Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Antitrust (1)
- Antitrust law (1)
- Antitrust reform (1)
- Antitrust regulation (1)
- Baseball (1)
-
- Common law (1)
- Contemporary judicial morality (1)
- Curt flood act (1)
- Ethical conduct (1)
- Federal Baseball Club Incorporated v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs (1)
- Federal antitrust law (1)
- Federal law (1)
- Flood act (1)
- Flood v. Kuhn (1)
- Impartiality (1)
- Judges (1)
- Judicial decision-making (1)
- Judicial ethical code (1)
- Judicial ethics (1)
- Judicial fairness (1)
- Judicial impartiality (1)
- Judicial morality (1)
- Judiciary (1)
- Juries (1)
- Jurist (1)
- Jury (1)
- Justice (1)
- Marketplace competition (1)
- Minor league (1)
- Minor league baseball (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Legal History
Mirror, Mirror, On The Wall—Biased Impartiality, Appearances, And The Need For Recusal Reform, Zygmont A. Pines
Mirror, Mirror, On The Wall—Biased Impartiality, Appearances, And The Need For Recusal Reform, Zygmont A. Pines
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
The article focuses on a troubling aspect of contemporary judicial morality.
Impartiality—and the appearance of impartiality—are the foundation of judicial decision-making, judicial morality, and the public’s trust in the rule of law. Recusal, in which a jurist voluntarily removes himself or herself from participating in a case, is a process that attempts to preserve and promote the substance and the appearance of judicial impartiality. Nevertheless, the traditional common law recusal process, prevalent in many of our state court systems, manifestly subverts basic legal and ethical norms.
Today’s recusal practice—whether rooted in unintentional hypocrisy, wishful thinking, or a pathological cognitive dissonance— …
Antitrust Changeup: How A Single Antitrust Reform Could Be A Home Run For Minor League Baseball Players, Jeremy Ulm
Antitrust Changeup: How A Single Antitrust Reform Could Be A Home Run For Minor League Baseball Players, Jeremy Ulm
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act to protect competition in the marketplace. Federal antitrust law has developed to prevent businesses from exerting unfair power on their employees and customers. Specifically, the Sherman Act prevents competitors from reaching unreasonable agreements amongst themselves and from monopolizing markets. However, not all industries have these protections.
Historically, federal antitrust law has not governed the “Business of Baseball.” The Supreme Court had the opportunity to apply antitrust law to baseball in Federal Baseball Club, Incorporated v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs; however, the Court held that the Business of Baseball was not …