Courts Commons^™

New Developments In Water Rights On Public Lands: Federal Rights And State Interests, Christopher H. Meyer

Water as a Public Resource: Emerging Rights and Obligations (Summer Conference, June 1-3)

25 pages.

Contains footnotes and 2 pages of references.

State Water Planning To Protect Public Needs, David H. Getches

Water as a Public Resource: Emerging Rights and Obligations (Summer Conference, June 1-3)

44 pages.

Nurturing Public Values In The Water Resource—The Montana Way, Matthew W. Williams

Water as a Public Resource: Emerging Rights and Obligations (Summer Conference, June 1-3)

21 pages.

Contains references.

Emerging Policy And Strategy Choices For Protection Of The Groundwater Resource, Richard H. Braun

Water as a Public Resource: Emerging Rights and Obligations (Summer Conference, June 1-3)

22 pages.

Contains 2 pages of references.

Instream Flow Protection In The Western States: A Survey And Comparison, Brian E. Gray

Water as a Public Resource: Emerging Rights and Obligations (Summer Conference, June 1-3)

32 pages.

Contains references.

Federal Regulatory Rights In Water, Lawrence J. Macdonnell

Water as a Public Resource: Emerging Rights and Obligations (Summer Conference, June 1-3)

29 pages.

Contains 1 page of references.

Converting Conditional Water Rights To Instream Flow Protection: A Property Transfer Strategy, David L. Harrison

Water as a Public Resource: Emerging Rights and Obligations (Summer Conference, June 1-3)

64 pages.

Contains references.

Water As A Public Resource: The Legal Basis, Charles F. Wilkinson

Water as a Public Resource: Emerging Rights and Obligations (Summer Conference, June 1-3)

37 pages.

Contains 2 pages of references.

Includes unsigned annotations by David Getches.

Public Access To Shorelines And Beaches: Alternative Approaches And The Taking Issue, Richard Hildreth

Water as a Public Resource: Emerging Rights and Obligations (Summer Conference, June 1-3)

50 pages.

The Use Of “Nonnavigable” Water For Public Purposes, John E. Thorson

Water as a Public Resource: Emerging Rights and Obligations (Summer Conference, June 1-3)

18 pages.

Contains references.

In Defense Of Private Rights In Water, Charles J. Meyers

Water as a Public Resource: Emerging Rights and Obligations (Summer Conference, June 1-3)

4 pages.

Includes unsigned annotations by David Getches.

Agenda: Water As A Public Resource: Emerging Rights And Obligations, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

Water as a Public Resource: Emerging Rights and Obligations (Summer Conference, June 1-3)

Conference organizers and/or faculty included University of Colorado School of Law professors Lawrence J. MacDonnell, David H. Getches, and Charles F. Wilkinson.

This conference focused on the legal rights associated with a broad range of public uses and interests in water including recreation, fish and wildlife protection, and water quality. Evolving legal areas such as the public trust doctrine, instream flow laws, federal reserved rights, and wetlands protection were discussed.

Water as a Public Resource: Emerging Rights and Obligations considered the extension of the public trust doctrine to areas previously not covered by this concept, as well as developments in …

In The Beginning God Created The Public Trust Doctrine?, Ralph W. Johnson

Water as a Public Resource: Emerging Rights and Obligations (Summer Conference, June 1-3)

15 pages.

Water Development, Wildlife And Recreation: Panel, Charles W. Howe

Water as a Public Resource: Emerging Rights and Obligations (Summer Conference, June 1-3)

32 pages.

Contains 5 pages of footnotes and tables and 2 pages of references.

Includes a paper: "Option Value: Empirical Evidence from a Case Study of Recreation and Water Quality" by Douglas A. Greenley, Richard G. Walsh and Robert A. Young. A final version of this paper was published in 96(4) The Quarterly Journal of Economics (1981): 657-673.

The Tensions Of A Dual Court System And Some Prescriptions For Relief, Roger J. Miner '56

Endowed/named Lectures and Keynote Addresses

No abstract provided.

Siamese Essays: (I) Cts Corp. V. Dynamics Corp. Of America And Dormant Commerce Clause Doctrine; (Ii) Extraterritorial State Legislation, Donald H. Regan

Articles

What follows is two essays, related as Siamese twins. Both essays developed from a single conception. They are distinct, but they remain connected by a shared subtopic. The first essay is about CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America1 as a contribution to dormant commerce clause doctrine. The second essay is about the constitutional principle that states may not legislate extraterritorially, which I shall refer to as the "extraterritoriality principle." The shared subtopic is the extraterritoriality problem in CTS. (There is an extraterritoriality problem in CTS, even though the Court does not discuss it in those terms.) I could have …

Citizen's Arrests And The Fourth Amendment--A Fresh Perspective, Howard E. Wallin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

May A Federal Court Remand A Case To State Court After Federal Claims Have Been Deleted?, Joseph P. Bauer

Journal Articles

This Article provides a preview of Carnegie-Mellon University v. Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr., argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 10, 1987. This case concerns the circumstances under which a lawsuit, properly commenced in a state court and then removed before trial to a federal court, may be sent back (remanded) to the state court.

On one level, this case seems only to involve technical interpretations of federal statutes governing procedure in the federal courts. At another level, however, it involves more general and important issues. Among these are how to allocate judicial power …

Tribal Court Jurisdiction Over Civil Disputes Involving Non-Indians: An Assessment Of National Farmers Union Insurance Cos. V. Crow Tribe Of Indians And A Proposal For Reform, Allison M. Dussias

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note examines the issue of tribal court jurisdiction over cases in which both Indians and non-Indians are parties and discusses the Supreme Court's most recent statement on the issue. In National Farmers Union Insurance Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, an Indian minor brought a personal injury action in Crow Tribal Court against a Montana school district operating a school on state-owned land within the Crow Reservation. The Supreme Court concluded that the tribal court itself should first determine whether it has the power to exercise civil subject-matter jurisdiction over non-Indian property owners in a tort case. Defendants …

Texaco V. Pennzoil: The Use And Creation Of Precedent By The Second Circuit, Peter Lushing

Articles

The article critiques the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's decision in *Texaco Inc. v. Pennzoil Company*, arguing that the court's ruling was result-oriented and undermined the integrity of judicial precedent. The decision, which stayed the enforcement of a $11.12 billion state court judgment against Texaco, was based on an expansive interpretation of due process and civil rights law. However, the court's attempt to limit its holding to the "extraordinary circumstances" of the case raises concerns about the consistency and fairness of the judicial process, as it creates a precedent that may not be applicable to smaller stakeholders.

Thinking About Federal Jurisdiction — Of Serpents And Swallows, Thomas E. Baker

Faculty Publications

In this essay, Professor Baker assumes that the decision to get into or stay in federal court has been made, for whatever reason. His concentration is focused on providing a checklist of some of the typical challenges to jurisdiction and to highlight some uncommon responses. Organizationally, he first considers general issues which apply to all cases, and then considers separately some issues in diversity cases and in federal question cases.

The Evisceration Of The Political Offense Exception To Extradition, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

The Supplementary Convention to the Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United States of American and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, was signed on June 25, 1985, and transmitted to the U.S. Senate on July 17, 1985. This article will focus on the portion of the supplementary treaty which effectively eliminates the political offense exception, and on the statement made by the Legal Adviser to the Department of State, the honorable Judge Abraham D. Sofaer, made in favor of the Supplementary Treaty, on August 1, 1985. This article suggests that approval of …

Child Custody - Jurisdiction And Procedure, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

Custody determinations traditionally have comprised a subcategory of litigation under the Pennoyer v. Neff exception for proceedings relating to status. Of course, states have the power to decide the status of their domiciliaries. It was natural, therefore, for the courts and scholars of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to consider domicile the sole basis of jurisdiction in custody matters. Gradually, judges and scholars began to challenge the notion that domicile was the sole basis and courts began to apply other bases, such as the child's presence in the state or personal jurisdiction over both parents. One commentator suggests that …

The Legislative Veto, The Constitution, And The Courts, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

Substantive Policies And Choice Of Law, Willis L. M. Reese

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The State Of New York's State Federal-Judicial Council, Hon. George C. Pratt

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Can Mental Health Professionals Predict Judicial Decisionmaking? Constitutional And Tort Liability Aspects Of The Right Of The Institutionalized Mentally Disabled To Refuse Treatment: On The Cutting Edge, Michael L. Perlin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confronting Unforeseen Problems Under 28 U.S,C. § 1631: The Tenth Circuit Struggles To Properly Dispose Of Tucker Act Claims Within The Exclusive Jurisdiction Of The Claims Court, Paul L. Caron

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Why Professor Redish Is Wrong About Abstention, Michael Wells

Scholarly Works

Most critics of the Supreme Court's abstention doctrines have attacked the substantive merits of rules that channel constitutional litigation away from federal courts and into state courts instead. In a recent article, Martin Redish raises an interesting objection to abstention from a different perspective. He addresses the institutional legitimacy of the rules and contends that whatever their merits, rules like these should be made only by Congress and not the Supreme Court, for they contravene Congress' intent to grant federal courts jurisdiction over constitutional claims against state actors. Part I of this article describes the context in which the choice …

Quantification Of Indian Rights: Problems Of Proof, Harry R. Sachse

The Federal Impact on State Water Rights (Summer Conference, June 11-13)

32 pages.