Judges Commons^™

Outlaws, Pirates, Judges: Judicial Activism As An Expression Of Antiauthoritarianism In Anglo-American Culture, Beau Steenken

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This article will argue that the rejection of what scholars otherwise

view as controlling legal authority lies at the heart of judicial activism.

Furthermore, it will argue that judicial activism itself channels the

antiauthoritarian current in American culture (and in English culture

predating its importation to America). Part II will examine the extensive

scholarly writings already existing on judicial activism in order to identify

common themes and to explore to what extent scholars have arrived at a

consensus definition of judicial activism. Part III will then show that

judicial activism may better be understood within the context of law as …

“Testing” Fuller’S Forms And Limits: A Brief Response To Oldfather, Bockhorst, & Dimmer, Scott R. Bauries

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In Triangulating Judicial Responsiveness, Chad Oldfather, Joseph Bockhorst, and Brian Dimmer give us a methodology by which we can empirically assess (among other things) the effects that argumentation has on judicial decision making. Unlike the vast majority of empirical legal scholarship of judging, the authors do not use this methodology in their current study to compare “legalist” explanations of judging with “realist” explanations of judging. Rather, the study operates almost entirely within the “legalist” frame. This is a welcome development for many reasons, one on which this Response focuses—the authors’ methodology illustrates a way of scientifically “testing” descriptive legal …

Making Stuff Up, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Beginning with an article in this Journal almost thirty years ago, Professor Underwood continues to research and write about legal ethics and litigation. In this Commentary, he offers a witty look at several cases where, in his opinion, the judge allowed improper arguments to the jury.

Kentucky 2006 Judicial Elections, William H. Fortune, Al Cross

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article is a short report on the impact of Republican Party of Minnesota v. White on the 2006 Kentucky judicial campaigns and elections. The series of events leading up to the 2006 elections can be traced to at least 1988.

While the Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee (KJCCC) cannot claim a great impact on Kentucky's 2006 judicial elections, the authors of this Article believe that the committee played a positive role. For the most part, judicial candidates campaigned in a dignified and ethical manner, and refrained from running on issues that might strike a chord with the electorate. Judicial …

What Gets Judges In Trouble, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

I wrote this article to collect some cautionary material about “what gets judges in trouble.” I wanted something I could offer to our state judges, practitioners, and my legal ethics students. While I have never been a judge, and while I have never worked for a judicial conduct organization, I have been a law professor for almost twenty-five years and the chairman of a state bar association ethics committee for fourteen. I am not the kind of person who would refrain from holding forth just because I may not know what I am talking about.

When I started out, I …

A Proposal To Require Lawyers To Disclose Information About Procedural Matters, William H. Fortune

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In the absence of a rule clearly requiring disclosure, a lawyer is obligated not to disclose information which is adverse to the interests of a client. However, judges should be able to expect lawyers to disclose information about procedural matters. This Article argues that Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 should be amended to require disclosure of information about procedural matters. Part I describes the events in Potter v. Eli Lilly & Co., a case involving a secret settlement related to Prozac. Part II makes the argument for a rule requiring disclosure of procedural information. Part III describes how …

"I Vote This Way Because I'M Wrong": The Supreme Court Justice As Epimenides, John M. Rogers

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Possibly the most unsettling phenomenon in the Supreme Court's 1988 term was Justice White's decision to vote contrary to his own exhaustively stated reasoning in Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co. His unexplained decision to vote against the result of his own analysis lends support to those who argue that law, or at least constitutional law, is fundamentally indeterminate. Proponents of the indeterminacy argument sometimes base their position on the allegedly inescapable inconsistency of decisions made by a multi-member court. There is an answer to the inconsistency argument, but it founders if justices sometimes vote, without explanation, on the basis of …

Comments On Professor Rotunda's Essay, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In this comment, Professor Richard H. Underwood provides a response to An Essay on the Constitutional Parameters of Federal Impeachment, by Professor Ronald D. Rotunda. Rotunda’s essay was published in the Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 76, No. 3, pp. 707-732.

Markets Overt, Voidable Titles, And Feckless Agents: Judges And Efficiency In The Antebellum Doctrine Of Good Faith Purchase, Harold R. Weinberg

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In considering American common law doctrines shaped during the nineteenth century, commentators have advanced differing theories on the primary judicial criteria employed by judges. Recent studies have argued that these doctrines reflect a criterion of economic efficiency. This work has been criticized for its failure to explain why there seems to be a correlation between efficiency and these decision rules or why judges might have preferred efficiency over other decisional criteria. Other studies have proposed that many judicial doctrines announced before the Civil War were intended to facilitate or ratify major shifts in the distribution of social wealth. This article …

Voir Dire In Kentucky: An Empirical Study Of Voir Dire In Kentucky Circuit Courts, William H. Fortune

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Voir dire is the stage of a jury trial at which prospective jurors are questioned under oath by court or counsel to determine their suitability as jurors in the case to be tried. Kentucky's high court has repeatedly recognized the importance of voir dire to the exercise of for-cause and peremptory challenges.

The trial judge's wide discretion in voir dire, however, necessarily makes a review of appellate decisions of minimal assistance in ascertaining what actually occurs during this important phase of a jury trial. Published opinions provide little guidance in this area; information about voir dire must come from a …