Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Courts (3)
- Jurisprudence (3)
- Legal History (3)
- Civil Law (2)
- Civil Procedure (2)
-
- Law and Society (2)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (2)
- Rule of Law (2)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1)
- Common Law (1)
- Family Law (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Law and Politics (1)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (1)
- Legal Profession (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Supreme Court of the United States (1)
- Torts (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Separation Of Powers Doctrine On The Modern Supreme Court And Four Doctrinal Approaches To Judicial Decision-Making, R. Randall Kelso
Separation Of Powers Doctrine On The Modern Supreme Court And Four Doctrinal Approaches To Judicial Decision-Making, R. Randall Kelso
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Modern Odysseus Or Classic Fraud - Fourteen Years In Prison For Civil Contempt Without A Jury Trial, Judicial Power Without Limitation, And An Examination Of The Failure Of Due Process, Mitchell J. Frank
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
University Of Baltimore Symposium Report: Debut Of “The Matthew Fogg Symposia On The Vitality Of Stare Decisis In America”, Zena D. Crenshaw-Logal
University Of Baltimore Symposium Report: Debut Of “The Matthew Fogg Symposia On The Vitality Of Stare Decisis In America”, Zena D. Crenshaw-Logal
Zena Denise Crenshaw-Logal
On the first of each two day symposium of the Fogg symposia, lawyers representing NGOs in the civil rights, judicial reform, and whistleblower advocacy fields are to share relevant work of featured legal scholars in lay terms; relate the underlying principles to real life cases; and propose appropriate reform efforts. Four (4) of the scholars spend the next day relating their featured articles to views on the vitality of stare decisis. Specifically, the combined panels of public interest attorneys and law professors consider whether compliance with the doctrine is reasonably assured in America given the: 1. considerable discretion vested in …
Constitutional Value Judgments And Interpretive Theory Choice, Ian C. Bartrum
Constitutional Value Judgments And Interpretive Theory Choice, Ian C. Bartrum
Ian C Bartrum
Philip Bobbitt’s remarkable work describing the ‘modalities’ of constitutional argument is an immense contribution to the study of constitutional law. He describes a typology of six forms of argument alive in our interpretive practice, and offers a limited account of how these modalities interact, and sometimes conflict, in actual constitutional decisions. One of the persistent puzzles Bobbitt’s description leaves open, however, is how we should account for the choice between conflicting modalities in cases where that choice is likely outcome-determinative. Because the modalities are ‘incommensurable’—a term’s meaning in one modality may not be fully translatable into another—there is no internal …