Law Commons^™

Table Of Contents

Georgia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Limiting Article Iii Standing To "Accidental" Plaintiffs: Lessons From Environmental And Animal Law Cases, Robert J. Pushaw Jr.

Georgia Law Review

According to the Supreme Court, Article III's extension
of "judicialPower" to "Cases" and "Controversies"limits
standing to plaintiffs who can demonstrate an
individualized "injury in fact" that was caused by the
defendant and that is judicially redressable. Article III's
text and history, however, do not mention "injury,"
"causation,"or "redressability."
Furthermore, these standards are malleable and have
been applied to achieve ideological goals, especially in
cases involving environmental and animal-welfare laws.
Most notably, the Court has recognized an "injury in fact"
to one's aesthetic enjoyment of nature, but determining
such an injury is arbitrarybecause "aesthetics"is a matter
of personal taste. Judges have …

Congressional End-Run: The Ignored Constraint On Judicial Review, Luke M. Milligan

Georgia Law Review

This Article identifies an untended connection between
the research of legal academics and political scientists. It
explains how recent developments in constitutional theory,
when read in good light, expose a gap in the judicial
politics literature on Supreme Court decision making. The
gap is the "congressional end-run."
End-runs occur when Congress mitigates the policy cost
of adverse judicial review through neither formal limits on
the Court's autonomy nor substitution of its constitutional

interpretationfor that of the Court, but through a different
decision which cannot, as a practical if not legal matter,
be invalidated by the Court. End-runs come in several …

State Of Emergency: Why Georgia's Standard Of Care In Emergency Rooms Is Harmful To Your Health, Jason R. Graves

Georgia Law Review

Patients injured by medical negligence have historically
been able to recover for the injuries they sustained. In
2005, however, the Georgia General Assembly passed
Georgia Senate Bill 3, which gave virtual immunity to
emergency room doctors and those practicing in obstetrics
wards. The Bill requires a showing of gross negligence by
clear and convincing evidence to prevail on a medical
malpractice claim against those protected by the statute.
The law prevents injured patients who cannot meet this
standard from recovering any damages, even
compensation for medical bills arising from the negligent
act. The legislature enacted the Bill in an effort …

Defense Against Outrage And The Perils Of Parasitic Torts, Geoffrey C. Rapp

Georgia Law Review

Two prominent narratives in tort law scholarship
address the increasing recognition of claims for loss of
emotional tranquility and the expanding privilege to use
force in defense of self and others. This Article explores a
puzzle in tort law that challenges these traditional
accounts. Can force be used to defend against intentional
extreme or outrageous conduct threatening a person with
severe emotional distress? The answer in the case law and
articulated doctrine appears to be "no." The law permits
the use of force to protect dignitary interests, in the case of
offensive battery and assault, but seems to deny the …

Waiving Good-Bye To Inconsistency: Factual Basis Challenges To Guilty Pleas In Federal Courts, William T. Stone Jr

Georgia Law Review

Rule 11(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of CriminalProcedure
requires courts to determine that criminal defendants'
guilty pleas have a factual basis. Once a district court
accepts a guilty plea, appellate courts diverge in their
willingness to review challenges to the sufficiency of the
plea's factual basis. Some federal circuits hold that a
factual basis challenge is waived by the guilty plea. Other
jurisdictions will review a defendant's factual basis
challenge on appeal. Despite the lack of clarity on this
point, the Supreme Court has not yet provided guidance
and the federal circuit courts have not offered a great deal
of …