Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
A Survey Of The Literature On Federal Appellate Practice And Procedure, Thomas E. Baker
A Survey Of The Literature On Federal Appellate Practice And Procedure, Thomas E. Baker
FIU Law Review
This is a survey of the literature related to appellate practice and procedure before the United States Courts of Appeals for the benefit of lawyers and judges and scholars. It is reproduced with permission from THOMAS E. BAKER, A PRIMER ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE U.S. COURTS OF APPEALS (Fed. Jud. Ctr. 3d ed. 2023) available at: https://www.fjc.gov/content/379899/primer-jurisdiction-us-courts-appeals-third-edition). This origin explains the scattered references in the entries to “this Primer.”
Reconceiving Ethics For Judicial Law Clerks, Gregory Bischoping
Reconceiving Ethics For Judicial Law Clerks, Gregory Bischoping
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
Judicial law clerks hold a unique and critical position in our legal system. They play a central part in the functioning of the judiciary, oftentimes writing the first draft of their judge’s opinions and serving as their trusted researcher and sounding board. Moreover, they are privy to the many highly confidential processes and private information behind the important work of the judiciary. It stands to reason the comprehensive set of ethical duties that bind the world of lawyers and judges should also provide guidance for judicial law clerks. The most important among those ethics rules is a duty of confidentiality. …
Article Iii Courts V. Military Commissions: A Comparison Of Protection Of Classified Information And Admissibility Of Evidence In Terrorism Prosecutions, Mohamed Al-Hendy
Article Iii Courts V. Military Commissions: A Comparison Of Protection Of Classified Information And Admissibility Of Evidence In Terrorism Prosecutions, Mohamed Al-Hendy
St. Mary's Law Journal
Abstract forthcoming
Adverse Interests And Article Iii: A Reply, James E. Pfander, Daniel Birk
Adverse Interests And Article Iii: A Reply, James E. Pfander, Daniel Birk
Northwestern University Law Review
Scholars and jurists have long sought an explanation for why the Framers of Article III distinguished “Cases” from “Controversies.” In a previous article that cataloged the exercise of federal jurisdiction over uncontested matters, such as pension claims, warrant applications, and naturalization proceedings, we tried to provide an answer to this question. We suggested that, at least as to “cases” arising under federal law, the federal courts could exercise what Roman and civil lawyers called non-contentious jurisdiction or, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, could hear uncontested claims of right in the form prescribed by law. As for “controversies,” by …
The Case Against Employment Tester Standing Under Title Vii And 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Michael Bowling
The Case Against Employment Tester Standing Under Title Vii And 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Michael Bowling
Michigan Law Review
In 1964, Congress passed comprehensive legislation aimed at eradicating discrimination in employment, public accommodations, public facilities, public schools, and federal benefit programs. Title VII of this Act directed its aim specifically at stamping out prejudice in employment. Four years later, the Supreme Court resurrected the provisions of § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which, among other things, protects citizens, regardless of race or color, in their right to "make and enforce [employment] contracts." Together, Title VII and § 1981 serve as the primary legal bases for challenging racially discriminatory actioris by private employers. More than thirty years …
The Standing Of The United States: How Criminal Prosecutions Show That Standing Doctrine Is Looking For Answers In All The Wrong Places, Edward A. Hartnett
The Standing Of The United States: How Criminal Prosecutions Show That Standing Doctrine Is Looking For Answers In All The Wrong Places, Edward A. Hartnett
Michigan Law Review
The Supreme Court insists that Article III of the Constitution requires a litigant to have standing in order for her request for judicial intervention to constitute a "case" or "controversy" within the jurisdiction of a federal court; it also insists that the "irreducible constitutional minimum" of standing requires (1) that the litigant suffer an "injury in fact"; (2) that the person against whom the judicial intervention is sought have caused the injury; and (3) that the requested judicial intervention redress the injury. The requisite injury in fact, the Court repeatedly declares, must be "personal," "concrete and particularized," and "actual or …