Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Decision making (2)
- Law reform (2)
- Minorities (2)
- Accountability (1)
- Case assignments (1)
-
- Casebooks (1)
- Committees (1)
- Context (1)
- Court of the Southern District of New York (1)
- Court rules (1)
- Daniels v. City of New York (1)
- Disclosed invention (1)
- Discretion (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Discursive dilemma (1)
- Diversity (1)
- Elections (1)
- Fairness (1)
- Federal Circuit (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Friendly (Henry) (1)
- History (1)
- Independence (1)
- Influence (1)
- Judicial elections (1)
- Judicial independence (1)
- Judicial review (1)
- Juries (1)
- Jurors (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Jury Voting Paradoxes, Jason Iuliano
Jury Voting Paradoxes, Jason Iuliano
Michigan Law Review
The special verdict is plagued by two philosophical paradoxes: the discursive dilemma and the lottery paradox. Although widely discussed in the philosophical literature, these paradoxes have never been applied to jury decision making. In this Essay, I use the paradoxes to show that the special verdict’s vote-reporting procedures can lead judges to render verdicts that the jurors themselves would reject. This outcome constitutes a systemic breakdown that should not be tolerated in a legal system that prides itself on the fairness of its jury decision-making process. Ultimately, I argue that, because the general verdict with answers to written questions does …
Revising Civil Rule 56: Judge Mark R. Kravitz And The Rules Enabling Act, Edward H. Cooper
Revising Civil Rule 56: Judge Mark R. Kravitz And The Rules Enabling Act, Edward H. Cooper
Articles
This contribution uses the history of amending Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, “Summary Judgment,” to pay tribute to Mark R. Kravitz and to the Rules Enabling Act process itself. The three central examples involve discretion to deny summary judgment despite the lack of a genuine dispute as to any material fact, the choice whether to prescribe a detailed “point–counterpoint” procedure for presenting and opposing the motion, and the effect of failure to respond to a motion in one of the modes prescribed by the rule. These topics are intrinsically important. The ways in which the Civil Rules Advisory Committee …
Judicial Diversity After Shelby County V. Holder, William Roth
Judicial Diversity After Shelby County V. Holder, William Roth
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
In 2014, voters in ten of the fifteen states previously covered by the Voting Rights Act ("VRA") preclearance formula-including six of the nine states covered in their entirety-will go to the polls to elect or retain state supreme court justices. Yet despite the endemic underrepresentation of minorities on state benches and the judiciary's traditional role in fighting discrimination, scholars have seemingly paid little attention to how Shelby County v. Holder's suspension of the coverage formula in section 4(b) has left racial minorities vulnerable to retrogressive changes to judicial-election laws. The first election year following Shelby County thus provides a compelling …
Judicial Capacities And Patent Claim Construction: An Ordinary Reader Standard, Greg Reilly
Judicial Capacities And Patent Claim Construction: An Ordinary Reader Standard, Greg Reilly
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
Patent claim construction is a mess. The Federal Circuit’s failure to provide adequate guidance has created significant problems for the patent system. The problems with claim construction result from the Federal Circuit’s inability to resolve whether claim terms should be given (1) the general, acontextual meaning they would have to a skilled person in the field; (2) the specific meaning they have in the context of the patent; or (3) some combination of the two. The claim construction debate largely overlooks the generalist judges who must implement claim construction. This Article fills that gap, concluding that existing approaches are difficult, …
What Books On Law Should Be, Richard A. Posner
What Books On Law Should Be, Richard A. Posner
Michigan Law Review
I have thought it might be useful to our profession, and appropriate to a foreword to a collection of reviews of newly published books on law, to set forth some ideas on how books can best serve members of the different branches of the legal profession — specifically judges, practicing lawyers, law students, and academic lawyers — plus persons outside the legal profession who are interested in law. I am not interested in which already published books should be retained and which discarded, but in what type of book about law should be written from this day forward. I will …
Some Kind Of Judge: Henry Friendly And The Law Of Federal Courts, Aaron P. Brecher
Some Kind Of Judge: Henry Friendly And The Law Of Federal Courts, Aaron P. Brecher
Michigan Law Review
Uberfans of the federal judiciary owe a lot to David Dorsen. His illuminating biography of Judge Henry Friendly is a fitting tribute to the contributions of a jurist that many consider to be among the finest judges never to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. Judicial biography is a difficult genre to do well, and most authors choose to focus on Supreme Court justices. But Henry Friendly, Greatest Judge of His Era is an excellent source of information on Friendly’s life and, far more important, his views on the law and his relationships with some of the most fascinating figures …
Judicial Independence And Social Welfare, Michael D. Gilbert
Judicial Independence And Social Welfare, Michael D. Gilbert
Michigan Law Review
Judicial independence is a cornerstone of American constitutionalism. It empowers judges to check the other branches of government and resolve cases impartially and in accordance with law. Yet independence comes with a hazard. Precisely because they are independent, judges can ignore law and pursue private agendas. For two centuries, scholars have debated those ideas and the underlying tradeoff: independence versus accountability. They have achieved little consensus, in part because independence raises difficult antecedent questions. We cannot decide how independent to make a judge until we agree on what a judge is supposed to do. That depends on one’s views about …
The Danger Of Nonrandom Case Assignment: How The Southern District Of New York's "Related Cases" Rule Shaped Stop-And-Frisk Rulings, Katherine A. Macfarlane
The Danger Of Nonrandom Case Assignment: How The Southern District Of New York's "Related Cases" Rule Shaped Stop-And-Frisk Rulings, Katherine A. Macfarlane
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
The Southern District of New York’s local rules are clear: “[A]ll active judges . . . shall be assigned substantially an equal share of the categories of cases of the court over a period of time.” Yet for the past fourteen years, Southern District Judge Shira Scheindlin has been granted near-exclusive jurisdiction over one category of case: those involving wide-sweeping constitutional challenges to the New York Police Department’s (NYPD) stop-and-frisk policies. In 1999, Judge Scheindlin was randomly assigned Daniels v. City of New York, the first in a series of high-profile and high-impact stop-and-frisk cases. Since then, she has overseen …