Legal History Commons^™

Fashion, Sexism, And The United States Federal Judiciary, Charles E. Colman

Charles E. Colman

The U.S. federal judiciary has frequently displayed a dismissive attitude toward "fashion," while simultaneously recognizing the great economic importance of clothing. As fashion was, from the formation of the United States until at least the late 1960s, associated primarily with the female sex, while judges during this time period were almost exclusively male, one naturally wonders whether the power dynamics of gender shaped the development of the law pertaining to fashion. There is good reason to believe that this has indeed been the case.

Bringing Light To The Halls Of Shadow, Richard J. Peltz-Steele

Richard J. Peltz-Steele

Appellate judges operate in the shadows. Though they don’t see it that way. “We are judged by what we write,” said U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. True too, court proceedings and records are presumptively open to the public. The West Wing of the White House is certainly not so vulnerable to public scrutiny, and the backrooms of legislative chambers are famously smoke-filled. Yet the parts of court activity that we see and hear seem only to whet our appetite for the rest of the process. In this Preface, the author introduces the subject of the journalist and the court, …

Judges In The Executive Branch And Judges In The Judicial Branch: Similar, Yet Distinct, Thomas G. Welshko

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Similarities And Differences Between Judges In The Judicial Branch And The Executive Branch: The Further Evolution Of Executive Adjudications Under The Administrative Central Panel, Christopher B. Mcneil

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Precedent: What It Is And What It Isn't; When Do We Kiss It And When Do We Kill It?, Ruggero J. Aldisert

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Precedent And Reliance, Randy J. Kozel

Journal Articles

Among the most prevalent justifications for deference to judicial precedent is the protection of reliance interests. The theory is that when judicial pronouncements have engendered significant reliance, there should be a meaningful presumption against adjudicative change. Yet there remains a fundamental question as to why reliance on precedent warrants judicial protection in the first place.

This Article explores the dynamics and implications of precedential reliance. It contends that the case for protecting reliance on precedent is uncertain. There are several reasons why reliance might potentially be worth protecting, but all are subject to serious limitations or challenges. To bolster the …