Law Commons^™

Advocacy In Ip Litigation In The Supreme Court: A Presentation By Justice Marshall Rothstein Of The Supreme Court Of Canada, Marshall Rothstein, David Vaver

David Vaver

The Honourable Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein of the Supreme Court of Canada shares his thoughts regarding the five important copyright cases (known as the “Copyright Pentalogy”) that he took part in deciding earlier this year.

"Too Many Notes"? An Empirical Study Of Advocacy In Federal Appeals, Gregory C. Sisk, Michael Heise

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The warp and woof of American law are threaded by the appellate courts, generating precedents on constitutional provisions, statutory texts, and common-law doctrines. While the product of the appellate courts is regularly the subject of empirical study, less attention has been given to the sources and methods of appellate advocacy.

Given the paramount place of written briefs in the appellate process, we should examine seriously the frequent complaint by appellate judges that briefs are too long and that prolixity weakens persuasive power. In a study of civil appeals in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, we …

Appellate Review Of Trial Court Decisions, J. Smithburn

J. Eric Smithburn

Understanding the different standards of review is necessary to the lawyer's informed reading of the appellate opinion. Further, the lawyer should use standard of review to discuss with the client the nature of the trial court's decision and the likelihood of success on review. If the client understands the difference between questions of law, which are reviewed de novo, and discretionary decisions, which are generally deferred to unless unreasonable, he or she will form realistic expectations about the trial and whether to consider an appeal. This casebook discusses the role of appellate courts and the history of appellate review and …

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. …