Jurisprudence Commons^™

First Amendment—Campaign Finance Reform—The Supreme Court Halts The Eighth Circuit's Invalidation Of State Campaign Contribution Limits. Nixon V. Shrink Missouri Government Political Action Committee, 120 S. Ct. 897 (2000)., Erin Buford Vinett

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Foreword: The Question Of Process, J. Harvie Wilkinson Iii

Michigan Law Review

Many in the legal profession have abandoned the great questions of legal process. This is too bad. How a decision is reached can be as important as what the decision is. In an increasingly diverse country with many competing visions of the good, it is critical for law to aspire to agreement on process - a task both more achievable than agreement on substance and more suited to our profession than waving the banners of ideological truth. By process, I mean the institutional routes by which we in America reach our most crucial decisions. In other words, process is our …

Standards Of Review: Judicial Review Of Discretionary Decisionmaking, Martha S. Davis

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

The applicable standard of review determines how much deference an appellate court gives a lower court’s decision. Discretionary decisions are review under the “abuse of discretion” standard where the process the lower court used to reach its decision is scrutinized. Three scholars attempts to define this standard are first analyzed followed by cases that have molded the standard. Advice to practitioners concludes the article.

Preliminary Thoughts On The Virtues Of Passive Dialogue, Michael Heise

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The judicial, legislative, and executive branches interact in many ways. These interactions fuel a constitutional dialogue that serves as a backdrop to myriad governmental activities, both large and small. The judiciary's participation is necessary, desirable, and, as a practical matter, inevitable. In my article I analyze two competing models that bear on the normative question: What form should the judiciary's participation take?

Debates over the judiciary's appropriate role in the public constitutional dialogue have captured scholarly attention for decades. Recent attention has focused on a growing distinction between the active and passive models of judicial participation. My article approaches this …

What The Jury Must Hear: The Supreme Court’S Evolving Seventh Amendment Jurisprudence, Margaret L. Moses

Faculty Publications & Other Works

No abstract provided.

Editing Marshall, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 823 (2000), Charles F. Hobson

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Marshall Court And Property Rights: A Reappraisal, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1023 (2000), James W. Ely Jr.

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

John Marshall In Spencer Roane's Virginia: The Southern Constitutional Opposition To The Marshall Court, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1131 (2000), F. Thornton Miller

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Property Rights In John Marshall's Virginia: The Case Of Crenshaw And Crenshaw V. Slate River Company, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1175 (2000), J. Gordon Hylton

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

International Courts And American Courts, A. Mark Weisburd

Michigan Journal of International Law

This article seeks to deal systematically with a number of issues necessarily raised in any consideration of the relationships between American courts and international tribunals. The first section sets out the facts of Breard. The next discusses the scope of the obligations imposed by the Statute of the ICJ. The third section considers the constitutional questions at least implicit in Breard; in particular, it seeks to address the tantalizing question left open by Holmes in Missouri v. Holland: what is the "different way" in which "qualifications to the treaty-making power" are to be determined? The final substantive …

On The Evolution Of The Canonical Dissent, Anita S. Krishnakumar

Faculty Publications

Legal theorists increasingly have come to recognize and study the existence of a constitutional canon composed of highly authoritative legal texts that command special reverence in the law. Among these highly authoritative texts are a series of dissenting opinions—e.g., Justice Holmes's in Lochner v. New York, and Justice Harlan's in Plessy v. Ferguson—that ironically are more famous than the majority opinions in most other cases. This Article examines the evolution of the dissenting canon, seeking to explain both the methods by which various dissenting opinions became canonized and the motivating factors behind these canonizations.

Specifically, the Article argues that the …

Supreme Court Of Nevada, Administrative Office Of The Courts, Nevada Domestic Violence Resource Manual, Mary E. Berkheiser

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Deciphering Courts Of Appeals Decisions Using The U.S. Courts Of Appeals Data Base, Tracey E. George, Reginald S. Sheehan

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Is one circuit significantly more conservative or liberal than the others? Do circuit courts consistently avoid deciding the substance of certain appeals by concluding that the plaintiffs lack standing? Have state governments been more successful than other parties when they appeal adverse district court rulings? Do appeals courts act in a majoritarian or countermajoritarian manner with regard to elected institutions and the general public? The United States Courts of Appeals Data Base, an extensive data set of courts of appeals decisions, can address these and other questions about the circuit courts. This article describes the background, scope, and content of …

Personal Rights And Rule Dependence: Can The Two Co-Exist?, Matthew D. Adler

Faculty Scholarship

Constitutional doctrine is typically "rule-dependent." Typically, a constitutional litigant will not prevail unless she can show that a particular kind of legal rule is in force, e.g., a rule that discriminates against "suspect classes" in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, or that targets speech in violation of the First Amendment, or that is motivated by a religious purpose in violation of the Establishment Clause. Further, the litigant must typically establish a violation of her "personal rights." The Supreme Court has consistently stated that a reviewing court should not invalidate an unconstitutional governmental action at the instance of a claimant …

Bitch V. Whore: The Current Trend To Define The Requirements Of An Actionable Hostile Environment Claim In Verbal Sexual Harassment Cases, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 465 (2000), Jamie Lynn Cook

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Recovering The World Of The Marshall Court, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 781 (2000), G. Edward White

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

John Marshall, Mcculloch V. Maryland, And The Southern States' Rights Tradition, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 875 (2000), R. Kent Newmyer

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Marshall Misconstrued: Activist? Partisan? Reactionary?, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1109 (2000), Jean Edward Smith

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

John Marshall And Indian Nations In The Beginning And Now, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1183 (2000), Milner S. Ball

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Marshall Court And The European Court Of Justice, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1197 (2000), Charles F. Hobson

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Malexandertalet: Ett Tal - Två Situationer, Matilda Arvidsson

Dr Matilda Arvidsson

In this article the court speech delivered by the "Malexander widow", Anneli Ljungberg, is analysed in terms of Lloyd Bitzers "rhetorical situation" and found to work within two different and simultaneous rhetorical situations. Thus, the article shows how a court speech might break with rhetorical conventions of one rhetorical situation because of the conventions governing the other and simultaneously ongoing rhetorical situation.