Law Commons^™

Recent Cases: Appellate Procedure - Force Of Circuit Precedent - Ninth Circuit Holds That Three-Judge Panels May Declare Prior Cases Overruled When Intervening Supreme Court Precedent Undercuts The Theory Of Earlier Decisions, Robert J. Jackson Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

The nation's courts of appeals have struggled to devise a coherent approach to harmonizing existing circuit case law with intervening decisions of the Supreme Court.' When the Court directly overrules a decision of a court of appeals, it is agreed that the overruled decision loses the force of law. But when a Supreme Court opinion disfavors a circuit's jurisprudential theory, the courts of appeals must determine to what extent cases relying on the rejected theory remain good law. Recently, in Miller v. Gammie (Gammie II),2 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, adopted an …

The Making Of The Second Rehnquist Court: A Preliminary Analysis, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court is implicitly assumed to have a certain unity of character under each Chief Justice. Hence, we refer to the "Marshall Court," the "Warren Court," and the "Rehnquist Court." A closer look at history reveals that this assumption of a natural Court defined by the tenure of each Chief Justice is often misleading. The Marshall Court had a different character late in its life than it did in its early years. Similarly, the Warren Court became distinctively more liberal and activist after 1962 when Felix Frankfurter retired and was replaced by Arthur Goldberg.

Although the Rehnquist Court is …

Supreme Court Review Of State-Court Determinations Of State Law In Constitutional Cases, Henry Paul Monaghan

Faculty Scholarship

The decision in Bush v. Gore and particularly Chief Justice Rehnquist's concurring opinion were widely criticized for their unwarranted intrusion upon the "authoritative" status of the Florida Supreme Court in determining the meaning of Florida election law. This Article rejects the merits of that criticism. It proposes the thesis that the Supreme Court has ancillary jurisdiction to review state-court determinations of state law in cases where the Constitution or ftderal law imposes a duty of fidelity to prior state law (t₁) and the claim is that the state court materially and impermissibly departed from that law at a …