Commercial Law (1)
- Conflict of Laws (1)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (1)
- Economics (1)
- Environmental Law (1)
- Environmental Policy (1)
- Environmental Sciences (1)
- Evidence (1)
- International Trade Law (1)
- Judges (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Juvenile Law (1)
- Law and Economics (1)
- Law and Philosophy (1)
- Legal Education (1)
- Legal Profession (1)
- Organizations Law (1)
- Physical Sciences and Mathematics (1)
- Political Economy (1)
- Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration (1)
- Rule of Law (1)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (1)
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Courts
Law School News: A Courtroom Drama Worth Watching 10-22-2023, Suzi Morales
Law School News: A Courtroom Drama Worth Watching 10-22-2023, Suzi Morales
Life of the Law School (1993- )
No abstract provided.
Underage And Unprotected: Federal Grand Juries, Child Development, And The Systemic Failure To Protect Minors Subpoenaed As Witnesses, Lucy Litt
University of Cincinnati Law Review
Grand juries in the United States were originally intended to protect people from unwarranted criminal prosecution by the government; however, criticism of federal grand juries in the U.S. throughout the past five decades demonstrates that these deliberative bodies protect prosecutors at the expense of the people subjected to their investigations. Worse still, federal grand jury proceedings circumvent fundamental constitutional rights, direct judicial oversight, and many of the procedural protections of criminal trials; they enable prosecutors to strip unaccused individuals subpoenaed solely for witness testimony of their safety, rights, and liberty. Prosecutorial misconduct has received increasingly widespread attention, especially in recent …
Three-Judge District Courts, Direct Appeals, And Reforming The Supreme Court’S Shadow Docket, Michael E. Solimine
Three-Judge District Courts, Direct Appeals, And Reforming The Supreme Court’S Shadow Docket, Michael E. Solimine
Indiana Law Journal
The “shadow docket” is the term recently given to a long-standing practice of the U.S. Supreme Court, in granting or denying requests for stays of lower court decisions, often on a hurried basis with rudimentary briefing and no oral argument, and with little if any explanation by the Court or individual Justices. Recently, the practice has received unusual attention inside and outside the legal community, because of its seemingly increased use by the Court in high-profile cases, with the emergency orders often sought by the federal government or state officials. Scholars have advanced various reforms to ameliorate the perceived problems …
Urgenda Vs. Juliana: Lessons For Future Climate Change Litigation Cases, Paolo Davide Farah, Imad Antoine Ibrahim
Urgenda Vs. Juliana: Lessons For Future Climate Change Litigation Cases, Paolo Davide Farah, Imad Antoine Ibrahim
Articles
No abstract provided.
Jurisdiction Over Non-Eu Defendants: The Brussels I Article 79 Review, Ronald A. Brand
Jurisdiction Over Non-Eu Defendants: The Brussels I Article 79 Review, Ronald A. Brand
Book Chapters
When the original EU Brussels I Regulation on Jurisdiction and the Recognition of Judgments was “recast” in 2011, the Commission recommended that the application of its direct jurisdiction rules apply to all defendants in Member State courts, and not just to defendants from other Member States. This approach was not adopted, but set for reconsideration through Article 79 of the Brussels I (Recast) Regulation, which requires that the European Commission report in 2022 on the possible application of the direct jurisdiction rules of the Regulation to all defendants. Without such a change, the Recast Regulation continues to allow each Member …
Theorizing Corroboration, Maggie Wittlin
Theorizing Corroboration, Maggie Wittlin
Faculty Scholarship
A child makes an out-of-court statement accusing an adult of abuse. That statement is important proof, but it also presents serious reliability concerns. When deciding whether it is sufficiently reliable to be admitted, should a court consider whether the child’s statement is corroborated—whether, for example, there is medical evidence of abuse? More broadly, should courts consider corroboration when deciding whether evidence is reliable enough to be admitted at trial? Judges, rule-makers, and scholars have taken significantly divergent approaches to this question and come to different conclusions.
This Article argues that there is a key problem with using corroboration to evaluate …