Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Courts (4)
- Law and Society (4)
- Constitutional Law (3)
- Environmental Law (3)
- Health Law and Policy (3)
-
- Immigration Law (3)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (3)
- Military, War, and Peace (3)
- Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law (3)
- State and Local Government Law (3)
- Litigation (2)
- Civil Law (1)
- Contracts (1)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- International Law (1)
- Judges (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Law and Politics (1)
- Other Law (1)
- Religion Law (1)
- Rule of Law (1)
- Supreme Court of the United States (1)
- Institution
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Abuse Of Discretion: Maine's Application Of A Malleable Appellate Standard, Andrew M. Mead
Abuse Of Discretion: Maine's Application Of A Malleable Appellate Standard, Andrew M. Mead
Maine Law Review
It is not unusual for an appellate court to simply announce: “In the circumstances of this case, the trial justice did not abuse his discretion ....” No further clarification or elaboration is offered by the learned justices of the court. The parties are left with a final judgment, but little understanding of the appellate court's review process. Although the objective of finality is satisfied, the objective of clarity is ignored. When litigants and counsel are faced with similar factual or legal circumstances in the future, they remain without guidance or insight into the factors that the appellate court deemed to …
First Options Of Chicago, Inc. V. Kaplan And The Kompetenz-Kompetenz Principle , Adrianna Dulic
First Options Of Chicago, Inc. V. Kaplan And The Kompetenz-Kompetenz Principle , Adrianna Dulic
Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal
In 1995, the United States Supreme Court in First Options of Chicago, Incorporated v. Kaplan considered whether arbitral tribunals or courts should have the primary power to decide if parties agreed to arbitrate the merits of the dispute and whether the court of appeals should accept the district court's findings of fact and law or apply a de novo standard of review. The Court unanimously held that, unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise, the question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate is to be decided by the court, not the arbitral tribunal. Furthermore, in such a case, …
Hall's Standards Of Review In Texas., W. Wendell Hall, O. Rey Rodriguez, Rosemarie Kanusky, Mark Emery
Hall's Standards Of Review In Texas., W. Wendell Hall, O. Rey Rodriguez, Rosemarie Kanusky, Mark Emery
St. Mary's Law Journal
Standards of review distribute power within the judicial branch by defining the relationship between trial and appellate courts. These standards “frame the issues, define the depth of review, assign power among judicial actors, and declare the proper materials to review.” Standards of review are the cornerstones of appeals. These standards must be woven into the discussion of the facts and substantive law in a manner which persuades the appellate court that the trial court erred. Litigants must measure their factual and legal arguments against the appropriate rubric to write an effective and persuasive brief. Appellate judges agree that mechanical recitation …
Plea To The Jurisdiction: Defining The Undefined., Rebecca Simmons, Suzette Kinder Patton
Plea To The Jurisdiction: Defining The Undefined., Rebecca Simmons, Suzette Kinder Patton
St. Mary's Law Journal
Pleas to the jurisdiction have been part of Texas jurisprudence since shortly after Texas became a state. The resulting confusion over the procedure and standards to be employed in resolving a plea was partially alleviated by the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda. From a number of reports from Texas’s reviewing courts, however, it is evident the courts continue to struggle with the plea. Currently there are no established procedural rules to assist with the resolution of a plea to the jurisdiction. Thus, procedures vary from court to court and case to case. …
Putting Religious Symbolism In Context: A Linguistic Critique Of The Endorsement Test, B. Jessie Hill
Putting Religious Symbolism In Context: A Linguistic Critique Of The Endorsement Test, B. Jessie Hill
Michigan Law Review
The treatment of Establishment Clause challenges to displays of religious symbolism by the Supreme Court and the lower courts is notoriously unpredictable: a crèche is constitutionally acceptable if it is accompanied by a Santa Claus house and reindeer, a Christmas tree, and various circus figures, but unacceptable if it is accompanied by poinsettias, a "peace tree," or a wreath, a tree, and a plastic Santa Claus. A menorah may be displayed next to a Christmas tree, or next to Kwanzaa symbols, Santa Claus, and Frosty the Snowman, but not next to a crèche and a Christmas tree. A number of …
All Mixed Up About Mixed Questions, Randall H. Warner
All Mixed Up About Mixed Questions, Randall H. Warner
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
No abstract provided.
Restraint And Responsibility: Judicial Review Of Campaign Reform, Spencer Overton
Restraint And Responsibility: Judicial Review Of Campaign Reform, Spencer Overton
Washington and Lee Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Subversive Strand Of The Warren Court, Gary Peller
A Subversive Strand Of The Warren Court, Gary Peller
Washington and Lee Law Review
No abstract provided.
Standards Of Review: Judicial Review Of Discretionary Decisionmaking, Martha S. Davis
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.
Tdhs V. E.B., The Coup De Grace For Special Issues., John J. Sampson
Tdhs V. E.B., The Coup De Grace For Special Issues., John J. Sampson
St. Mary's Law Journal
Although the bench and bar have been recalcitrant in recognition, the Texas Supreme Court has declared the special interest experiment a failure. For nearly eighty years Texas has engaged in an experiment requiring juries answer specific, factually detailed inquiries in various circumstances. The theoretical justifications of special issue inquiries were to ease appeals processes and add clarity to jury decisions. Although the goals were meritorious, the actual result was jury confusion, inefficiency, complexity, and too many retrials. The Texas Supreme Court’s ruling in TDHS v. EB signals the end of special issues and mandates the use of broad form submissions. …
The Uses Of Human Rights Norms To Inform Constitutional Interpretation, Gordon A. Christenson
The Uses Of Human Rights Norms To Inform Constitutional Interpretation, Gordon A. Christenson
Faculty Articles and Other Publications
Recent federal court of appeals decisions have relied on fundamental human rights norms to inform constitutional interpretation. This comment reviews the reasoning in those cases to identify possible constitutional uses of fundamental human rights norms and to suggest some conceptual framework for their use. The need for such a framework is illustrated by the cases themselves, which seem disparate and disjointed, with no discernible coherent philosophy, though each makes good sense when considered alone.