Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- ADR (2)
- 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) (1)
- Abduction (1)
- Abduction Enhancement (1)
- Access to justice (1)
-
- Alternative dispute resolution (1)
- Arbitration award (1)
- Circuit Split (1)
- Circuit split (1)
- Comparative law (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Dispute system design (1)
- Due process (1)
- ENE. Alternative Dispute Resolution (1)
- Early Neutral Evaluation (1)
- Efficiency (1)
- Empirical Analysis (1)
- Equal protection (1)
- FAA (1)
- FAA cases (1)
- Federal Arbitration Act (1)
- Federal Court (1)
- Firearms (1)
- Judicial review (1)
- Judicial role (1)
- Legal reform (1)
- Local Rules (1)
- Second Amendment mental illness (1)
- Sentencing (1)
- Sentencing Guidelines (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Defining “Different”–How Distinctive Methods Of Textual Interpretation Led To The Abduction Enhancement Circuit Split, Adam Manaa
Pepperdine Law Review
This note examines the federal circuit courts’ differing approaches to interpreting the robbery abduction enhancement in the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Specifically, this note sets forth how the Sixth Circuit’s strict method of textual interpretation in United States v. Hill led to the erroneous holding that the term “different location” refers to “a place different from the store that is being robbed.” This note argues the court should have taken a more holistic interpretative approach, taking the underlying purpose of the Guidelines into account.
Mandating Early Neutral Evaluations: Efficient Or Excessive?, William J. Baker
Mandating Early Neutral Evaluations: Efficient Or Excessive?, William J. Baker
Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal
This paper explores whether mandating alternative dispute resolution (ADR), specifically in the form of early neutral evaluations (ENEs), actually improves efficiency in federal courts. This paper attempts to challenge and test the presumption that ADR inherently promotes efficiency in all civil cases. Part I introduces the reader to ENEs, ADR, their presence in federal courts, and efficiency’s role within this framework. Part II challenges the notion that ADR and efficiency are inherently linked, and asks whether mandating ENEs can prove if this inherent efficiency exists. Part III presents the legal theory that addresses this question, tending to support the notion …
Designing Responsive Legal Systems: A Comparative Study, Nofit Amir, Michal Alberstein
Designing Responsive Legal Systems: A Comparative Study, Nofit Amir, Michal Alberstein
Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal
The drive for efficiency has caused many legal systems to redesign themselves, creating multiple paths for dispute resolution and incorporating settlement-promoting tools into the judicial role. However, as this study shows, legal systems have taken divergent approaches as they redesign themselves to accommodate settlement practices, leading to widely disparate results. This study probes the paths taken by three countries’ legal systems—England and Wales (common law), Israel (mixed), and Italy (continental law)—drawing on court docket analyses, courtroom observations, and interviews with judges in the three legal systems. It uncovers central points of divergence—emphasized stage of dispute resolution, separation vs. combination of …
Presumptively Awful: How The Federal Government Is Failing To Protect The Constitutional Rights Of Those Adjudicated As Mentally Ill, As Illustrated By The 18 U.S.C. § 922(G)(4) Circuit Split, Kaitlyn M. Rubcich
Pepperdine Law Review
The Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits are split as to whether the 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) federal firearms ban violates the Second Amendment rights of those who were once adjudicated as mentally ill but have since returned to good mental health. In Beers v. Attorney General, the Third Circuit applied its own unique framework and held that § 922(g)(4) is constitutional. Meanwhile, the Sixth Circuit applied intermediate scrutiny in Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Department and deemed the statute unconstitutional, while in Mai v. United States, the Ninth Circuit also applied intermediate scrutiny but held that § 922(g)(4) is constitutional. …
You Be The Judge: Analyzing When The Federal Arbitration Act's Judicial Review Standards Apply In State Court, Max Birmingham
You Be The Judge: Analyzing When The Federal Arbitration Act's Judicial Review Standards Apply In State Court, Max Birmingham
Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal
This article addresses whether, when the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) governs an arbitration, the FAA’s judicial review standards apply in state court and preempt application of different state law judicial review standards. This argument proceeds as follows: Part I provides an introduction. Part II analyzes the procedural reform intent of the FAA and why the statute seeks to standardize the arbitration process. Part III reviews the judicial review of arbitration awards as promulgated in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc. Part IV reviews the generations of FAA cases which have been held to be preempted by SCOTUS. Part V …