Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Jurisprudence (6)
- Courts (5)
- Law and Politics (5)
- Legal History (4)
- Civil Procedure (3)
-
- Legal Writing and Research (3)
- Litigation (3)
- Constitutional Law (2)
- Law and Society (2)
- Legislation (2)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (2)
- Administrative Law (1)
- American Politics (1)
- Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (1)
- Arts and Humanities (1)
- Behavioral Economics (1)
- Civil Law (1)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1)
- Computer Sciences (1)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (1)
- Economics (1)
- Environmental Law (1)
- Ethics and Political Philosophy (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Land Use Law (1)
- Law and Economics (1)
- Publication
- File Type
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Artificial Intelligence And Role-Reversible Judgment, Stephen E. Henderson, Kiel Brennan-Marquez
Artificial Intelligence And Role-Reversible Judgment, Stephen E. Henderson, Kiel Brennan-Marquez
Stephen E Henderson
Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Jurisprudence Of Opportunity And Equality, Deborah Jones Merritt, David M. Lieberman
Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Jurisprudence Of Opportunity And Equality, Deborah Jones Merritt, David M. Lieberman
David Lieberman
No abstract provided.
Tell Us A Story, But Don't Make It A Good One: Resolving The Confusion Regarding Emotional Stories And Federal Rule Of Evidence 403, Cathren Page
Cathren Page
Abstract: Tell Us a Story, But Don’t Make It A Good One: Resolving the Confusion Regarding Emotional Stories and Federal Rule of Evidence 403 by Cathren Koehlert-Page Courts need to reword their opinions regarding Rule 403 to address the tension between the advice to tell an emotionally evocative story at trial and the notion that evidence can be excluded if it is too emotional. In the murder mystery Mystic River, Dave Boyle is kidnapped in the beginning. The audience feels empathy for Dave who as an adult becomes one of the main suspects in the murder of his friend Jimmy’s …
Retroactivity And Prospectivity Of Judgments In American Law, Richard Kay
Retroactivity And Prospectivity Of Judgments In American Law, Richard Kay
Richard Kay
In every American jurisdiction, new rules of law announced by a court are presumed to have retrospective effect—that is, they are presumed to apply to events occurring before the date of judgment. There are, however, exceptions in certain cases where a court believes that such application of the new rule will upset serious and reasonable reliance on the prior state of the law. This essay, a substantially abridged version of the United States Report on the subject, submitted at the Nineteenth International Congress of Comparative Law, summarizes these exceptional cases. It shows that the proper occasions for issuing exclusively or …
Decorating The Structure: The Art Of Making Human Law, Brian M. Mccall
Decorating The Structure: The Art Of Making Human Law, Brian M. Mccall
Brian M McCall
Clinton, Ginsburg, And Centrist Federalism, Russell A. Miller
Clinton, Ginsburg, And Centrist Federalism, Russell A. Miller
Russell A. Miller
This Article examines Justice Ginsburg's overlooked federalism jurisprudence and concludes that it almost perfectly complements President Bill Clinton's New Democratic centrism, especially his pro-state federalism agenda. The Article concludes that their nuanced, "centrist" approach to federalism has two characteristics. First,t hey value the states 'governing autonomy and show respect for the state agents that realize that autonomy. Second, they credit the states as intersubjective actors engaged in the pursuit of their interests, albeit in political processes usually carried out at the federal level.
Thurgood Marshall: The Writer, Anna P. Hemingway, Starla J. Williams, Jennifer M. Lear, Ann E. Fruth
Thurgood Marshall: The Writer, Anna P. Hemingway, Starla J. Williams, Jennifer M. Lear, Ann E. Fruth
Anna P. Hemingway
The Rise Of The Common Law Of Federal Pleading: Iqbal, Twombly And The Application Of Judicial Experience, Henry S. Noyes
The Rise Of The Common Law Of Federal Pleading: Iqbal, Twombly And The Application Of Judicial Experience, Henry S. Noyes
Henry S. Noyes
With its decisions in Twombly and Iqbal, the Supreme Court established a new federal pleading standard: a complaint must state a plausible claim for relief. Many commentators have written about the meaning of plausibility. None has focused on the Court’s statement that “[d]etermining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief...will be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” In this article, I make and support several claims about the meaning and application of judicial experience. First, in order to understand and define the plausibility standard, one must understand …
Opinion Writing And Opinion Readers, Meehan Rasch
Opinion Writing And Opinion Readers, Meehan Rasch
Meehan Rasch
The authors - a federal appellate judge and his law clerks - bring unique perspectives to bear on the topic of opinion writing and opinion readers. The contents of this Article were inspired in large part by the work done by the authors in editing and preparing the second edition of Judge Aldisert's classic book Opinion Writing, which for many years was distributed to all federal trial and appellate judges, and to all state appellate judges, when they took the bench. A broader audience of professional opinion writers and students of the judicial process now has access to Opinion Writing, …
Much Ado About Pluralities: Pride And Precedent Amidst The Cacophy Of Concurrences, And Re-Percolation After Rapanos, Donald J. Kochan, Melissa M. Berry, Matthew J. Parlow
Much Ado About Pluralities: Pride And Precedent Amidst The Cacophy Of Concurrences, And Re-Percolation After Rapanos, Donald J. Kochan, Melissa M. Berry, Matthew J. Parlow
Donald J. Kochan
Conflicts created by concurrences and pluralities in court decisions create confusion in law and lower court interpretation. Rule of law values require that individuals be able to identify controlling legal principles. That task is complicated when pluralities and concurrences contribute to the vagueness or uncertainty that leaves us wondering what the controlling rule is or attempting to predict what it will evolve to become. The rule of law is at least handicapped when continuity or confidence or confusion infuse our understanding of the applicable rules. This Article uses the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rapanos v. United States to …