Jurisprudence Commons^™

A Note To Our Readers, The Editors

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right To Counsel

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Pattern Of Racketeering Element Of Rico Liability, Committee On Federal Courts Of The New York State Bar Association

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Property Rights Of Unmarried Cohabitants In New York: Proposal For Legislative Action Towards A More Equitable Future, Helene Kulczycki

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Organizational Standing In Environmental Litigation, Jeanne A. Compitello

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Attempting The Impossible: The Emerging Consensus, Ira Robbins

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Impossible attempts are situations in which an actor fails to consummate a substantive crime because he is mistaken about attendant circumstances. Professor Robbins divides mistakes regarding circumstances into three categories: mistakes of fact, mistakes of law, and mistakes of mixed fact and law. Courts and commentators disagree primarily over the identification and treatment of mixed fact law cases. Professor Robbins surveys each category of mistake. He then examines the objective, subjective, and hybrid approaches to dealing with the mixed fact/law category. The objective approach requires an objective manifestation of the actor's intent before conviction is allowed. The subjective approach permits …

Attempting The Impossible: The Emerging Consensus, Ira P. Robbins

Ira P. Robbins

How Courts Govern America, H. John Rogers

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Can/Should Computers Replace Judges?, Anthony D'Amato

Faculty Working Papers

Speculates concerning judicial decision-making to test, at least theoretically, what some of the implications of jurisprudential advances might be. Proposes as the means of making this test a consideration of whether a computer may be so programmed as to replace the judicial function of judges.

An Essay On The Determination Of Relevancy Under The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Arthur H. Travers Jr.

Publications

The scope of the general definition of "relevant evidence" in the Federal Rules of Evidence is ambiguous. It is unclear whether Congress, for instance, intended that certain issues be considered legislatively determined or that those issues rest within the discretion of the courts. There is also some uncertainty over the definition's applicability to several types of evidence--particularly undisputed facts such as those that provide background information or are judicially admitted.

Judicial Review Of Federal Administrative Action: Quest For The Optimum Forum, David P. Currie, Frank I. Goodman

All Faculty Scholarship

Professors Currie and Goodman present a comprehensive analysis of the variables that must be isolated and weighed in determining the optimum forum for judicial review of administrative action. While the backdrop for this study is the caseload crisis presently confronting the federal courts of appeals, their discussion illuminates the requsites for optimum judicial review generally.

Failing to perceive any compelling reason to single out administrative cases for review (in separate courts, the authors argue against the creation of special administrative appeals courts. Even if such courts were to enjoy broad subject matter jurisdiction over the most demanding aspects of the …

Removal Of The Corporate Director During His Term Of Office, Arthur H. Travers Jr.

Publications

The traditional rules governing the removal of corporate directors have evolved so as to insulate the board of directors from the shareholders who elect them. Professor Travers in his article examines initially the interests being advanced by protecting the board members from removal by their electorate. He then critically analyzes the law as it relates to these interests in order to suggest a more rational approach.

Edmond Cahn And The Search For Empirical Justice, Jay A. Sigler

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Insanity As A Defense: The Bifurcated Trial, David W. Louisell, Geoffrey Hazard

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Federal Right Jurisdiction And The Declaratory Remedy, Herman L. Trautman

Vanderbilt Law Review

Why should we have federal district courts? What should be their primary function? These questions are fundamental to the formulation of a rational basis for the distribution of judicial power between state courts and the trial courts of the federal government.

Our American federal system seeks as a constant objective an appropriate division of governmental power between a national unit, which deals with problems requiring uniform treatment, and state units, which have responsibility for problems depending more upon local conditions. Applying the principle to the federal district courts, it seems clear that their primary function should be to adjudicate federal …

The Menace Of Jarndyce And Jarndyce, J. H. Brennan

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Origin Of Equity Jurisdiction And Jurisprudence, Edward Murphy

Student Theses

Introductory Statement

It is not our purpose in this thesis to attempt a complete and detailed history of equity as it exists in England and in the United states. To do this would involve little more than a compilation of what has already been quite elaborately treated by some of the great legal minds of England and America.

We propose to treat rather of the nature of Equity as it existed in the Roman Law,its influence in the English law, the primitive condition of the law at the time of the origin of Equity, and of the causes which made …

Judicial Councils, Thurman Arnold

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Courts Of Law And Equity--Why They Exist And Why They Differ, Warren B. Kittle

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.