Law Commons^™

Judging Without A J.D., Sara Sternberg Greene, Kristen M. Renberg

Faculty Scholarship

One of the most basic assumptions of our legal system is that when two parties face off in court, the case will be adjudicated before a judge who is trained in the law. This Essay begins by showing that, empirically, the assumption that most judges have legal training does not hold true for many low-level state courts. Using data we compiled from all fifty states and the District of Columbia, we find that thirty-two states allow at least some low-level state court judges to adjudicate without a law degree, and seventeen states do not require judges who adjudicate eviction cases …

The Territorial Reach Of Federal Courts, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

Federal courts exercise the sovereign authority of the United States when they assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant. As components of the national sovereign, federal courts' maximum territorial reach is determined by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which permits jurisdiction over persons with sufficient minimum contacts with the United States and over property located therein. Why, then, are federal courts limited to the territorial reach of the states in which they sit when they exercise personal jurisdiction in most cases? There is no constitutional or statutory mandate that so constrains the federal judicial reach. Rather, it is by operation …

Appointments And Illegal Adjudication: The Aia Through A Constitutional Lens, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

In 2011, Congress enacted the America Invents Act (“AIA”), largely in order to provide more effective mechanisms for invalidating, or cancelling, already-issued patents. The statute provides for inter partes review, in which patents, on the request of third parties, can be cancelled by an administrative body, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), subject to deferential judicial review. The constitutionality of this scheme is currently (as of January 9, 2018) before the Supreme Court in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, but the arguments in that case understandably focus on the consistency of inter partes review …

Brief Of Professor Stephen E. Sachs As Amicus Curiae, Bnsf Railway Co. V. Tyrrell, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

[This brief was filed in support of the petitioner in No. 16-405 (U.S., cert. granted Jan. 13, 2017).]

BNSF Railway Co. should win this case, but on statutory grounds alone. BNSF makes three arguments:

1) That Daimler AG v. Bauman forbids Montana’s exercise of general personal jurisdiction here;

2) That Congress has not sought to license the state’s exercise of jurisdiction; and

3) That such a license would be void under the Fourteenth Amendment.

BNSF’s first two arguments are fully persuasive and decide the case. As a result, the Court should decline to reach the third argument. Not only is …

Brief For Amici Curiae Professors Of Law In Support Of Petitioner, Neil Vidmar, Lisa Kern Griffin

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

How Congress Should Fix Personal Jurisdiction, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

Personal jurisdiction is a mess, and only Congress can fix it. The field is a morass, filled with buzzwords of nebulous origin and application. Courts have sought a single doctrine that simultaneously guarantees convenience for plaintiffs, fairness for defendants, and legitimate authority for the tribunal. Caught between these goals, we've let each new fact pattern pull precedent in a different direction, robbing litigants of certainty and blunting the force of our substantive law.

Solving the problem starts with reframing it. Rather than ask where a case may be heard, we should ask who may hear it. If the parties are …

Evolving Values, Animus, And Same-Sex Marriage, Daniel O. Conkle

Indiana Law Journal

In this Essay, I contend that a Fourteenth Amendment right to same-sex marriage will emerge, and properly so, when the Supreme Court determines that justice so requires and when, in the words of Professor Alexander Bickel, the Court’s recognition of this right will “in a rather immediate foreseeable future . . . gain general assent.” I suggest that we are fast approaching that juncture, and I go on to analyze three possible justifications for such a ruling: first, substantive due process; second, heightened scrutiny equal protection; and third, rational basis equal protection coupled with a finding of illicit “animus.” I …

Balancing Administrative Efficiency And Fairness: Restrictions On Local Hearings Advisors Post-Nightlife Partners, Ltd. V. City Of Beverly Hills , Kelli Shope

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Creeping Judicialization In Special Education Hearings?: An Exploratory Study, Perry A. Zirkel, Zorka Karanxha, Anastasia D'Angelo

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

The Security For Costs Requirement In California - A Violation Of Procedural Due Process?, Jerel L. Ellington

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Restraints On The Doctrine Of Punitive Damages, Theodore B. Olson, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr.

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justice On Appeal In Criminal Cases: A Twentieth-Century Perspective, Paul D. Carrington

Faculty Scholarship

Criminal appeals was a hot topic in the 1970s, reflecting the politics of the Great Society and the development of the constitutional requirements of due process. There was then widespread agreement that the function of the criminal appeal was to assure that the appropriate judges were giving visible attention to all convictions to assure that they were justified. This paper will pose the question: what has become of that vision of a former generation?

Why The Court Said No, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

No abstract provided.

Toward A Unified Test Of Personal Jurisdiction In An Era Of Widely Diffused Wrongs: The Relevance Of Purpose And Effects, C. Douglas Floyd, Shima Baradaran-Robison

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

When A Good Idea Is Poorly Implemented: How The International Criminal Court Fails To Be Insulated From International Politics And To Protect Basic Due Process Guarantees, Andrew J. Walker

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Come Back To The Nickel And Five:* Tracing The Warren Court's Pursuit Of Equal Justice Under Law, Jim Chen

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supplemental Brief Of Respondents Al Gore Jr. And Florida Democratic Party, Bush V. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., No. 00-836 (U.S. Nov. 30, 2000), Neal K. Katyal, Peter J. Rubin

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Neutral Principles And The Right To Neutral Access To The Courts, Jeffrey R. Pankratz

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Substantive Due Process Analysis And The Lockean Liberal Tradition: Rethinking The Modern Privacy Cases, Jeffrey S. Koehlinger

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Fee System Courts: Financial Interest Of Judges And Due Process

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Procedural Due Process In The Juvenile Courts Of West Virginia, Richard A. Warmuth

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Juvenile Courts And The Legacy Of '67, Monrad G. Paulsen

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium on Juvenile Problems: In re Gault