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 1681 - 1710 of 3115
Full-Text Articles in Courts
Two Cheers For The Constitution Of The United States: A Response To Professor Lee J. Strang, Patrick Mckinley Brennan
Two Cheers For The Constitution Of The United States: A Response To Professor Lee J. Strang, Patrick Mckinley Brennan
Working Paper Series
This article is an invited response to Professor Lee Strang’s article Originalism and the Aristotelian Tradition: Virtue’s Home in Originalism, 80 Fordham L. Rev. 1997 (2012). Strang defends original public meaning originalism from a virtue theoretic perspective that he traces to the “central Western tradition” and ultimately to Aristotle. I reply that those committed to that tradition do better (1) to reject original pubic meaning originalism, (2) to embrace some version of original intent originalism, and (3) to defend the original intent meaning of the U.S. Constitution only with important reservations and on certain conditions. The original sin of …
The Supreme Court’S Regulation Of Civil Procedure: Lessons From Administrative Law, Lumen N. Mulligan, Glen Staszewski
The Supreme Court’S Regulation Of Civil Procedure: Lessons From Administrative Law, Lumen N. Mulligan, Glen Staszewski
Faculty Works
In this Article, we argue that the Supreme Court should route most Federal Rules of Civil Procedure issues through the notice-and-comment rulemaking process of the Civil Rules Advisory Committee instead of issuing judgments in adjudications, unless the case can be resolved solely through the deployment of traditional tools of statutory construction. While we are not the first to express a preference for rulemaking on civil procedure issues, we advance the position in four significant ways. First, we argue that the Supreme Court in the civil procedure arena is vested with powers analogous to most administrative agencies. Second, building upon this …
The Worst Supreme Court Case Ever? Identifying, Assessing, And Exploring Low Moments Of The High Court, Jeffrey W. Stempel
The Worst Supreme Court Case Ever? Identifying, Assessing, And Exploring Low Moments Of The High Court, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Hustler V. Falwell: Worst Case In The History Of The World, Maybe The Universe, John M. Kang
Hustler V. Falwell: Worst Case In The History Of The World, Maybe The Universe, John M. Kang
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Ashcroft V. Iqbal: Contempt For Rules, Statutes, The Constitution, And Elemental Fairness, Steve Subrin
Ashcroft V. Iqbal: Contempt For Rules, Statutes, The Constitution, And Elemental Fairness, Steve Subrin
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Contract Law Walks The Plank: Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. V. Shute, Charles L. Knapp
Contract Law Walks The Plank: Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. V. Shute, Charles L. Knapp
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. V. Shute: The Titanic Of Worst Decisions, Linda S. Mullenix
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. V. Shute: The Titanic Of Worst Decisions, Linda S. Mullenix
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Terrace V. Thompson And The Legacy Of Manifest Destiny, Jean Stefancic
Terrace V. Thompson And The Legacy Of Manifest Destiny, Jean Stefancic
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Lassiter V. Department Of Social Services: Why Is It Such A Lousy Case?, Brooke D. Coleman
Lassiter V. Department Of Social Services: Why Is It Such A Lousy Case?, Brooke D. Coleman
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Setting Us Up For Disaster: The Supreme Court's Decision In Terry V. Ohio, Thomas B. Mcaffee
Setting Us Up For Disaster: The Supreme Court's Decision In Terry V. Ohio, Thomas B. Mcaffee
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Ricci V. Destefano: Diluting Disparate Impact And Redefining Disparate Treatment, Ann C. Mcginley
Ricci V. Destefano: Diluting Disparate Impact And Redefining Disparate Treatment, Ann C. Mcginley
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Nigro V. United States: The Most Disingenuous Supreme Court Opinion, Ever, A. Christopher Bryant
Nigro V. United States: The Most Disingenuous Supreme Court Opinion, Ever, A. Christopher Bryant
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Circumstance And Strategy: Jointly Authored Supreme Court Opinions, Laura Krugman Ray
Circumstance And Strategy: Jointly Authored Supreme Court Opinions, Laura Krugman Ray
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Congress, The Constitution, And Supreme Court Recusal, Louis J. Virelli Iii
Congress, The Constitution, And Supreme Court Recusal, Louis J. Virelli Iii
Washington and Lee Law Review
Recusal is one of the most hotly contested issues facing the Supreme Court. From the wide-ranging debate over Supreme Court recusal, however, a singular theme has emerged: Congress must do more to protect the integrity and legitimacy of the Court by regulating the Justices’ recusal practices. Herein lies the problem. Rather than solve the puzzle of Supreme Court recusal, direct congressional regulation has created an impasse between Congress and the Court that has consequences for the reputation, efficacy, and legitimacy of both Branches. In a precursor to this Article, I recast the issue of Supreme Court recusal as a constitutional …
Blackmun (And Scalia) At The Bat: The Court's Separation-Of-Powers Strike Out In Freytag, Tuan Samahon
Blackmun (And Scalia) At The Bat: The Court's Separation-Of-Powers Strike Out In Freytag, Tuan Samahon
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Naim V. Naim, Richard Delgado
Bush V. Gore: The Worst (Or At Least Second-To-The-Worst) Supreme Court Decision Ever, Mark S. Brodin
Bush V. Gore: The Worst (Or At Least Second-To-The-Worst) Supreme Court Decision Ever, Mark S. Brodin
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
On Teaching Conflicts And Why I Dislike Allstate Insurance Co. V. Hague, Thomas O. Main
On Teaching Conflicts And Why I Dislike Allstate Insurance Co. V. Hague, Thomas O. Main
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Lynch And The Lunacy Of Secularized Religion, Frederick Mark Gedicks
Lynch And The Lunacy Of Secularized Religion, Frederick Mark Gedicks
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Globe Refining Co. V. Landa Cotton Oil Co. And The Dark Side Of Reputation, Larry T. Garvin
Globe Refining Co. V. Landa Cotton Oil Co. And The Dark Side Of Reputation, Larry T. Garvin
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Tending To Potted Plants: The Professional Identity Vacuum In Garcetti V. Ceballos, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Tending To Potted Plants: The Professional Identity Vacuum In Garcetti V. Ceballos, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Hiding Behind The Cloak Of Invisibility: The Supreme Court And Per Curiam Opinions, Ira Robbins
Hiding Behind The Cloak Of Invisibility: The Supreme Court And Per Curiam Opinions, Ira Robbins
Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals
Per curiam--literally translated from Latin to "by the court"-is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "[a]n opinion handed down by an appellate court without identifying the individual judge who wrote the opinion." Accordingly the author of a per curiam opinion is meant to be institutional rather than individual, attributable to the court as an entity rather than to a single judge The United States Supreme Court issues a significant number of per curiam dispositions each Term. In the first six years of Chief Justice John Roberts’ tenure, almost nine percent of the Court full opinions were per curiams. The prevalence …
Supreme Court Institute Annual Report, 2011-2012, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute
Supreme Court Institute Annual Report, 2011-2012, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute
SCI Papers & Reports
During the 2011-2012 academic year--corresponding to the U.S. Supreme Court’s October Term (OT) 2011--the Supreme Court Institute (SCI) provided moot courts for advocates in over 94% of the cases heard by the Court this Term and offered over a dozen programs related to the Supreme Court. All SCI moot courts held in OT 2011, listed by sitting and date of moot, and including the name and affiliation of each advocate and the number of student observers, follows the narrative portion of this report.
Swing Votes On The Current Supreme Court: The Joint Opinion In Casey And Its Progeny, R. Randall Kelso, Charles D. Kelso
Swing Votes On The Current Supreme Court: The Joint Opinion In Casey And Its Progeny, R. Randall Kelso, Charles D. Kelso
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Lost Controversy Limitation Of The Federal Arbitration Act, Stephen R. Friedman
The Lost Controversy Limitation Of The Federal Arbitration Act, Stephen R. Friedman
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Lay Of The Land: Examining The Three Opinions In J. Mcintyre Machinery, Ltd. V. Nicastro, Adam N. Steinman
The Lay Of The Land: Examining The Three Opinions In J. Mcintyre Machinery, Ltd. V. Nicastro, Adam N. Steinman
Faculty Scholarship
It was a long time coming. The Supreme Court's decisions last Term in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown ended a two-decade high-court hiatus from the subject of personal jurisdiction. In McIntyre, the more controversial of the two, the Court concludes that New Jersey state courts lacked jurisdiction over a British manufacturer in a suit by a New Jersey plaintiff who was injured in New Jersey by a machine purchased by his New Jersey employer. McIntyre lacks a majority opinion, however. Instead we have a four-Justice plurality authored by Justice Kennedy, a …
Agenda: A Life Of Contributions For All Time: Symposium In Honor Of David H. Getches, University Of Colorado Boulder. School Of Law, University Of Colorado Law Review
Agenda: A Life Of Contributions For All Time: Symposium In Honor Of David H. Getches, University Of Colorado Boulder. School Of Law, University Of Colorado Law Review
A Life of Contributions for All Time: Symposium in Honor of David H. Getches (April 26-27)
On April 26-27, 2012, Colorado Law honored David H. Getches with a symposium to celebrate his life and legacy of trailblazing scholarship. “A Life of Contributions for All Time” featured a keynote address by Distinguished Professor Charles Wilkinson entitled, “Hero for the People, Hero for the Land and Water: Reflections on the Enduring Contributions of David Getches.” Top scholars in the fields of natural resources, water, and American Indian law reflected on Dean Getches’ contributions and their own insights into these fields, including Professor John Leshy, John Echohawk, Professor Carole Goldberg, Professor Joe Sax, Professor Rebecca Tsosie, Justice Greg Hobbs, …
Modern Odysseus Or Classic Fraud - Fourteen Years In Prison For Civil Contempt Without A Jury Trial, Judicial Power Without Limitation, And An Examination Of The Failure Of Due Process, Mitchell J. Frank
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Discretionary (In)Justice: The Exercise Of Discretion In Claims For Asylum, Kate Aschenbrenner
Discretionary (In)Justice: The Exercise Of Discretion In Claims For Asylum, Kate Aschenbrenner
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Section 208(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides that asylum may be granted to an applicant who meets the definition of a refugee-that is, someone who has been persecuted or has a well-founded fear of future persecution in her own country on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Asylum is a discretionary form of relief which means that the United States government is not required to grant asylum to every refugee within the United States but instead may decide whether or not to do so. This Article sets out in Part …