Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (50)
- Courts (26)
- Federal Courts (24)
- United States. Supreme Court (16)
- Technology in Court Administration (15)
-
- Judges (13)
- Judicial Power (11)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (10)
- Federal courts (10)
- Judicial Review (10)
- State Courts (10)
- W&M Faculty (10)
- Judicial Process (9)
- Judicial Selection (9)
- Jurisdiction (9)
- Administration of Justice (8)
- Book Reviews (8)
- Standing (8)
- Technology & Law (8)
- Appellate Courts (7)
- Information Technology (7)
- Technology Applications (7)
- Constitutional Law (6)
- Legal Briefs (6)
- Separation of Powers (6)
- Trial Practice (6)
- United States (6)
- Appeals (5)
- Book review (5)
- Courtroom Proceedings (5)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Faculty Publications (100)
- William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal (44)
- William & Mary Law Review (43)
- Popular Media (27)
- Library Staff Publications (5)
-
- William & Mary Business Law Review (5)
- William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice (3)
- William & Mary Annual Tax Conference (2)
- William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review (2)
- Briefs (1)
- Congressional Testimony (1)
- Law School Personal Reflections on COVID-19 (1)
- William & Mary Law Review Online (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 121 - 150 of 235
Full-Text Articles in Law
Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction For Our Federal Courts, A. Benjamin Spencer
Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction For Our Federal Courts, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limits the territorial jurisdiction of federal district courts to that of the courts of their host states.T his limitation is a voluntary rather than obligatory restriction, given district courts' status as courts of the national sovereign. Although there are sound policy reasons for limiting the jurisdictional reach of our federal courts in this manner, the limitation delivers little benefit from a judicial administration or even a fairness perspective, and ultimately costs more to implement than is gained in return. The rule should be amended to provide that district courts have personal …
Public Opinion And State Supreme Courts, Neal Devins, Nicole Mansker
Public Opinion And State Supreme Courts, Neal Devins, Nicole Mansker
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
The Structural Case For Vertical Maximalism, Tara Leigh Grove
The Structural Case For Vertical Maximalism, Tara Leigh Grove
Faculty Publications
Many prominent jurists and scholars, including those with outlooks as diverse as Chief Justice John Roberts and Cass Sunstein, have recently advocated a “minimalist” approach to opinion writing at the Supreme Court. They assert that the Court should issue narrow, fact-bound decisions that do not resolve much beyond the case before it. I argue that minimalism, as employed by the current Supreme Court, is in tension with the structure of the Constitution. Article III and the Supremacy Clause, along with historical evidence from the Founding Era, suggest that the Constitution creates a hierarchical judiciary and gives the Court a “supreme” …
What Kinds Of Statutory Restrictions Are Jurisdictional?, Scott Dodson
What Kinds Of Statutory Restrictions Are Jurisdictional?, Scott Dodson
Faculty Publications
Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976 provides that “no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made.” In this case, a district court approved a class action settlement that purported to resolve both registered and unregistered copyright claims. The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether that registration requirement is a limitation on federal court subject-matter jurisdiction.
Understanding Pleading Doctrine, A. Benjamin Spencer
Understanding Pleading Doctrine, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Where does pleading doctrine, at the federal level, stand today? The Supreme Court's revision of general pleading standards in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly has not left courts and litigants with a clear or precise understanding of what it takes to state a claim that can survive a motion to dismiss. Claimants are required to show "plausible entitlement to relief" by offering enough facts "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Translating those admonitions into predictable and consistent guidelines has proven illusory. This Article proposes a descriptive theory that explains the fundaments of contemporary pleading doctrine in …
In Defense Of Ideology: A Principled Apporach To The Supreme Court Confirmation Process, Lori A. Ringhand
In Defense Of Ideology: A Principled Apporach To The Supreme Court Confirmation Process, Lori A. Ringhand
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
In this paper, Professor Ringhand offers a principled defense of an ideological approach to the Supreme Court Justice confirmation process. In constructing her argument, she does three things. First, she explores how the insights provided by recent empirical legal scholarship have created a need to rethink the role of the Supreme Court and, consequently, the process by which we select Supreme Court Justices. In doing so, Professor Ringhand explains how these insights have called into question much of our conventional constitutional narrative, and how this failure of the conventional narrative has in turn undermined traditional objections to an ideologically-based confirmation …
The Legality And Practicality Of Remote Witness Testimony, Fredric Lederer
The Legality And Practicality Of Remote Witness Testimony, Fredric Lederer
Popular Media
No abstract provided.
The Supreme Court’S Controversial Gvrs – And An Alternative, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
The Supreme Court’S Controversial Gvrs – And An Alternative, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Faculty Publications
This Article addresses a relatively neglected portion of the Supreme Court's docket: the "GVR"-that is, the Court's procedure for summarily granting certiorari, vacating the decision below without finding error, and remanding the case for further consideration by the lower court. The purpose of the GVR device is to give the lower court the initial opportunity to consider the possible impact of a new development (such as a recently issued Supreme Court decision) and, if necessary, to revise its ruling in light of the changed circumstances. The Court may issue scores or even hundreds of these orders every year
This Article …
The Saucier Qualified Immunity Experiment: An Empirical Analysis, Nancy Leong
The Saucier Qualified Immunity Experiment: An Empirical Analysis, Nancy Leong
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Why The United States Supreme Court Got Some [But Not A Lot] Of The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel Analysis Right, Paul Marcus
Why The United States Supreme Court Got Some [But Not A Lot] Of The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel Analysis Right, Paul Marcus
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Circumventing Congress: How The Federal Courts Opened The Door To Impeaching Criminal Defendants With Prior Convictions, Jeffrey Bellin
Circumventing Congress: How The Federal Courts Opened The Door To Impeaching Criminal Defendants With Prior Convictions, Jeffrey Bellin
Faculty Publications
This Article spotlights the flawed analytical framework at the heart of the federal courts’ approach to one of the most controversial trial practices in American criminal jurisprudence — the admission of prior convictions to impeach the credibility of defendants who testify. As the Article explains, the flawed approach is a byproduct of the courts’ reliance on a five-factor analytical framework to implement the governing legal standard enacted by Congress in Federal Rule of Evidence 609. Tracing the evolution of the fivefactor framework from its roots in pre-Rule 609 case law, the Article demonstrates that the courts’ reinterpretation of the framework …
Pleading Civil Rights Claims In The Post-Conley Era, A. Benjamin Spencer
Pleading Civil Rights Claims In The Post-Conley Era, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Much has been made of the Supreme Court's recent pronouncements on federal civil pleading standards during the latter half of the 2006-2007 Term. Specifically, what will be the fallout from the Court's decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, a case that abrogated Conley v. Gibson's famous "no set of facts" formulation and supplanted it with a new plausibility pleading standard? This Article attempts to examine and distill the impact of Twombly on the pleading standards that lower federal courts are applying when scrutinizing civil rights claims. Two main approaches emerge: that of courts choosing to continue to apply a …
Enhancing Courtroom Presentation Through Technology, Fredric I. Lederer
Enhancing Courtroom Presentation Through Technology, Fredric I. Lederer
Popular Media
No abstract provided.
Courtroom Technology, Fredric I. Lederer, Tom O'Connor, Timothy A. Piganelli
Courtroom Technology, Fredric I. Lederer, Tom O'Connor, Timothy A. Piganelli
Popular Media
No abstract provided.
Plausibility Pleading, A. Benjamin Spencer
Plausibility Pleading, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Last Term, in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically reinterpreted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) (2), which requires a "short and plain" statement of a plaintiffs claim. The Court was unabashed about this change of course: it explicitly abrogated a core element of its 1957 decision in Conley v. Gibson, which until recently was the bedrock case undergirding the idea that ours is a system of notice pleading in which detailed facts need not be pleaded. Departing from this principle, the Court in Twombly required the pleading of facts that demonstrate the plausibility of the …
Ideological Cohesion And Precedent (Or Why The Court Only Cares About Precedent When Most Justices Agree With Each Other), Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
This Article examines the profound role that ideological cohesion plays in explaining the Supreme Court's willingness to advance a coherent vision of the law - either by overruling precedents inconsistent with that vision or by establishing rule-like precedents intended to bind the Supreme Court and lower courts in subsequent cases. Through case studies of the New Deal, Warren, and Rehnquist Courts, this Article calls attention to key differences between Courts in which five or more Justices pursue the same substantive objectives and Courts which lack a dominant voting block. In particular, when five or more Justices pursue the same substantive …
The Challenge Of Comparative Civil Procedure, Scott Dodson
The Challenge Of Comparative Civil Procedure, Scott Dodson
Faculty Publications
This Essay reviews Civil Litigation in Comparative Context (West 2007), by Oscar G. Chase, Helen Hershkoff, Linda Silberman, Yasuhei Taniguchi, Vincenzo Varano, and Adrian Zuckerman. It also identifies some areas of exceptionalist American civil procedure that recently have been converging towards global norms and argues that those convergences, if they continue, could render comparative studies particularly meaningful.
Perpetual Dissents, Allison Orr Larsen
Book Review Of Establishing Justice In Middle America: A History Of The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit, Scott Dodson
Book Review Of Establishing Justice In Middle America: A History Of The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit, Scott Dodson
Faculty Publications
This book review of Jeffrey Morris’s Establishing Justice in Middle America argues that although Morris makes an important contribution to the understudied Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, he fails to engage the reader in the personalities that populated the court, eschews the development of coherent themes running through the court’s membership changes and temporal scope, and omits important cases that helped define the court as an independent judicial body.
Anti-Federalist Procedure, A. Benjamin Spencer
Anti-Federalist Procedure, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
"[T]he new federal government will ... be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the prerogatives of their governments."
"[T]he Constitution of the United States ... recognizes and preserves the autonomy and independence of the States-independence in their legislative and independence in their judicial departments. . . . Any interference with either, except as [constitutionally] permitted, is an invasion of the authority of the State and, to that extent, a denial of its independence."
The understanding expressed by these opening quotes-that the national government was designed to be one of limited powers that would refrain from encroaching …
Constitutional Avoidance And The Roberts Court, Neal Devins
Constitutional Avoidance And The Roberts Court, Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
The D'Oh! Of Popular Constiutitonalism, Neal Devins
The D'Oh! Of Popular Constiutitonalism, Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Jurisdiction To Adjudicate: A Revised Analysis, A. Benjamin Spencer
Jurisdiction To Adjudicate: A Revised Analysis, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Personal jurisdiction doctrine as articulated by the Supreme Court is in disarray. As a constitutional doctrine whose contours remain imprecise, the law of personal jurisdiction has generated confusion, unpredictability, and extensive satellite litigation over what should be an uncomplicated preliminary issue. Many commentators have long lamented these defects, making suggestions for how the doctrine could be improved. Although many of these proposals have had much to offer, they generally have failed to articulate (or adequately justify or explain) a simple and sound approach to jurisdiction that the Supreme Court can embrace. This Article revises the law of personal jurisdiction by …
Should The Supreme Court Fear Congress?, Neal Devins
Should The Supreme Court Fear Congress?, Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Jurisdiction And The Internet: Returning To Traditional Principles To Analyze Network-Mediated Contacts, A. Benjamin Spencer
Jurisdiction And The Internet: Returning To Traditional Principles To Analyze Network-Mediated Contacts, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Courts have been evaluating the issue of personal jurisdiction based on Internet or "network-mediated" contacts for some time. The U.S. Supreme Court has remained silent on this issue, permitting the federal appeals courts to develop standards for determining when personal jurisdiction based on network-mediated contacts is appropriate. Unfortunately, the circuit approaches-which emphasize a Web site's "interactivity" and "target audience" -are flawed because they are premised on an outdated view of Internet activity as uncontrollably ubiquitous. This view has led courts to depart from traditional jurisdictional analysis and impose elevated and misguided jurisdictional standards. This article argues that courts should reinstitute …
High-Tech Trial Lawyers And The Court: Responsibilities, Problems, And Opportunities, Fredric I. Lederer
High-Tech Trial Lawyers And The Court: Responsibilities, Problems, And Opportunities, Fredric I. Lederer
Popular Media
No abstract provided.
The Future Of Parity, Michael E. Solimine
The Future Of Parity, Michael E. Solimine
William & Mary Law Review
No abstract provided.
Technology-Augmented Courtrooms: Progress Amid A Few Complications, Or The Problematic Interrelationship Between Court And Counsel, Fredric I. Lederer
Technology-Augmented Courtrooms: Progress Amid A Few Complications, Or The Problematic Interrelationship Between Court And Counsel, Fredric I. Lederer
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Statutory Interpretation In Econotopia, Nathan B. Oman
Statutory Interpretation In Econotopia, Nathan B. Oman
Faculty Publications
Much of the debate in the recent revival of interest in statutory interpretation centers on whether or not courts should use legislative history in construing statutes. The consensus in favor of this practice has come under sharp attack from public choice critics who argue that traditional models of legislative intent are positively and normatively incoherent. This paper argues that in actual practice, courts look at a fairly narrow subset of legislative history. By thinking about the power to write that legislative history as a property right and legislatures as markets, it is possible to use Coase's Theorem and the concept …
Terminating Calder: "Effects" Based Jurisdiction In The Ninth Circuit After Schwarzenegger V. Fred Martin Motor Co., A. Benjamin Spencer
Terminating Calder: "Effects" Based Jurisdiction In The Ninth Circuit After Schwarzenegger V. Fred Martin Motor Co., A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
In Calder v. Jones, the Supreme Court clearly and succinctly determined that personal jurisdiction is appropriate over a defendant whose only contact with the forum state is its intentional actions aimed at and having harmful "effects" in the forum state. Illustrating the extent to which the law of personal jurisdiction had been relaxed from the time of Pennoyer v. Neff and International Shoe Co. v. Washington, Calder also extended the reach of state courts by permitting jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants on the strength of the plaintiffs' connections with the forum state. Although Calder provided a welcome and much …