Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Abstention (1)
- Adarand Constructors Inc. v. Pena (1)
- Affirmative action (1)
- Al v. George (1)
- Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague (1)
-
- Beale (Joseph) (1)
- Brown vs. Board of Education (1)
- Burford doctrine (1)
- Calabresi (Guido) (1)
- Chandler v. Florida (1)
- Choice of Law (1)
- Citizen suit (1)
- Concurrent proceedings (1)
- Conflict theory (1)
- Cook (Walter Wheeler) (1)
- Currie (Brainerd) (1)
- Decisionmaking (1)
- Domestic case (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Full Faith and Credit Clause (1)
- Goldfarb (Ronald) (1)
- Government interest (1)
- Grant v. McAuliffe (1)
- Lochner v. New York (1)
- Lou v. Al (1)
- Marbury v. Madison (1)
- One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court (1)
- Primary jurisdiction (1)
- Privileges and Immunities Clause (1)
- Realism (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Citizen Suits Under The Resource Conservation And Recovery Act: Plotting Abstention On A Map Of Federalism, Charlotte Gibson
Citizen Suits Under The Resource Conservation And Recovery Act: Plotting Abstention On A Map Of Federalism, Charlotte Gibson
Michigan Law Review
In the shadow of the Supreme Court's constitutional federalism doctrines, lower federal courts have developed doctrines of common law federalism through vehicles such as abstention. In the environmental law arena, courts have employed a number of abstention theories to dismiss citizen suits brought under federal statutes. The appearance of primary jurisdiction and Burford abstention in citizen suits brought under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") exemplifies this trend. In rejecting RCRA suits, some courts have relied on primary jurisdiction, a doctrine conceived as a mechanism to allocate responsibility for limited fact-finding between courts and agencies, to dismiss RCRA citizen …
Television In The Courtroom: Mightier Than The Pen?, Richard P. Matsch
Television In The Courtroom: Mightier Than The Pen?, Richard P. Matsch
Michigan Law Review
In his Introduction, author Ronald L. Goldfarb explains that his purpose is to address all the arguments advanced against televised trials, cover the points made by proponents of televised trials, and find a sensible solution to what he believes is the fundamental issue: "How can we best blend new media technologies with our traditional and revered commitment to democracy and justice?" (p. xxiv). He ends the book with this prospective paragraph: "I expect that all the courtrooms of the future - state and federal, trial and appellate - will be equipped with cameras. I suggest that all trials should be …
The Democracy-Forcing Constitution, Neal Devins
The Democracy-Forcing Constitution, Neal Devins
Michigan Law Review
During my freshman year in college, I was told not to judge a book by its cover. The book in question - Lolita; the cover suggested something quite salacious. My professor explained that a soldier, who had purchased Lolita to work out some of the kinks of military life, found himself tossing the book out, proclaiming in disgust "Literature!" Well, I cannot claim precisely the same reaction to Cass Sunstein's One Case at a Time (my expectations were lower than the soldier's). Nevertheless, for those expecting a lefty defense of judicial restraint, One Case at a Time is not your …
The Myth Of Choice Of Law: Rethinking Conflicts, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
The Myth Of Choice Of Law: Rethinking Conflicts, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
Michigan Law Review
Choice of law is a mess. That much has become a truism. It is a "dismal swamp," a morass of confusion, a body of doctrine "killed by a realism intended to save it," and now "universally said to be a disaster." One way to demonstrate its tribulations would be to look at the academic dissensus and the hopelessly underdeterminative Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. Another would be to examine the Supreme Court's abdication of the task of articulating constitutional constraints on state choice-of-law rules. This article will do both. At the outset, though, I want to suggest that one …