Courts Commons^™

Reading Too Much Into Reeder-Simco?, Jeremy M. Suhr

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that a careful analysis of the Supreme Court's opinion in Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc. demonstrates that, despite the expansive dicta appearing in part IV of that opinion, the Court did not intend to reshape the course of its Robinson-Patman Act jurisprudence in any significant way. The Court's opinion operated well within the confines of established Robinson-Patman Act doctrine, even if its searching review of the evidence presented at trial represented a rare foray into the arena of factual error correction. After Reeder-Simco, however, many commentators emphasized the dicta in part IV …

The Contribution Of The Special Court For Sierra Leone To The Development Of International Law, Charles C. Jalloh

Articles

No abstract provided.

Civil Case Appellate Standards Of Review (And A Very Few Unavoidable Related Propositions Of Law), Updated And Revised (Current Through August 3, 2007), Alan G. Gless

State of Nebraska Judicial Branch

Why would a district court judge write about or revise an appellate court judge’s work on appellate standards of review and related propositions of law in civil cases? Well, two reasons – a change in legal mind set and fifteen years’ worth of changes in appellate practice. First, and foremost, when Judge Irwin collected in a single work his 1992 Standards of Review and Propositions of Law, Civil, he was the first in recent Nebraska legal history to do so. Those of us who have used his work owe him our thanks; his contribution was invaluable to both the bench …

"Sociological Legitimacy" In Supreme Court Opinions, Michael Wells

Scholarly Works

Analysis of a Supreme Court opinion ordinarily begins from the premise that the opinion is a transparent window into the Court's thinking, such that the reasons offered by the Court are, or ought to be, the reasons that account for the holding. Scholars debate the strength of the Court's reasoning, question or defend the Court's candor, and propose alternative ways of justifying the ruling. This Article takes issue with the transparency premise, on both descriptive and normative grounds. Especially in controversial cases, the Court is at least as much concerned with presenting its holding in a way that will win …

The Wait Is Over: Chevron As The Stealth Vermont Yankee Ii, Paul R. Verkuil

Articles

The article argues that the Chevron doctrine has effectively served as a means to moderate the hard-look review of agency rulemaking, rendering the anticipated Vermont Yankee II case unnecessary. It posits that Chevron's deference to agency interpretations of statutes has softened the impact of State Farm's stringent arbitrary-and-capricious review standard, aligning more closely with the judicial restraint envisioned by Vermont Yankee.

The Future Of Footnote Four, Dan T. Coenen

Scholarly Works

The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Carolene Products Co. generated the most famous footnote-and perhaps the most famous passage-in all of the American Judiciary's treatment of constitutional law. Among other things, Footnote Four suggested that "prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry." The importance of this principle cannot be overstated. It pervaded the work of the Warren Court and has played a prominent role …

'Prima Paint' Pushed Compulsory Aribitration Under The 'Erie' Train, Richard L. Barnes

ExpressO

As the face of commerce changes, the law usually follows, albeit at some distance. The United States Supreme Court has recently sped the pace. In a line of cases, some old, some recent, but all feeding off of one another, the Court has held that challenges to agreements which contain arbitration provisions must go to the arbitrator first. Courts may hear formational challenges only where they challenge the arbitration provision alone. In the Supreme Court, arbitration, with its vast potential for abuse as well as for good, has found a friend.

The Court’s doctrine of choice, “severability,” raises serious concerns …

Interrogation Of Detainees: Extending A Hand Or A Boot?, Amos N. Guiora

ExpressO

The so called “war on terror” provides the Bush administration with a unique opportunity to both establish clear guidelines for the interrogation of detainees and to make a forceful statement about American values. How the government chooses to act can promote either an ethical commitment to the norms of civil society, or an attitude analogous to Toby Keith’s “American Way,” where Keith sings that “you’ll be sorry that you messed with the USofA, ‘Cuz we’ll put a boot in your ass, It’s the American Way.”

No aspect of the “war on terrorism” more clearly addresses this balance than coercive interrogation. …

Who Is Entitled To Survivor Benefits From Erisa Plans?, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 919 (2007), Albert Feuer

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Expert Testimony Disclosure Under Federal Rule 26: A Proposed Amendment, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 117 (2007), Keith H. Beyler

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Process Is Due In The Adjudication Of Erisa Claims?, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 811 (2007), Mark D. Debofsky

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Building Support For Strong, Fair, And Impartial Courts, Michael A. Wolff

Indiana Law Journal

Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators Annual Meeting July 29-August 2, 2006 Indianapolis, Indiana.

Nebraska Probation Revocation: A Primer (2007 Revision), Alan G. Gless

State of Nebraska Judicial Branch

The law of probation revocation developed rapidly over the eighteen years preceding this article’s 1989 appearance. While its development has slowed substantially since then, it continues to evolve. The overall field of Nebraska probation revocation remains essentially unchanged from the way it was in 1989 when this article first appeared. The case law has neither burgeoned dramatically nor altered the scenery in major ways, although, it has added a few refinements. But important procedural and substantive wrinkles have appeared through 2003 statutory amendments to the steps probation officers must take in responding to probationers’ violations of the conditions of their …

A Constitutional Significance For Precedent: Originalism, Stare Decisis, And Property Rights, Polly J. Price

Faculty Articles

The discussions in this Article proceed as follows. Part I briefly introduces several areas of contemporary debate for which this inquiry is relevant. In Part II, I examine previous scholarly evaluations of the doctrine of precedent in the formative period. I provide an alternative explanation for the adoption by American courts of rhetoric favoring stare decisis, one that links the rhetoric used by these courts with the predominant property discourse of the Founding period and with the Marshall Court’s subsequent emphasis on vested rights and the Contracts Clause. I suggest that the stare decisis property rule gained widespread acceptance as …

Client Responsibility For Lawyer Conduct: Examining The Agency Nature Of The Lawyer-Client Relationship., Grace M. Giesel

Faculty and Staff Scholarship

In the 1962 decision of Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., the United States Supreme Court reviewed a district court's sua sponte dismissal of a diversity negligence action. Six years after the plaintiff filed the matter, the district court scheduled a pretrial conference and gave counsel two weeks notice of the scheduled conference. On the day of the conference, plaintiffs counsel called the court to say that he would be unable to attend the conference, giving the impolitic reason that he was busy preparing some documents for the state supreme court. The attorney did not attend the conference, and the district …

A Complete Property Right Amendment, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

The trend of the eminent domain reform and "Kelo plus" initiatives is toward a comprehensive Constitutional property right incorporating the elements of level of review, nature of government action, and extent of compensation. This article contains a draft amendment which reflects these concerns.

Panel Report: Beyond Article Iii Courts: Military Tribunals, Status Review Tribunals, And Immigration Courts, Robert M. Chesney

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article explores the tension between national security interests and procedural fairness in the use of secret evidence across non-Article III contexts, including military tribunals, Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs), and immigration courts. It examines the challenges of balancing government secrecy with individual rights, emphasizing the need for procedural safeguards to navigate this complex issue.

The Slow Erosion Of The Adversary System: Article Iii Courts, Fisa, Cipa And Ethical Dilemmas, Ellen C. Yaroshefsky

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article examines the increasing reliance on secret evidence in U.S. legal proceedings, particularly in post-9/11 national security and terrorism cases, facilitated by the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This trend undermines the adversarial system by denying defendants access to relevant information, raising ethical concerns for defense attorneys, and potentially eroding constitutional rights. The author advocates for reforms to balance national security with civil liberties, emphasizing the need for judicial vigilance and legislative changes to address these issues.

Rabbinic Contestations Of Authority, Christine Hayes

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Herding Bullfrogs Towards A More Balanced Wheelbarrow: An Illustrative Recommendation For Federal Sentencing Post-Booker, Brian R. Gallini, Emily Q. Shults

ExpressO

The Article argues in favor of shifting the balance in federal sentencing toward a more indeterminate system. By exploring the post-Booker legal landscape at both the federal and state levels, the Article asserts that the judiciary's continued reliance on the “advisory" Guidelines has practically changed federal sentencing procedures very little in form or function. Accordingly, the Article proffers that, rather than insisting upon the Guidelines' immutability, federal sentencing would do well to reflect upon its own history, and the evolution of its state counterparts.

Radicals In Robes: A Review, Dru Stevenson

ExpressO

This essay reviews and critiques Cass Sunstein’s new book about conservative activists in the federal judiciary. After a discussion of Sunstein’s (somewhat misleading) rhetorical nomenclature, this essay argues that Sunstein’s proposed “minimalist” methodology in constitutional jurisprudence is beneficial, but not for the reasons Sunstein suggests. Sunstein alternatively justifies judicial restraint or incrementalism on epistemological self-doubt (cautiousness being an outgrowth of uncertainty) and his fear that accomplishments by Progressives in the last century will be undone by conservative judges in the present. Constitutional incrementalism is more convincingly justified on classical economic grounds. While affirming Sunstein’s overall thesis, this essay offers an …

Tough Talk From The Supreme Court On Free Speech: The Illusory Per Se Rule In Garcetti As Further Evidence Of Connick’S Unworkable Employee/Citizen Speech Partition, Sonya K. Bice

ExpressO

Garcetti v. Ceballos was intended to clear up an area of First Amendment law so murky that it was the source not only of circuit splits but also of intra-circuit splits—panels from within the same circuit had arrived at opposite results in nearly identical cases. As it turned out, the Supreme Court itself was as splintered as the circuits. Of all the previously argued cases that remained undecided during the Court’s transition involving Justice O’Connor’s retirement and Justice Alito’s confirmation, Garcetti was the only one for which the Court ordered a second argument. This suggested to some that without a …

When Should Judges Appoint Experts?: A Law And Economics Perspective, Jonathan T. Tomlin, David Cooper

ExpressO

The Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals placed federal judges in the role of “gatekeepers” empowered to evaluate the reliability of often complex expert testimony. Many judges, commentators, and legal scholars have argued that court-appointed experts can assist judges in appropriately carrying out their gatekeeping role. However, previous literature has not evaluated the role of court-appointed experts in a rigorous framework that considers the complex interaction of the incentives of expert witnesses, the impact of expert witnesses on the decision-making of the fact finder, and the knowledge of the judge. In this article, we provide such a …

A Defense Of Structural Injunctive Remedies In South African Law, Danielle E. Hirsch

ExpressO

This Article argues that the use of structural injunction remedies by South African courts is appropriate, and, in light of demonstrated government inaction, often necessary in order to give meaning to the protection of socio-economic rights, which is mandated by their Constitution. The Article draws upon numerous United States judicial decisions where structural injunctions have been successfully implemented to address systemic institutional inaction and violations of the equal protection and due process clauses of the United States Constitution. In numerous instances, the South African government has not acted to effectively give meaning to the socio-economic rights which were broadly declared …

Searches & The Misunderstood History Of Suspicion & Probable Cause: Part One, Fabio Arcila

ExpressO

This article, the first of a two-part series, argues that during the Framers’ era many if not most judges believed they could issue search warrants without independently assessing the adequacy of probable cause, and that this view persisted even after the Fourth Amendment became effective. This argument challenges the leading originalist account of the Fourth Amendment, which Professor Thomas Davies published in the Michigan Law Review in 1999.

The focus in this first article is upon an analysis of the common law and how it reflected the Fourth Amendment’s restrictions. Learned treatises in particular, and to a lesser extent a …

The Roberts Court: Year 1, Lori A. Ringhand

ExpressO

This paper is an empirical examination of the recently ended 2005 Supreme Court term. The paper, in addition to reviewing the work of the Court as a whole, also examines the jurisprudence of new justices Roberts and Alito. In doing so, it proposes the intriguing possibility that these two justices may share a jurisprudential approach different from the Court's more established conservatives. If correct, this raises numerous and interesting possibilities for the future of conservativism on the Supreme Court.

Bond Repudiation, Tax Codes, The Appropriations Process And Restitution Post-Eminent Domain Reform, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

This brief comment suggests where the anti-eminent domain movement might be heading next.

The “Csi Effect”: Better Jurors Through Television And Science?, Michael D. Mann

ExpressO

This Comment discusses how television shows such as CSI and Law & Order create heightened juror expectations. This will be published in the Buffalo Public Interest Law Journal's 2005-2006 issue.

The Decision Maker Matters: An Empirical Examination Of The Way The Role Of The Judge And The Jury Influence Death Penalty Decision-Making, William J. Bowers, Wanda D. Foglia, Jean E. Giles, Michael E. Antonio

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Review Essay: Radicals In Robes , Dru Stevenson

ExpressO

This essay reviews and critiques Cass Sunstein’s new book entitled Radicals in Robes. After a discussion of Sunstein’s (somewhat misleading) rhetorical nomenclature, this essay argues that Sunstein’s proposed “minimalist” methodology in constitutional jurisprudence is beneficial, but not for the reasons Sunstein suggests. Sunstein alternatively justifies judicial restraint or incrementalism on epistemological self-doubt (cautiousness being an outgrowth of uncertainty) and his fear that accomplishments by Progressives in the last century will be undone by conservative judges in the present. Constitutional incrementalism is more convincingly justified on classical economic grounds. While affirming Sunstein’s overall thesis, this essay offers an alternative rationale for …