Law Commons^™

When Courts Refuse To Frame The Law And Others Frame It To Their Will, Susan P. Koniak

Faculty Scholarship

In the aftermath of Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler's settlement with the government,¹ two versions of the story have emerged. The most popular version features the government actors as villains-villains with new and lethal weapons at their disposal, willing to enforce law that has leapt full grown from their heads like Zeus' child, law of which the rest of the civilized world was unaware. The counterstory, less often told but not without adherents, casts the lawyers of Kaye, Scholer as the villains: unscrupulous and greedy lawyers ready to break any rule, defile any process, twist any truth on …

Symposium On Securities Law Enforcement Priorities, Roberta S. Karmel

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Judicial Vacancies And Delay In The Federal Courts: An Empirical Evaluation, In Symposium, The Civil Justice Reform Act, A. Kimberley Dayton

Faculty Scholarship

This Article examines the relationship between federal district court judicial vacancies --whether caused by the executive branch's failure to timely nominate judges, Congress's failure to confirm presidential nominees, or some other reason -- and delays in processing the civil caseload. The hypotheses tested are several configurations of the hypothesis “judicial vacancies cause delay.” The statistical method of analysis of covariance is used to test this hypothesis and thereby evaluate the degree to which delays, defined by reference to certain case management statistics, are correlated to vacancy rates in individual federal district courts, and within the federal system as a whole. …

Historical Framework For Reviving Constitutional Protection For Property And Contract Rights , James L. Kainen

Faculty Scholarship

Post-New Deal constitutionalism is in search of a theory that justifies judicial intervention on behalf of individual rights while simultaneously avoiding the charge of "Lochnerism."' The dominant historical view dismisses post-bellum substantive due process as an anomalous development in the American constitutional tradition. Under this approach, Lochner represents unbounded protection for economic rights that permitted the judiciary to read laissez faire, pro-business policy preferences into the constitutional text. Today's revisionists have mounted a substantial challenge to the dismissive views of traditionalists. Indeed, some claim Lochner reached the right result, but for the wrong reason. The revisionists characterize substantive due process …

Reel Time/Real Justice, Kimberlé W. Crenshaw

Faculty Scholarship

Like the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings a few months before, the Rodney King beating, the acquittal of the Los Angeles police officers who "restrained" him and the subsequent civil unrest in Los Angeles flashed Race across the national consciousness and the gaze of American culture momentarily froze there. Pieces of everyday racial dynamics briefly seemed clear, then faded from view, replaced by presidential politics and natural disasters.

This Essay examines in more depth what was exposed during the momentary national focus on Rodney King. Two main events – the acquittal of the police officers who beat King and the civil …

Using Comparative Fault To Replace The All-Or-Nothing Lottery Imposed In Intentional Torts Suits In Which Both Plaintiff And Defendant Are At Fault , Gail D. Hollister

Faculty Scholarship

All or nothing. For years this idea of absolutes has been a hallmark of tort law despite the inequities it has caused. Plaintiffs must either win a total victory or suffer total defeat. In recent years courts and legislatures have begun to recognize the injustice of the all-or-nothing approach and to replace it with rules that permit partial recoveries that are more equitably tailored to the particular facts of each case. The most dramatic example of this more equitable approach is the nearly universal rejection of contributory negligence in favor of comparative fault in negligence cases. Almost all jurisdictions, however, …

Chase Court And Fundamental Rights: A Watershed In American Constitutionalism, The , Robert J. Kaczorowski

Faculty Scholarship

Three weeks before he died in May 1873, the frail and ailing Salmon P. Chase joined three of his brethren in dissent in one of the most important cases ever decided by the United States Supreme Court, the Slaughter-House Cases.1 This decision was a watershed in United States constitutional history for several reasons. Doctrinally, it represented a rejection of the virtually unanimous decisions of the lower federal courts upholding the constitutionality of revolutionary federal civil rights laws enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War. Institutionally, it was an example of extraordinary judicial activism in overriding the legislative will of …

Specifying Grounds For Judicial Disqualification In Federal Courts., Leslie W. Abramson

Faculty Scholarship

One essential component of equal justice under the law is a neutral and detached judge to preside over the court proceedings. Public confidence in the legal system is maintained when a judge has no interest in the parties, attorneys or subject matter of the litigation. Sua sponte or by motion of a party, a federal judge is subject to disqualification for conflicts of interest on both constitutional and statutory grounds

The Habeas Hagioscope, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

If you would understand American law, American politics, and the elusive difference between the two, look no further. Federal habeas corpus for state prisoners opens a window on the workings of our national government, overt and covert. I mean in this Article to describe the scene that is revealed. A rich account of experience in recent years can contribute to a deeper understanding of our government by arranging the players and the set in context and sequence. The record will show a number of things to be true.

Pluralism, The Prisoner's Dilemma, And The Behavior Of The Independent Judiciary, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

Discussions of Thayer's conception of judicial review, as this symposium amply demonstrates, tend to be normative. Professor Nick Zeppos's paper, which offers more of a positive analysis, is therefore a welcome addition. Zeppos's paper includes three especially valuable insights. First, he demonstrates the close parallel between Thayer's theory of judicial review and the Supreme Court's Chevron doctrine. The former would have the judiciary enforce clear constitutional commands but otherwise defer to legislative understandings of constitutional meaning; the latter would have courts enforce clear legislative commands but otherwise defer to administrative interpretations of statutes. Second, he offers evidence that in both …