Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Excessive History Of Federal Rule 15(C) And Its Lessons For Civil Rules Revision, Harold S. Lewis Jr.
The Excessive History Of Federal Rule 15(C) And Its Lessons For Civil Rules Revision, Harold S. Lewis Jr.
Michigan Law Review
This case study of one Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is designed to suggest affirmative answers to these questions. My focus is on the surprisingly extensive body of case law, culminating in the Supreme Court's 1986 decision in Schiavone v. Fortune, that parses the second sentence of Federal Rule 15(c). Added in 1966, that sentence attempts to set standards for the relation back of party-changing amendments to pleadings. A more prototypically pedestrian, less prepossessing topic of the traditionalist type could scarcely be imagined. Yet a review of its history brings larger points into sharp relief: something is seriously amiss in …
The Rise Of Modern Judicial Review: From Constitutional Interpretation To Judge-Made Law, Ward A. Greenberg
The Rise Of Modern Judicial Review: From Constitutional Interpretation To Judge-Made Law, Ward A. Greenberg
Michigan Law Review
A Review of The Rise of Modern Judicial Review: From Constitutional Interpretation to Judge-Made Law by Christopher Wolfe
On The Constitutional Status Of The Administrative Agencies, Harold H. Bruff
On The Constitutional Status Of The Administrative Agencies, Harold H. Bruff
Publications
No abstract provided.
Constitutional Decisions And The Supreme Law, Kent Greenawalt
Constitutional Decisions And The Supreme Law, Kent Greenawalt
Faculty Scholarship
What status do Supreme Court decisions have for officials in the political branches of our government? Six months ago, Attorney General Edwin Meese III rekindled controversy over this enduring and troublesome question when he claimed in a widely reported lecture that Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Constitution are not the supreme law of the land, and are properly subject to forms of opposition by other governmental officials. The general reaction to the speech was that it was meant to reduce the perceived authority of Supreme Court opinions, and a close reading of the speech certainly leaves this impression. Yet, even …