Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Jurisprudence Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence

Faa Law, Without The Activism: What If The Bellwether Cases Were Decided By A Truly Conservative Court, Richard C. Reuben Jan 2012

Faa Law, Without The Activism: What If The Bellwether Cases Were Decided By A Truly Conservative Court, Richard C. Reuben

Faculty Publications

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided an extraordinary number of cases under the Federal Arbitration Act in the last half century, a pattern that continues today at the pace of a case or two a year. During this time, Republican presidential candidates have made much political hay out of the Supreme Court, running against the Warren Court’s “liberal activism” by promising to appoint judges who would decide cases more conservatively. In this article, I analyze whether this promise has been fulfilled in the context of the Supreme Court’s FAA jurisprudence by identifying the core principles of judicial conservatism – restraint, …


Fiqh And Canons: Reflections On Islamic And Christian Jurisprudence, Mark L. Movsesian Jan 2010

Fiqh And Canons: Reflections On Islamic And Christian Jurisprudence, Mark L. Movsesian

Faculty Publications

Although American scholarship has begun to address both Christian and Islamic jurisprudence in a serious way, virtually none of the literature attempts to compare the place of law in these two world religions. This Essay begins to compare Islamic and Christian conceptions of law and suggests some implications for contemporary debates about religious dispute settlement. Islam and Christianity are subtle and complex religions. Each has competing strands; each has evolved over millennia and expressed itself differently over time. Moreover, although systematic treatments of Islamic law are beginning to appear in English, much remains available only in languages, like Arabic, that …


Due Process And Punitive Damages: The Error Of Federal Excessiveness Jurisprudence, A. Benjamin Spencer Jul 2006

Due Process And Punitive Damages: The Error Of Federal Excessiveness Jurisprudence, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court, in a line of several cases over the past decade, has established a rigorous federal constitutional excessiveness review for punitive damages awards based on the Due Process Clause. As a matter of substantive due process, says the Court, punitive awards must be evaluated by three "guideposts" set forth in BMW of North America v. Gore: the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, the ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, and a comparison of the amount of punitive damages to any "civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct." Following up on this pronouncement …


First Options, Consent To Arbitration, And The Demise Of Separability: Restoring Access To Justice For Contracts With Arbitration Provisions, Richard C. Reuben Apr 2003

First Options, Consent To Arbitration, And The Demise Of Separability: Restoring Access To Justice For Contracts With Arbitration Provisions, Richard C. Reuben

Faculty Publications

This article describes the context and current state of the law in this area under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), urges the Court to continue its path toward actual consent to arbitration, and suggests an approach for finally reconciling the tension between Prima Paint and First Options. Part II describes the nature and historical context of the arbitrability problem. Part III focuses specifically on the doctrine of separability, which is the most critical (and most complex) of these exceptions. Part IV discusses the impact on separability of recent U.S. Supreme Court case law, especially the 1995 decision in First Options …