Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 14 of 14
Full-Text Articles in Law
Aedpa Repeal, Brandon L. Garrett, Kaitlin Phillips
Aedpa Repeal, Brandon L. Garrett, Kaitlin Phillips
Faculty Scholarship
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) dramatically altered the scope of federal habeas corpus. Enacted in response to a domestic terrorism attack, followed by a capital prosecution, and after decades of proposals seeking to limit post conviction review of death sentences, and Supreme Court rulings severely limiting federal habeas remedies, AEDPA was ratified with little discussion or deliberation. The law and politics of death penalty litigation, which had been particularly active since the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated all death penalty schemes in its 1972 ruling in Furman v. Georgia, culminated in restrictions for all federal habeas …
Rethinking Standards Of Appellate Review, Adam N. Steinman
Rethinking Standards Of Appellate Review, Adam N. Steinman
Faculty Scholarship
Every appellate decision typically begins with the standard of appellate review. The Supreme Court has shown considerable interest in selecting the standard of appellate review for particular issues, frequently granting certiorari in order to decide whether de novo or deferential review governs certain trial court rulings. This Article critiques the Court's framework for making this choice and questions the desirability of assigning distinct standards of appellate review on an issue-by-issue basis. Rather, the core functions of appellate courts are better served by a single template for review that dispenses with the recurring uncertainty over which standard governs which trial court …
Reign Of Error: District Courts Misreading The Supreme Court Over Rooker–Feldman Analysis, Thomas D. Rowe Jr., Edward L. Baskauskas
Reign Of Error: District Courts Misreading The Supreme Court Over Rooker–Feldman Analysis, Thomas D. Rowe Jr., Edward L. Baskauskas
Faculty Scholarship
Seventeen decisions in nine U.S. district courts from 2006 through 2019 have taken a demonstrably misgrounded starting point for Rooker–Feldman analysis. The cases have read language from a 2006 Supreme Court opinion, in which the Court quoted criteria stated by the lower court, as their guideline. But the Court summarily vacated the lower court’s judgment, and it had previously articulated, and has repeated, different criteria for federal courts to follow. The district-court decisions all appear to have reached correct results, but the mistake about criteria should be recognized and avoided as soon as possible before it creates potential mischief. And …
Panel Assignment In The Federal Courts Of Appeals, Marin K. Levy
Panel Assignment In The Federal Courts Of Appeals, Marin K. Levy
Faculty Scholarship
It is common knowledge that the federal courts of appeals typically hear cases in panels of three judges and that the composition of the panel can have significant consequences for case outcomes and for legal doctrine more generally. Yet neither legal scholars nor social scientists have focused on the question of how judges are selected for their panels. Instead, a substantial body of scholarship simply assumes that panel assignment is random. This Article provides what, up until this point, has been a missing account of panel assignment. Drawing on a multiyear qualitative study of five circuit courts, including in-depth interviews …
Challenging The Randomness Of Panel Assignment In The Federal Courts Of Appeals, Adam S. Chilton, Marin K. Levy
Challenging The Randomness Of Panel Assignment In The Federal Courts Of Appeals, Adam S. Chilton, Marin K. Levy
Faculty Scholarship
A fundamental academic assumption about the federal courts of appeals is that the three-judge panels that hear cases have been randomly configured. Scores of scholarly articles have noted this “fact,” and it has been relied on heavily by empirical researchers. Even though there are practical reasons to doubt that judges would always be randomly assigned to panels, this assumption has never been tested. This Article fill this void by doing so.
To determine whether the circuit courts utilize random assignment, we have created what we believe to be the largest dataset of panel assignments of those courts constructed to date. …
Simplifying The Standard Of Review In North Carolina Administrative Appeals, Sarah H. Ludington
Simplifying The Standard Of Review In North Carolina Administrative Appeals, Sarah H. Ludington
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Amica Curiae, Deborah A. Demott In Support Of The Petitioner, Maples V. Thomas, Deborah A. Demott
Brief Of Amica Curiae, Deborah A. Demott In Support Of The Petitioner, Maples V. Thomas, Deborah A. Demott
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Reinventing Appellate Jurisdiction, Adam N. Steinman
Reinventing Appellate Jurisdiction, Adam N. Steinman
Faculty Scholarship
Appellate jurisdiction in the federal system has been properly criticized for both its doctrinal incoherence and its procedural complexity. Although these critiques are well-founded, this Article reveals that, as applied in practice, federal courts have drawn sensible lines between interlocutory orders that are immediately appealable and those that are not. A limited category of interlocutory orders, primarily those rejecting immunities from suit, are immediately appealable as of right. All other interlocutory orders are potentially eligible for discretionary appellate review. The doctrinal morass of the present framework, however, has obscured this basically sensible structure and has led to inefficient procedures for …
A Critical Assessment Of The Cultural And Institutional Roles Of Appellate Courts (Review Essay), Paul D. Carrington
A Critical Assessment Of The Cultural And Institutional Roles Of Appellate Courts (Review Essay), Paul D. Carrington
Faculty Scholarship
Reviewing, Daniel Meador et al., Appellate Courts: Structures, Functions, Processes, and Personnel (2d ed. 2006)
Appellate Courts, Michael E. Tigar
Stepping Into The Same River Twice: Rapidly Changing Facts And The Appellate Process, Stuart M. Benjamin
Stepping Into The Same River Twice: Rapidly Changing Facts And The Appellate Process, Stuart M. Benjamin
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Defining Finality And Appealability By Court Rule: A Comment On Martineau’S Right Problem, Wrong Solution, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.
Defining Finality And Appealability By Court Rule: A Comment On Martineau’S Right Problem, Wrong Solution, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Ceremony And Realism: Demise Of Appellate Procedure, Paul D. Carrington
Ceremony And Realism: Demise Of Appellate Procedure, Paul D. Carrington
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Curing Defects Of Natural Justice By Appeal, Lawrence G. Baxter
Curing Defects Of Natural Justice By Appeal, Lawrence G. Baxter
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.