Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Supreme Court (4)
- United States Supreme Court (3)
- Justices (2)
- Active status (1)
- Amicus (1)
-
- Amicus curiae brief (1)
- Attorney General Wirt (1)
- Blackstone’s Commentaries (1)
- Catholic (1)
- Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1)
- Commandeering (1)
- Congress (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Constitutional amendments (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Countermajoritarian (1)
- Courts (1)
- Courts of Appeals (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- Curiae (1)
- Death (1)
- Death penalty (1)
- Decision making (1)
- Declaratory Judgments (1)
- Deference (1)
- Delegation (1)
- Dictionaries (1)
- Dirks v. SEC (1)
- Disclosure (1)
- Publication
-
- Samuel R. Olken (6)
- University of Richmond Law Review (5)
- Akron Law Review (3)
- Timothy P. O'Neill (3)
- Donald L. Beschle (2)
-
- Law Faculty Publications (2)
- Ann M. Lousin (1)
- Articles (1)
- Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals (1)
- Kevin L. Hopkins (1)
- Michael P. Seng (1)
- Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law (1)
- Michigan Law Review (1)
- Michigan Law Review First Impressions (1)
- Notre Dame Law Review (1)
- Scholarly Articles (1)
- Seton Hall Circuit Review (1)
- William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal (1)
- William K. Ford (1)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 31 - 34 of 34
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Addressing Three Problems In Commentary On Catholics At The Supreme Court By Reference To Three Decades Of Catholic Bishops' Amicus Briefs, Kevin C. Walsh
Addressing Three Problems In Commentary On Catholics At The Supreme Court By Reference To Three Decades Of Catholic Bishops' Amicus Briefs, Kevin C. Walsh
Scholarly Articles
Much commentary about Catholic Justices serving on the Supreme Court suffers from three related shortcomings: (1) episodic, one-case-at-a-time commentary; (2) asymmetric causal attributions resulting from inattention to cases in which Catholic Justices vote for outcomes opposite those advocated by the Catholic Bishops' Conference; and (3) inattention to broader jurisprudential and ideological factors. This article uses an overlooked resource to identify and counteract these shortcomings. It assesses the votes of the Justices-Catholic and non-Catholic alike-in the full set of cases from the Rehnquist Court and the Roberts Court (through June 2014) in which the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops filed …
Addressing Three Problems In Commentary On Catholics At The Supreme Court By Reference To Three Decades Of Catholic Bishops' Amicus Briefs, Kevin C. Walsh
Addressing Three Problems In Commentary On Catholics At The Supreme Court By Reference To Three Decades Of Catholic Bishops' Amicus Briefs, Kevin C. Walsh
Law Faculty Publications
Much commentary about Catholic Justices serving on the Supreme Court suffers from three related shortcomings: (1) episodic, one-case-at-a-time commentary; (2) asymmetric causal attributions resulting from inattention to cases in which Catholic Justices vote for outcomes opposite those advocated by the Catholic Bishops' Conference; and (3) inattention to broader jurisprudential and ideological factors. This article uses an overlooked resource to identify and counteract these shortcomings. It assesses the votes of the Justices-Catholic and non-Catholic alike-in the full set of cases from the Rehnquist Court and the Roberts Court (through June 2014) in which the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops filed …
Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent On The Meaning Of Federal Law?, Amanda Frost
Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent On The Meaning Of Federal Law?, Amanda Frost
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
The conventional wisdom is that state courts need not follow lower federal court precedent when interpreting federal law. Upon closer inspection, however, the question of how state courts should treat lower federal court precedent is not so clear. Although most state courts now take the conventional approach, a few contend that they are obligated to follow the lower federal courts, and two federal courts of appeals have declared that their decisions are binding on state courts. The Constitution’s text and structure send mixed messages about the relationship between state and lower federal courts, and the Supreme Court has never squarely …