Jurisprudence Commons^™

Beyond Cases: Reconsidering Judicial Review, Janet S. Lindgren

Journal Articles

No abstract provided.

An Attack On Categorical Approaches To Freedom Of Speech, Pierre J. Schlag

Publications

No abstract provided.

Sanctions In The Proposed Amendments To The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure: Some Questions About Power, Stephen B. Burbank

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Questioning Intervention Of Right -- Toward A New Methodology Of Decisionmaking, Gene R. Shreve

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Assumption Of Risk In A Comparative Negligence System-- Doctrinal, Practical, And Policy Issues, Daniel O. Conkle

Articles by Maurer Faculty

The adoption of a new principle of law invariably impinges upon related legal concepts, raising issue that were not considered when the law was changed. The adoption of comparative negligence, a drastic departure from the long-held principle of contributory negligence, has forced courts to consider how the related concept of assumption of risk is affected by the change. Because there are different types of assumption of risk, and various doctrinal, practical, and policy issues, a proper determination of the role for assumption of risk in a comparative negligence system depends upon a thorough examination of many relevant considerations. Unfortunately, two …

Prior Consistent Statements, Arthur H. Travers Jr.

Publications

No abstract provided.

Justiciability And Theories Of Judicial Review: A Remote Relationship, Lee A. Albert

Journal Articles

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 …

Note, The Preemption Doctrine: Shifting Perspectives On Federalism And The Burger Court, William W. Bratton

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Judicial Opinion Analysis, John J. Daley

LLM Theses and Essays

The aim of this paper is to suggest a method of judicial opinion analysis. This method has five essential aspects: 1) form; 2) procedure; 3) precedential value; 4) authority; and 5) substance. Observation of these aspects in judicial opinions should broaden legal and jurisprudential perspective and cause critical analysis of case dispositions.

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.

The Reapportionment Cases: Cognitive Lag, The Malady And Its Cure, E. F. Roberts, Paul T. Shultz Iii

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The reapportionment cases have been considered by many to be the product of a liberal, activist Court which is endeavoring to reshape America’s political life according to its own views. The authors of this article assert that, to the contrary, the Court actually is reacting to the incontrovertible fact of the modern predominance of urban complexities which have rendered inappropriate our older political boundaries. In this sense, they consider the Court’s decisions conservative rather than liberal- because the Court’s purpose is to maintain a version of federalism along state boundaries which may have become outmoded even before the Court entered …

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

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Balance Sheet Of Law And Religion, Frank E. Horack Jr.

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.