Law Commons^™

The Peculiar Role Of The Delaware Courts In The Competition For Corporate Charters, Jill E. Fisch

All Faculty Scholarship

From the classic Cary-Winter debate to current legal scholarship, commentators have struggled to explain Delaware's dominance in the market for corporate charters. Although scholars have offered nonsubstantive explanations such as network externalities, interest group dynamics, and Delaware's expert and specialized judiciary, much of the debate focuses on substantive law. This article takes another view. Arguing that a regulator can offer benefits through its lawmaking process, as well as its legal rules, the article suggests a process-oriented analysis of regulatory competition. The article focuses on the unique role of the Delaware judiciary in corporate lawmaking, a role that has received little …

Supreme Court Of Nevada, Administrative Office Of The Courts, Nevada Domestic Violence Resource Manual, Mary E. Berkheiser

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Forum Non Conveniens In Federal Statutory Cases, Keith A. Rowley, Lonny Sheinkopf Hoffman

Scholarly Works

This article, previously published in Volume 49 of the Emory Law Journal, examines the federal doctrine of forum non conveniens in cases in which the plaintiff asserts a right to relief under federal law. The arguments we advance - particularly our claim that the federal doctrine of forum non conveniens can be better understood not as turning on matters of convenience, as the formal doctrine suggests, but on an assessment of the relative sovereign interests in adjudicating the dispute - remain relevant to an understanding of the federal doctrine. The paper, thus, may be of interest to practitioners, academics and …

Variations On Some Themes Of A Disporting Gazelle And His Friend: Statutory Interpretation As Seen By Jerome Frank And Felix Frankfurter, Kent Greenawalt

Faculty Scholarship

In 1947, this Review published two lectures on statutory interpretation by Jerome Frank and Felix Frankfurter. Both jurists were concerned with a basic question: How constrained are judges when they interpret legislation? The answers each gives, while similar in some respects, differ strikingly. In arguing that interpretation necessarily involves a creative element, Frank analogizes the role of a judge in interpreting legislation to that of a performer in interpreting a musical composition. Although he argues that judicial creativity is constrained, Frank views statutory interpretation as "a kind of legislation." For Frankfurter, by contrast, in construing a statute, a judge is …

Dueling Class Actions, Rhonda Wasserman

Articles

When multiple class action suits are filed on behalf of the same class members, numerous problems ensue. Dueling class actions are confusing to class members, wasteful of judicial resources, conducive to unfair settlements, and laden with complex preclusion problems. The article creates a typology of different kinds of dueling class actions; explores the problems that plague each type; considers the effect the Supreme Court's decision in Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367 (1996), has had on these problems; evaluates the efficacy of existing judicial tools to curb them; and proposes an array of possible solutions. The more …

Preliminary Thoughts On The Virtues Of Passive Dialogue, Michael Heise

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The judicial, legislative, and executive branches interact in many ways. These interactions fuel a constitutional dialogue that serves as a backdrop to myriad governmental activities, both large and small. The judiciary's participation is necessary, desirable, and, as a practical matter, inevitable. In my article I analyze two competing models that bear on the normative question: What form should the judiciary's participation take?

Debates over the judiciary's appropriate role in the public constitutional dialogue have captured scholarly attention for decades. Recent attention has focused on a growing distinction between the active and passive models of judicial participation. My article approaches this …

Courts, Reasons, And Rules, Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Reanimator: Mark Tushnet And The Second Coming Of The Imperial Presidency, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Separate But Equal?: The Supreme Court, The Lower Federal Courts, And The Nature Of The "Judicial Power", Ashutosh Bhagwat

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Delaware As Demon: Twenty-Five Years After Professor Cary's Polemic, Mark J. Loewenstein

Publications

No abstract provided.

Courtroom Technology, A Judicial Primer, Fredric I. Lederer

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Civil Justice Delay And Empirical Data: A Response To Professor Heise, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

One decade ago, Congress undertook an ambitious, controversial effort to reduce expense and delay in the federal civil justice system. The Civil Justice Reform Act ("CJRA") of 1990 instituted unprecedented nationwide experimentation by requiring that all ninety-four federal district courts scrutinize their civil and criminal dockets and then promulgate and apply numerous procedures which district judges believed would save cost and time in civil litigation. Congress also prescribed rigorous assessment of the six principles, guidelines, and techniques of litigation management and expense and delay reduction that federal districts in fact adopted and enforced. Lawmakers provided for an expert, independent evaluator …

Judicial Lobbying At The Wto: The Debate Over The Use Of Amicus Curiae Briefs And The U.S. Experience, Padideh Ala'i

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

The continuing debate over the use of amicus curiae briefs at the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) raises interesting questions about the influence of the U.S. legal system on the WTO dispute settlement process. Specifically, it brings to the surface differences between legal cultures and the fact that the U.S. legal culture with its emphasis on procedure is not readily transferable to the WTO. Comparing the controversy regarding the use of amicus curiae briefs before WTO Panels and the Appellate Body with the history and evolution of the institution of amicus curiae before the U.S. Supreme Court may help explain the …

Special Division Agonistes, John Q. Barrett

Faculty Publications

When the independent counsel law sank, the casualties included a special "division" of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This division was the special court that Congress had created "for the purpose of appointing independent counsels." The now-expired 1994 independent counsel statute had, like its three predecessors, directed the Chief Justice of the United States to appoint three judges from the Supreme Court and/or the federal Courts of Appeals to serve on the special court for two-year terms. This independent counsel court, which was located for administrative purposes in the United States Court of …

On The Evolution Of The Canonical Dissent, Anita S. Krishnakumar

Faculty Publications

Legal theorists increasingly have come to recognize and study the existence of a constitutional canon composed of highly authoritative legal texts that command special reverence in the law. Among these highly authoritative texts are a series of dissenting opinions—e.g., Justice Holmes's in Lochner v. New York, and Justice Harlan's in Plessy v. Ferguson—that ironically are more famous than the majority opinions in most other cases. This Article examines the evolution of the dissenting canon, seeking to explain both the methods by which various dissenting opinions became canonized and the motivating factors behind these canonizations.

Specifically, the Article argues that the …

Now V. Scheidler, Round Two, Craig M. Bradley

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Reconciling The Juridical Links Doctrine With The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure And Article Iii, William D. Henderson

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Over the past three decades, the juridical link and concerted action exceptions have evolved from dicta in the Ninth Circuit's decision in La Mar to an amorphous and undertheorized body of case law that has dangerously merged procedural and jurisdictional issues. Drawing on the principles of class action jurisprudence set forth by the Supreme Court in Amchem and Ortiz, lower courts should consider the issues of class certification and Rule 20(a) joinder before turning to the issue of standing under Article III. Under this approach, courts would not be able to reconcile much of the juridical links case law with …

Redressing The Imbalances: Rethinking The Judicial Role After R. V. R.D.S., Richard Devlin Frsc, Dianne Pothier

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. R.D.S. dealt with whether a trial judge's comments, about the interactions between police officers and "non-white groups", gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias in the circumstances. They strongly criticize the contrary ruling of the dissent as inappropriately drawing a false dichotomy between decisions based on evidence and decisions based on evidence and decision based on generalizations, and as improperly ignoring social context with an unwarranted confidence in the ideology of colour blindness. While more supportive of the majority's analysis, the authors also find cause for concern, with …

Rights, Rules And The Structure Of Constitutional Adjudication: A Response To Professor Fallon, Matthew D. Adler

Faculty Scholarship

Constitutional doctrine is typically rule-dependent. A viable constitutional challenge typically hinges upon the existence of a discriminatory, overbroad, improperly motivated, or otherwise invalid rule, to which the claimant has some nexus. In a prior article, Prof. Adler proposed one model of constitutional adjudication that tries to make sense of rule-dependence. He argued that reviewing courts are not vindicating the personal rights of claimants, but rather are repealing or amending invalid rules. IN a Commentary in this issue, Professor Fallon now puts forward a different model of constitutional adjudication, equally consistent with rule-dependence. Fallon proposes that a reviewing court should overturn …

Personal Rights And Rule Dependence: Can The Two Co-Exist?, Matthew D. Adler

Faculty Scholarship

Constitutional doctrine is typically "rule-dependent." Typically, a constitutional litigant will not prevail unless she can show that a particular kind of legal rule is in force, e.g., a rule that discriminates against "suspect classes" in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, or that targets speech in violation of the First Amendment, or that is motivated by a religious purpose in violation of the Establishment Clause. Further, the litigant must typically establish a violation of her "personal rights." The Supreme Court has consistently stated that a reviewing court should not invalidate an unconstitutional governmental action at the instance of a claimant …

Rights And Rules: An Overview, Matthew D. Adler, Michael C. Dorf

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Recent Efforts To Change Discovery Rules: Advice For Draftsmen Of Rules For State Courts, Paul D. Carrington

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.