Law Commons^™

The Rise Of Transnational Commercial Courts: The Astana International Financial Centre Court, Ilias Bantekas

Pace International Law Review

The proliferation of international commercial courts aims to boost income from legal services and serve as a catalyst for newly found rules of law and thus attract investor confidence. The latter is the underlying purpose for the creation of the Astana International Financial Centre (AIFC) and its Court. The Court’s legal framework is set out in the tradition of its competitors in the Gulf and similarly employs an impressive lineup of former senior judges from the United Kingdom. It is a unique experiment because it strives to create a balance between maintaining a judicial institution of the highest caliber while …

Practical Truth: The Value Of Apparent Honesty In Supreme Court Opinions, Timothy C. Macdonnell

Catholic University Law Review

The focus of this Essay is on the importance that apparent honesty has on the persuasive force of Supreme Court opinions. Legal scholars and Supreme Court Justices have observed the connection between the Court’s legitimacy and the persuasive force of its opinions. Because the Court’s opinions are both an exercise of the Court’s power and the justification for that power, the Justices’ opinions must be persuasive.

The study of rhetoric has long recognized three methods of persuading an audience of the correctness of a particular view. Those methods are appeals to logic, credibility, and emotion. Of theses three methods, I …

Child Abuse And Cannabis Use: How A Prima Facie Standard Mischaracterizes Parental Cannabis Consumption As Child Neglect, Jasmine Harris

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Save It For The Judge? A Case Study On The Effects Of Big Money On State Judicial Elections And The Call For Stronger Recusal Rules, Gustavo A. Jimenez

Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality

No abstract provided.

Goodbye To Concurring Opinions, Meg Penrose

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy

Modern Supreme Court opinions are too long. They are too fractured. And they often lack clarity. Separate opinions, particularly concurring opinions, are largely to blame. Today’s justices are more inclined to publish separate opinions than their predecessors. The justices do not want to read lengthy briefs but appear willing to publish lengthy opinions. Yet the justices owe us clarity. They should want the law to be understandable—and understood. In hopes of achieving greater legal clarity, this article calls for an end to concurring opinions.

The modern Court writes more separate opinions than past courts. It is becoming far too common …

Pro Se, No Say?: The Impact Of Presumptive Mediation In The New York State Court System On Self-Represented Litigants, Sarah Konnerth

Fordham Law Review

In May 2019, the New York State Unified Court System announced its plan to refer all civil cases to various forms of alternative dispute resolution at the earliest stage of litigation. The presumptive alternative dispute resolution initiative aims to decrease costs associated with litigation, improve case outcomes, and reduce case delays. In the context of mediation, litigants, both represented and self-represented, may be seated across from each other at a table to discuss their disputes with the assistance of a neutral third party. This Note examines mediation and discusses the policy implications of a presumptive mechanism for pro se parties. …

Reporting Certainty, James A. Macleod

BYU Law Review

Legal theorists, judges, and legal writing instructors persistently decry the assertions of certainty—”obviously X,” “undoubtedly Y,” etc.—that litter judicial opinions. According to the conventional view, the rhetoric of certainty that these assertions epitomize is disingenuous. It also reflects, and even encourages, poor judicial decision-making. And as if that were not enough, it is so unpersuasive that it is counter-persuasive: it signals uncertainty, nonobviousness, etc.—the exact opposite of what its author intends. Judges, for these and other reasons, should abstain from needless assertions of certainty and the myopic thinking they evince. That much is certain.

Yet the rhetoric of certainty persists. …

Practical Truth: The Value Of Apparent Honesty In Supreme Court Opinions, Timothy C. Macdonnell

Scholarly Articles

Judicial honesty or judicial candor is the subject of significant scholarly attention, but it is not the focus of this Essay. Rather, the author's focus is on the importance that appearing honest has on the persuasive force of an opinion and the dangers associated with failing to achieve that goal. This distinction is not intended to suggest Justices should seek apparent honesty while not being actually honest. Rather, this Essay emphasizes that actually honest opinions must also be apparently honest. Thus, judicial candor is necessary to apparent honesty, but it is not always sufficient on its own.

To support the …

Get With The Pronoun, Heidi K. Brown

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Goodbye To Concurring Opinions, Meg Penrose

Faculty Scholarship

Modern Supreme Court opinions are too long. They are too fractured. And they often lack clarity. Separate opinions, particularly concurring opinions, are largely to blame. Today’s justices are more inclined to publish separate opinions than their predecessors.The justices do not want to read lengthy briefs but appear willing to publish lengthy opinions. Yet the justices owe us clarity. They should want the law to be understandable—and understood. In hopes of achieving greater legal clarity, this article calls for an end to concurring opinions.

The modern Court writes more separate opinions than past courts. It is becoming far too common that …

Get With The Pronoun, Heidi K. Brown

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.