Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- University of Richmond (446)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (220)
- Seattle University School of Law (218)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (153)
- University of Michigan Law School (127)
-
- New York Law School (113)
- Pepperdine University (92)
- Duke Law (86)
- Roger Williams University (86)
- UIC School of Law (82)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (82)
- University of Colorado Law School (80)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (68)
- Georgetown University Law Center (62)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (58)
- Fordham Law School (50)
- University of Maine School of Law (48)
- University of Georgia School of Law (47)
- William & Mary Law School (47)
- BLR (46)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (43)
- American University Washington College of Law (41)
- University of Arkansas Little Rock (33)
- Cornell University Law School (32)
- Washington University in St. Louis (31)
- St. Mary's University (30)
- Brooklyn Law School (28)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (27)
- Cleveland State University (26)
- Pace University (24)
- Keyword
-
- Judges (391)
- Courts (250)
- Supreme Court (236)
- Constitution (110)
- Judge (98)
-
- Judiciary (87)
- Federal courts (86)
- Court (85)
- Federal (76)
- United States Supreme Court (69)
- Jurisprudence (59)
- Constitutional law (58)
- Constitutional Law (56)
- Justice (56)
- Judicial review (55)
- New York (54)
- Due process (53)
- Law (51)
- State (51)
- Congress (50)
- Jurisdiction (50)
- Litigation (50)
- Judicial selection (47)
- Judicial process (46)
- Politics (45)
- Roger J Miner (44)
- Diversity (40)
- Court of Appeals (39)
- Defendant (39)
- Supreme court (38)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- University of Richmond Law Review (355)
- Seattle University Law Review (214)
- Faculty Scholarship (153)
- Touro Law Review (151)
- Indiana Law Journal (140)
-
- Law Faculty Publications (79)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (65)
- UIC Law Review (59)
- Pepperdine Law Review (57)
- Michigan Law Review (56)
- Life of the Law School (1993- ) (53)
- Faculty Publications (48)
- Articles (47)
- Northwestern University Law Review (45)
- ExpressO (43)
- Maine Law Review (43)
- Scholarly Works (41)
- Cardozo Law Review (37)
- Nevada Law Journal (34)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (32)
- Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law (32)
- Scholarship@WashULaw (31)
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (28)
- Committees (27)
- Fordham Law Review (27)
- Faculty Articles (25)
- Scholarly Articles (24)
- Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary (23)
- American University Law Review (22)
- The Public Lands During the Remainder of the 20th Century: Planning, Law, and Policy in the Federal Land Agencies (Summer Conference, June 8-10) (22)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 1651 - 1680 of 3115
Full-Text Articles in Courts
Tips For Capturing 2014 Federal Court Clerkships, Carl W. Tobias
Tips For Capturing 2014 Federal Court Clerkships, Carl W. Tobias
Law Faculty Publications
Now is a perfect moment for analyzing 2014 clerkships because law students across the country have completed their productive summer employment and are poised to commence their final year. Below are ideas which could help aspirants secure those coveted positions that start during next August.
Rethinking The Principal-Agent Theory Of Judging, Rafael I. Pardo, Jonathan Remy Nash
Rethinking The Principal-Agent Theory Of Judging, Rafael I. Pardo, Jonathan Remy Nash
Scholarship@WashULaw
This Essay offers new insights into understanding the relationship between higher and lower courts and responds to the extant literature that has characterized the relationship as one involving a principal and an agent. We challenge the underpinnings of the principal-agent understanding of judicial hierarchies and identify problems with the theory’s applicability in this context. While principals ordinarily select their agents, higher court judges usually do not select lower court judges. Moreover, while lower court judges may cast votes with an eye to the possibility of elevation to a higher court, the higher court judges who review the lower court’s decisions …
Rethinking Critical Mass In The Federal Appellate Courts., Laura Moyer
Rethinking Critical Mass In The Federal Appellate Courts., Laura Moyer
Faculty and Staff Scholarship
This article draws from critical mass studies of gender in other political institutions to inform an application to the US Courts of Appeals. The results demonstrate the utility of considering court-level aspects of diversity. As mixed-sex panels become more common within a circuit, both male and female judges increasingly support plaintiffs in civil rights claims, though the magnitude of the effect is larger for women. The presence of a female chief judge is also positively associated with pro-plaintiff decisions by men and women in sex discrimination cases.
Mandatory Sentencing And Racial Disparity, Assessing The Role Of Prosecutors And The Effects Of Booker, Sonja B. Starr, M. Marit Rehavi
Mandatory Sentencing And Racial Disparity, Assessing The Role Of Prosecutors And The Effects Of Booker, Sonja B. Starr, M. Marit Rehavi
Articles
This Article presents new empirical evidence concerning the effects of United States v. Booker, which loosened the formerly mandatory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, on racial disparities in federal criminal cases. Two serious limitations pervade existing empirical literature on sentencing disparities. First, studies focus on sentencing in isolation, controlling for the “presumptive sentence” or similar measures that themselves result from discretionary charging, plea-bargaining, and fact-finding processes. Any disparities in these earlier processes are excluded from the resulting sentence-disparity estimates. Our research has shown that this exclusion matters: pre-sentencing decision-making can have substantial sentence-disparity consequences. Second, existing studies have used loose causal inference …
The Justices And News Judgment: The Supreme Court As News Editor, Amy Gajda
The Justices And News Judgment: The Supreme Court As News Editor, Amy Gajda
BYU Law Review
No abstract provided.
Judicial Innovation And Sexual Harassment Doctrine In The U.S. Court Of Appeals., Laura P. Moyer, Holley Takersley
Judicial Innovation And Sexual Harassment Doctrine In The U.S. Court Of Appeals., Laura P. Moyer, Holley Takersley
Faculty and Staff Scholarship
The determination that sexual harassment constituted “discrimination based on sex” under Title VII was first made by the lower federal courts, not Congress. Drawing from the literature on policy diffusion, this article examines the adoption of hostile work environment standards across the U.S. Courts of Appeals in the absence of controlling Supreme Court precedent. The results bolster recent findings about the influence of female judges on their male colleagues and suggest that in addition to siding with female plaintiffs, female judges also helped to shape legal rules that promoted gender equality in the workplace.
Standing To Sue A Carrier's Killers , Davis J. Howard
Standing To Sue A Carrier's Killers , Davis J. Howard
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Ethics In Legal Education: An Augmentation Of Legal Realism, Gerald R. Ferrera
Ethics In Legal Education: An Augmentation Of Legal Realism, Gerald R. Ferrera
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Los Angeles County Children's Court: A Model Facility For Child Abuse And Neglect Proceedings, Paul Boland
The Los Angeles County Children's Court: A Model Facility For Child Abuse And Neglect Proceedings, Paul Boland
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Milking The New Sacred Cow: The Supreme Court Limits The Peremptory Challenge On Racial Grounds In Powers V. Ohio And Edmonson V. Leesville Concrete Co., Bradley R. Kirk
Milking The New Sacred Cow: The Supreme Court Limits The Peremptory Challenge On Racial Grounds In Powers V. Ohio And Edmonson V. Leesville Concrete Co., Bradley R. Kirk
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
California Practicum: A Guide To Coordination Of Civil Actions In California, Darren L. Brooks
California Practicum: A Guide To Coordination Of Civil Actions In California, Darren L. Brooks
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Separation Of Powers Doctrine On The Modern Supreme Court And Four Doctrinal Approaches To Judicial Decision-Making, R. Randall Kelso
Separation Of Powers Doctrine On The Modern Supreme Court And Four Doctrinal Approaches To Judicial Decision-Making, R. Randall Kelso
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Toward A Balanced Approach To "Frivolous" Litigation: A Critical Review Of Federal Rule 11 And State Sanctions Provisions , Byron C. Keeling
Toward A Balanced Approach To "Frivolous" Litigation: A Critical Review Of Federal Rule 11 And State Sanctions Provisions , Byron C. Keeling
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Issue 1: Annual Survey 2012 Table Of Contents
Issue 1: Annual Survey 2012 Table Of Contents
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Step Aside, Mr. Senator: A Request For Members Of The Senate Judiciary Committee To Give Up Their Mics, Paul E. Vaglicia
Step Aside, Mr. Senator: A Request For Members Of The Senate Judiciary Committee To Give Up Their Mics, Paul E. Vaglicia
Indiana Law Journal
In 1995, a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School dubbed the Supreme Court confirmation hearings “vapid and hollow” and added that they, as implemented, “serve little educative function, except perhaps to reinforce lessons of cynicism that citizens often glean from government.” Ironically, this same law professor, Elena Kagan, later endured the confirmation hearings as a nominee and currently sits as the 112th Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. While she may be one of the few to ever reach a seat on the High Court, she is not alone in her assessment of the Supreme Court’s lackluster …
Mr. Justice Brandeis And The Art Of Judicial Dissent, Melvin I. Urofsky
Mr. Justice Brandeis And The Art Of Judicial Dissent, Melvin I. Urofsky
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Determining Notoriety In Supreme Court Decisions , G. Edward White
Determining Notoriety In Supreme Court Decisions , G. Edward White
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Explaining Korematsu: A Response To Dean Chemerinsky , Robert J. Pushaw Jr.
Explaining Korematsu: A Response To Dean Chemerinsky , Robert J. Pushaw Jr.
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Korematsu V. United States: A Tragedy Hopefully Never To Be Repeated , Erwin Chemerinsky
Korematsu V. United States: A Tragedy Hopefully Never To Be Repeated , Erwin Chemerinsky
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Redeeming Erie: A Response To Suzanna Sherry , Donald Earl Childress Iii
Redeeming Erie: A Response To Suzanna Sherry , Donald Earl Childress Iii
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Wrong, Out Of Step, And Pernicious: Erie As The Worst Decision Of All Time, Suzanna Sherry
Wrong, Out Of Step, And Pernicious: Erie As The Worst Decision Of All Time, Suzanna Sherry
Pepperdine Law Review
This essay was written for “Supreme Mistakes: Exploring the Most Maligned Decisions in Supreme Court History.” A symposium on the worst Supreme Court decision of all time risks becoming an exercise best described by Claude Rains’s memorable line in Casablanca: “Round up the usual suspects.” Two things saved this symposium from that fate. First, each of the usual suspects was appointed defense counsel, which made things more interesting. Second, a new face found its way into the line-up: Erie Railroad v. Tompkins. My goal in this essay is to explain why Erie is in fact guiltier than all of the …
Putting Buck V. Bell In Scientific And Historical Context: A Response To Victoria Nourse , Edward J. Larson
Putting Buck V. Bell In Scientific And Historical Context: A Response To Victoria Nourse , Edward J. Larson
Pepperdine Law Review
In this article written for a law-review symposium in response to a presentation on the infamous 1927 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Buck v. Bell, Edward J. Larson argues that, at the time that the case was decided, eugenics was on the incline, not the decline. In the 1920s, the American scientific and medical community broadly backed eugenic remedies for various forms of mental illness and retardation. Legislatures, lawyers, and jurists took their cue from this scientific and medical consensus. Absent any question that the statute at issue in Buck v. Bell was validly passed by the Virginia legislature or …
Buck V. Bell: A Constitutional Tragedy From A Lost World, Victoria Nourse
Buck V. Bell: A Constitutional Tragedy From A Lost World, Victoria Nourse
Pepperdine Law Review
The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell, which dealt with the forced sterilization of people deemed unfit, such as intellectually disabled or mentally retarded individuals. Topics include the enforceability of unconstitutional judicial decisions, eugenic sterilization, and the application of substantive due process.
A Reluctant Apology For Plessy: A Response To Akhil Amar, Barry P. Mcdonald
A Reluctant Apology For Plessy: A Response To Akhil Amar, Barry P. Mcdonald
Pepperdine Law Review
A response to the article "Plessy v. Ferguson and the Anti-Canon," by Akhil Amar, published in the November 2011 issue of the "Pepperdine Law Review," is presented. Topics include an examination of Justice Henry Billings Brown's decision in the case, the constitutionality of segregating U.S. citizens by race, and the impact of public opinion on U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Plessy V. Ferguson And The Anti-Canon, Akhil Reed Amar
Plessy V. Ferguson And The Anti-Canon, Akhil Reed Amar
Pepperdine Law Review
The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson, which dealt with the constitutionality of racial segregation in the U.S. Topics include the application of precedent in controversial U.S. Supreme Court cases, when the U.S. Constitution can overrule a court decision, and dissenting judicial opinions.
Coming To Terms With Dred Scott: A Response To Daniel A. Farber, Paul Finkelman
Coming To Terms With Dred Scott: A Response To Daniel A. Farber, Paul Finkelman
Pepperdine Law Review
When thinking about Dred Scott, the issue is not how do we “rehabilitate” the opinion. The goal of scholarship here is to understand the opinion, place it in the context of its own time, and explain its enduring significance. After that, we may praise or damn it, and rehabilitate it or condemn it. No one today likes the Dred Scott opinion or the result. But, this article argues that Professor Daniel A. Farber is so incensed by the opinion that he vastly overstates its historical significance including incorrectly blaming Chief Justice Taney for causing the Civil War. This article rejects …
Anti-Canonical Considerations, Edward J. Larson
Anti-Canonical Considerations, Edward J. Larson
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Propriety Of Jury Questioning: A Remedy For Perceived Harmless Error, Laurie Forbes Neff
The Propriety Of Jury Questioning: A Remedy For Perceived Harmless Error, Laurie Forbes Neff
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Stare Decisis In The Inferior Courts Of The United States, Joseph Mead
Stare Decisis In The Inferior Courts Of The United States, Joseph Mead
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
While circuit courts are bound to fallow circuit precedent under "law of the circuit" the practice among federal district courts is more varied and uncertain, routinely involving little or no deference to their own precedent. I argue that the different hierarchical levels and institutional characteristics do not account for the differences in practices between circuit and district courts. Rather, district courts can and should adopt a "law of the district" similar to that of circuit courts. Through this narrow proposal, I explore the historical stare decisis practices in federal courts that are not Supreme.
Building The Federal Judiciary (Literally And Legally): The Monuments Of Chief Justices Taft, Warren And Rehnquist, Judith Resnik
Building The Federal Judiciary (Literally And Legally): The Monuments Of Chief Justices Taft, Warren And Rehnquist, Judith Resnik
Indiana Law Journal
The “federal courts” took on their now familiar contours over the course of the twentieth century. Three chief justices—William Howard Taft, Earl Warren, and William Rehnquist—played pivotal roles in shaping the institutional, jurisprudential, and physical premises. Taft is well known for promoting a building to house the U.S. Supreme Court and for launching the administrative infrastructure that came to govern the federal courts. Earl Warren’s name has become the shorthand for a jurisprudential shift from state toward federal authority; the Warren Court offered an expansive understanding of the role federal courts could play in enabling access for a host of …