Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Abortion (1)
- Adjudicative fairness (1)
- Aguilar-Spinelli test (1)
- Appellate cases (1)
- Concurring opinions (1)
-
- Deciding appeals (1)
- Deciding not to treat (1)
- Deciding to treat (1)
- Dissenting opinions (1)
- End of life care (1)
- Focused adjudication (1)
- Illinois v. Gates (1)
- Judge as legislator (1)
- Judge as monk (1)
- Judges in modern society (1)
- Judicial ethics (1)
- Justice White (1)
- Justice in adjudication (1)
- Law and Medicine (1)
- Law of the future (1)
- Medical decision making by judges (1)
- Mentally incompetent patients (1)
- Principled adjudication (1)
- Role of the Judge (1)
- US v. Leon (1)
- Wide-angle adjudication (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Role Of A Judge In Modern Society: Some Reflections On Current Practice In Federal Appellate Adjudication, Harry T. Edwards
The Role Of A Judge In Modern Society: Some Reflections On Current Practice In Federal Appellate Adjudication, Harry T. Edwards
Cleveland State Law Review
In a recent article, I addressed one aspect of the complex of issues facing federal judges--the problems allegedly attendant upon the "bureaucratization" of the decision-making process at the appellate level. The present paper considers a different set of questions: taking as given the current organization, jurisdiction, and caseload of the federal courts, how might appellate judges alter their habits and attitudes so as to perform better their allotted tasks and how might Congress alter its own practices so as to facilitate the refinement and more effective utilization of appellate adjudication? The ensuing discussion of those topics is divided into three …
Judges As Medical Decision Makers: Is The Cure Worse Than The Disease, Alan A. Stone
Judges As Medical Decision Makers: Is The Cure Worse Than The Disease, Alan A. Stone
Cleveland State Law Review
I shall examine and criticize three of the many judicial decisions in the area of law and medicine. These cases are Doe v. Bolton, Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz, and Rogers v. Commissioner of the Department of Mental Health. Those of you who like to think of the law as reason and justice tempered by mercy will be offended by what I have to say; but I shall be evenhanded. Those of you who think of medicine as science and art tempered by compassion will also be offended. My justification for the critical and polemical thesis I shall …
Gates, Leon, And The Compromise Of Adjudicative Fairness (Part I): A Dialogue On Prejudicial Concurrences, Joel Jay Finer
Gates, Leon, And The Compromise Of Adjudicative Fairness (Part I): A Dialogue On Prejudicial Concurrences, Joel Jay Finer
Cleveland State Law Review
This two-part Article is about certain qualities of fairness –those qualities that although subtle, are central to the idea and spirit of justice in adjudication. This Article is about how those qualities were subverted in the process by which the doctrine of United States v. Leon became law. Part I of the Article –A Dialogue on Prejudicial Concurrences–published herein, suggests that several members of the Leon majority (particularly its author, Justice White) were unable to impartially adjudicate the constitutional question because of pre-decisional gratuitous opinions (from the bench) on the subject. More specifically, the Dialogue explores the virtually unquestioned assumption …