Judges Commons^™

Endogenous And Dangerous, Brian N. Larson

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Judicial Consensus: Why The Supreme Court Should Decide Its Cases Unanimously, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

Like Congress and other deliberative bodies, the Supreme Court decides its cases by majority vote. If at least five of the nine Justices come to an agreement, their view prevails. But why is that the case? Majority voting for the Court is not spelled out in the Constitution, a federal statute, or Supreme Court rules.

Nor it is obvious that the Court should decide by a majority vote. When the public votes on a ballot measure, it typically makes sense to follow the majority. The general will of the electorate ought to govern. But judicial decisions are not supposed to …

The Elastics Of Snap Removal: An Empirical Case Study Of Textualism, Thomas O. Main, Jeffrey W. Stempel, David Mcclure

Scholarly Works

This article reports the findings of an empirical study of textualism as applied by federal judges interpreting the statute that permits removal of diversity cases from state to federal court. The “snap removal” provision in the statute is particularly interesting because its application forces judges into one of two interpretive camps—which are fairly extreme versions of textualism and purposivism, respectively. We studied characteristics of cases and judges to find predictors of textualist outcomes. In this article we offer a narrative discussion of key variables and we detail the results of our logistic regression analysis. The most salient predictive variable was …

Talking Back In Court, M. Eve Hanan

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Snap Removal: Concept; Cause; Cacophony; And Cure, Jeffrey W. Stempel, Thomas O. Main, David Mcclure

Scholarly Works

So-called “snap removal” – removal of a case from state to federal court prior to service on a forum state defendant – has divided federal trial courts for 20 years. Recently, panels of the Second, Third and Fifth Circuits have sided with those supporting the tactic even though it conflicts with the general prohibition on removal when the case includes a forum state defendant, a situation historically viewed as eliminating the need to protect the outsider defendant from possible state court hostility.

Consistent with the public policy underlying diversity jurisdiction – availability of a federal forum to protect against defending …

“Remarkable Influence”: The Unexpected Importance Of Justice Scalia’S Deceptively Unanimous And Contested Majority Opinions, Linda L. Berger, Eric C. Nystrom

Scholarly Works

What constitutes judicial influence and how should it be measured? Curious about the broader role that rhetoric plays in judicial influence over time, we undertook a rhetorical-computational analysis of the 282 majority opinions that Justice Scalia wrote during his 30 years on the Supreme Court. Our analysis is the first to examine the full majority opinion output of a Supreme Court justice using a unique “medium data” approach that combines rhetorical coding with quantitative analysis relying on Shepard’s Citations and LexisNexis headnotes. The resulting study casts doubt on the ability of judicial authors, including Justice Scalia, to control the extent …

Your Honor, On Social Media: The Judicial Ethics Of Bots And Bubbles, Katrina Lee

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Justice As Fair Division, Ian C. Bartrum

Scholarly Works

The current hyperpoliticization of the Court grows out of a feedback loop between politicized appointments and politicized decision-making. This Article suggests a change in the internal procedures by which the Court hears and decides particular cases. A three-Justice panel hears and decides each case. Appeal to an en banc sitting of the entire Court would require a unanimous vote of all non-recused Justices. This Article explores several possible approaches in selecting the three-Justice panel. This Article proposes that applying a fair division scheme to the Court's decision-making process might act to reverse this loop and work to depoliticize the Court …

"Nothing Less Than Indispensable": The Expansion Of Federal Magistrate Judge Authority And Utilization In The Past Quarter Century, Douglas A. Lee, Thomas E. Davis

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Comparative Outputs Of Magistrate Judges, Christina L. Boyd

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Introduction: Magistrate Judges And The Transformation Of The Federal Judiciary, Daniel W. Hamilton, Thomas O. Main

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Article I Judges In An Article Iii World: The Career Path Of Magistrate Judges, Tracey E. George, Albert H. Yoon

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

United States Magistrate Judges: Present But Unaccounted For, Philip M. Pro

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

How Bayesian Are Judges?, Jack Knight, Mitu Gulati, David Levi

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Magistrate Judges, Settlement, And Procedural Justice, Nancy A. Welsh

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Nevada Supreme Court Between 2010 And 2014, Jordan T. Smith

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Terrace V. Thompson And The Legacy Of Manifest Destiny, Jean Stefancic

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Bush V. Gore: The Worst (Or At Least Second-To-The-Worst) Supreme Court Decision Ever, Mark S. Brodin

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Ricci V. Destefano: Diluting Disparate Impact And Redefining Disparate Treatment, Ann C. Mcginley

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Worst Supreme Court Case Ever? Identifying, Assessing, And Exploring Low Moments Of The High Court, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Naim V. Naim, Richard Delgado

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. V. Shute: The Titanic Of Worst Decisions, Linda S. Mullenix

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Contract Law Walks The Plank: Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. V. Shute, Charles L. Knapp

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Hustler V. Falwell: Worst Case In The History Of The World, Maybe The Universe, John M. Kang

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Ashcroft V. Iqbal: Contempt For Rules, Statutes, The Constitution, And Elemental Fairness, Steve Subrin

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

On Teaching Conflicts And Why I Dislike Allstate Insurance Co. V. Hague, Thomas O. Main

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Setting Us Up For Disaster: The Supreme Court's Decision In Terry V. Ohio, Thomas B. Mcaffee

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Lynch And The Lunacy Of Secularized Religion, Frederick Mark Gedicks

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Nigro V. United States: The Most Disingenuous Supreme Court Opinion, Ever, A. Christopher Bryant

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Globe Refining Co. V. Landa Cotton Oil Co. And The Dark Side Of Reputation, Larry T. Garvin

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.