Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Constitution (2)
- Constitutional law (2)
- Supreme court (2)
- ACA (1)
- Abortion (1)
-
- Administrative Review (1)
- Appellate (1)
- China; medical negligence; litigation; selection bias; adversarial bias; judicial deference; courts; expert opinions; court appointed expert testimony; inquisitorial system; authentication; re-authentication; Supreme People's Court; documents of adjudication decisions; FA-MNA; MA-MNA; medical associations; forensic authentication agency; municipal; provincial; national; locality rule; common law; civil law; defendant; plaintiff; fault; causation; causal contribution; personal injury (1)
- Civil Rights (1)
- Civil law (1)
- Civil procedure (1)
- Community Engagement (1)
- Consent (1)
- Court (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- Criminal procedure (1)
- Demonstration Project (1)
- Drugs (1)
- Due process (1)
- Election (1)
- Federal (1)
- First department (1)
- Fourteenth amendment (1)
- Gun rights (1)
- Gun violence (1)
- Health law (1)
- History (1)
- Immigration Law (1)
- Law and Society (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Legal History
How Much Do Expert Opinions Matter? An Empirical Investigation Of Selection Bias, Adversarial Bias, And Judicial Deference In Chinese Medical, Chunyan Ding
Brooklyn Journal of International Law
This article investigates the nature of the operation and the role of expert opinions in Chinese medical negligence litigation, drawing on content analysis of 3,619 medical negligence cases and an in-depth survey of judges with experience of adjudicating medical negligence cases. It offers three major findings: first, that both parties to medical negligence disputes show significant selection bias of medical opinions, as do courts when selecting court-appointed experts; second, expert opinions in medical negligence litigation demonstrate substantial adversarial bias; third, courts display very strong judicial deference to expert opinions in determining medical negligence liability. This article fills the methodological gap …
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Predetermined? The Prospect Of Social Determinant-Based Section 1115 Waivers After Stewart V. Azar, Griffin Schoenbaum
Predetermined? The Prospect Of Social Determinant-Based Section 1115 Waivers After Stewart V. Azar, Griffin Schoenbaum
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
Section 1115 of the Social Security Act allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”) to waive some of Medicaid’s requirements so states can enact “demonstration projects.” A demonstration project is an experiment a state can conduct by modifying aspects of its Medicaid program. To waive Medicaid’s requirements for this purpose, the Secretary must determine that the proposed demonstration project will likely assist in promoting Medicaid’s objectives.
Using this standard, President Trump’s Secretary has approved waiver requests to enact demonstration projects that contain “community engagement” requirements. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has heard each …
Revisionist History? Responding To Gun Violence Under Historical Limitations, Michael Ulrich
Revisionist History? Responding To Gun Violence Under Historical Limitations, Michael Ulrich
Faculty Scholarship
In the D.C. Circuit case Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), Judge Kavanaugh wrote that “Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.” Now Justice Kavanaugh, will he find support on the highest court for what was then a dissenting view? Chief Justice Roberts, during oral arguments for Heller I, asked “Isn’t it enough to…look at the various regulations that were available at the time…and determine how these—how this restriction and the scope of this …
Trump’S Angry White Women: Motherhood, Nationalism, And Abortion, Yvonne F. Lindgren
Trump’S Angry White Women: Motherhood, Nationalism, And Abortion, Yvonne F. Lindgren
Faculty Works
A majority of white women — fifty-two percent — voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. White working-class women supported Trump in even greater numbers: sixty-one percent of white women without college degrees voted for Trump. This result seems remarkable considering Trump’s derogatory statements about women and his staunch opposition to legal access to abortion. Why did white women, especially those most likely to need access to reproductive healthcare—poor and working-class women — vote heavily against their own interests to embrace a candidate who called for punishing women who access abortion? Much recent commentary has considered this question …
Acting Differently: How Science On The Social Brain Can Inform Antidiscrimination Law, Susan Carle
Acting Differently: How Science On The Social Brain Can Inform Antidiscrimination Law, Susan Carle
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
Legal scholars are becoming increasingly interested in how the literature on implicit bias helps explain illegal discrimination. However, these scholars have not yet mined all of the insights that science on the social brain can offer antidiscrimination law. That science, which researchers refer to as social neuroscience, involves a broadly interdisciplinary approach anchored in experimental natural science methodologies. Social neuroscience shows that the brain tends to evaluate others by distinguishing between "us" versus "them" on the basis of often insignificant characteristics, such as how people dress, sing, joke, or otherwise behave. Subtle behavioral markers signal social identity and group membership, …