Courts Commons^™

Civil Procedure: A Review Of The Published Opinions Of The United States Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit For The 1981-82 Term, 59 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 475 (1983), Edward B. Arnolds, Allen R. Kamp

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Silent Revolution, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Communication In The Courtroom: Jury Instructions, Michael J. Farrell

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Use Of A Rule 37(B)(2)(A) Sanction To Establish In Personam Jurisdiction, Jeffrey A. Robinson

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Litigation Implications Of The Chicago O'Hara Airport Crash Of American Airlines Flight 191, 15 J. Marshall L. Rev. 273 (1982), John J. Kennelly

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Rulemaking In Washington, Hugh Spitzer

Seattle University Law Review

This article suggests that Washington court rule controversies arise from the lack of a clear, constitutionally established apportionment of rulemaking powers between the legislative and judicial branches, and that there is a lack of procedures providing adequate internal safeguards and accountability. This article first reviews the classical separation of powers doctrine. The discussion then focuses on internal procedural safeguards that also serve within each power center to discourage arbitrary or ill-considered action. This article then reviews the history of court rulemaking in Washington and in other jurisdictions and suggests that from a logical view, the scope of sole judicial power …

The Prejudicial Effects Of Cameras In The Courtroom, Robert J. Fuoco

University of Richmond Law Review

The Supreme Court recently held in Chandler v. Florida, that absent a showing of actual prejudice, it is not per se unconstitutional to televise trials over the objection of the defendant. This decision has a direct bearing on state court procedures, as over one-half of the states currently permit television coverage of trials in one form or another. However, sheer numbers supporting a proposition do not make that proposition "right", nor does a Supreme Court decision upholding its constitutionality imply an unqualified stamp of approval. In fact, previous Supreme Court decisions have overturned convictions because the defendant's right to a …

The Mandamus Power Of The United States Courts Of Appeals: A Complex And Confused Means Of Appellate Control, Robert S. Berger

Journal Articles

No abstract provided.

Richard Neeley: How Courts Govern America, Donald P. Lay

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Appeals Court's State Law Ruling Entitled To Conclusive Deference: Factors Etc., Inc. V. Pro Arts, Inc., J. Stanton Curry

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Valley Forge Christian College V. Americans United For Separation Of Church And State, Inc., Lewis Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Piper Aircraft V. Reyno, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Restating Territorial Jurisdiction And Venue For State And Federal Courts, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

"Jurisdiction must become venue," concluded Professor Albert A. Ehrenzweig. Perhaps it should. More certain is the proposition that comprehending jurisdiction requires mastering its relationship with venue. Such conclusions lie at some distance, however, bringing to mind that every journey must begin with a single step. A solid first step takes me to the subject of this Symposium, the Restatement (Second) of Judgments. This, put simply, is a masterful work. Even while still in tentative drafts, it proved an invaluable aid to judge, practitioner, teacher, and student. Yet in a work of such scope, anyone could find grounds for differing. …

Voir Dire In Kentucky: An Empirical Study Of Voir Dire In Kentucky Circuit Courts, William H. Fortune

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Voir dire is the stage of a jury trial at which prospective jurors are questioned under oath by court or counsel to determine their suitability as jurors in the case to be tried. Kentucky's high court has repeatedly recognized the importance of voir dire to the exercise of for-cause and peremptory challenges.

The trial judge's wide discretion in voir dire, however, necessarily makes a review of appellate decisions of minimal assistance in ascertaining what actually occurs during this important phase of a jury trial. Published opinions provide little guidance in this area; information about voir dire must come from a …

The Virginia Judicial Council's Intermediate Appellate Court Proposal, Martha B. Brissette

University of Richmond Law Review

The ever-expanding volume of appellate litigation in Virginia has engendered a crisis in appellate justice in this state which can be adequately addressed only by the creation of an intermediate appellate court. Not only is Virginia the most populous state without such an intermediate court, its highest court also has the largest caseload of any single state appellate court.

Court Examination Of The Discovery File On A Motion For Summary Judgment, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines the history and ambiguous language of rule 56 to determine whether courts have a duty to examine the discovery file before granting a summary judgment. Section I discusses courts' differing interpretations of the rule. Section II shows that the Supreme Court Advisory Committee which drafted the rule contemplated that courts would examine routinely filed discovery materials when considering a motion for summary judgment. Section III concludes, however, that the expansion of pre-trial discovery since the enactment of the federal rules renders such a trial court duty inconsistent with the drafters' intent that the rules "be construed to …

Maryland V. Louisiana, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Discovery Problems In Civil Cases, Joseph L. Ebersole, Barlow Burke

Federal Judicial Center Reports

This publication is a product of a study undertaken in furtherance of the Center's statutory mission to conduct and stimulate research and development on matters of judicial administration. The analyses, conclusions, and points of view are those of the authors. This work has been subjected to staff review within the Center, and publication signifies that it is regarded as responsible and valuable. It should be emphasized, however, that on matters of policy, the Center speaks only through its Board.

Jury Instructions V. Jury Charges, J. Patrick Jones

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Applicability Of Rule 23(E) To Precertification Proceedings: The Functional Approach Applied, Kevin Silverang

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Federal Practice And Procedure - Comment - Appealability And Finality In The Third Circuit - Is The United States Supreme Court More Appealing Than The Third Circuit, Gary A. Rome

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Questioning Intervention Of Right -- Toward A New Methodology Of Decisionmaking, Gene R. Shreve

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

United States Of America V. Herman Raddatz, Preview Of United States Supreme Court Cases, Leroy Pernell

Journal Publications

No abstract provided.

The Summary Jury Trial, Thomas D. Lambros, Thomas H. Shunk

Cleveland State Law Review

The American judicial system must necessarily rely on a steady flow of dispositions of cases by settlement lest it collapse because of a demand for trials beyond the ability of the courts to try cases. Settlements are achieved through a variety of procedures and techniques, yet many cases result in trials because of the uncertainty about prospective juror perceptions that pervades settlement discussions. Summary trial helps to eliminate this element of uncertainty and, at the same time, provides an additional basis for settlement of cases otherwise committed to trial. This is not to suggest that trial is to be avoided …

The Summary Jury Trial, Thomas D. Lambros, Thomas H. Shunk

Cleveland State Law Review

The American judicial system must necessarily rely on a steady flow of dispositions of cases by settlement lest it collapse because of a demand for trials beyond the ability of the courts to try cases. Settlements are achieved through a variety of procedures and techniques, yet many cases result in trials because of the uncertainty about prospective juror perceptions that pervades settlement discussions. Summary trial helps to eliminate this element of uncertainty and, at the same time, provides an additional basis for settlement of cases otherwise committed to trial. This is not to suggest that trial is to be avoided …

Inquiries Into The Numerical Division Of Juries: Ellis V. Reed, James M. O'Brien

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rush V. Savchuk, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

United States Parole Commission V. Geraghty, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Federal District Courts Have No Authority To Interrupt Preexisting State Sentence To Impose Confinement For Civil Contempt., Diane E. Hepford

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

When A District Court Has Stayed A Claim Involving Concurrent Jurisdiction, Issuance Of A Writ Of Mandamus Compelling Adjudication Is Improper., James P. Keenan

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.