Courts Commons^™

Georgia's New Evidence Code - An Overview, Paul S. Milich

Georgia State University Law Review

On May 3, 2011, Governor Nathan Deal signed into law House Bill 24 (HB 24) bringing a new set of evidence rules to the State of Georgia.

The new rules went into effect on January 1, 2013. The author of this article was the Reporter for the State Bar Evidence Study Committee when new rules were first proposed back in the mid-1980s, and again throughout the recent, successful effort to reform the rules.

Part I of this article will give a brief history of the twenty-six-year effort to bring new evidence rules to Georgia. Part II will provide a structural …

Sailing Around Erie: The Emergence Of A Federal General Common Law Of Arbitration , Kenneth F. Dunham

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This paper traces the history of American arbitration from the common law to the FAA. It discusses the FAA as a procedural act prior to Southland v. Keating and as a substantive law act following Southland. It discusses the Erie doctrine as applicable to federal courts and state law preemption. The article concludes that Southland by-passed Erie using the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause to create a federal common law of arbitration.

Unraveling The Mystery Of Wilko V. Swan: American Arbitration Vacatur Law And The Accidental Demise Of Party Autonomy , James M. Gaitis

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This article begins with a brief description of what the Wilko Court said with respect to the vacatur of arbitral awards and how federal and state appellate courts have construed that language. Traditional American arbitration vacatur law, including but not limited to the cases relied upon by the Wilko Court, are then reviewed in depth such that the Wilko decision and the Wilko Court's choice of language may be placed in context and fully examined. The intent and proper operation of the FAA are then discussed based on both the legislative history of the FAA and other authorities that consistently …

A Reflection On American Justice At A Crossroads: A Public And Private Crisis, Maureen A. Weston

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

In April, 2010, a prominent group of judges, attorneys, academics, private dispute resolution professionals, and policymakers gathered to reflect upon the current state and future of the American justice system. A symposium entitled American Justice at a Crossroads: A Public and Private Crisis was held at Pepperdine University School of Law under the joint sponsorship of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, the Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, and the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR Institute). This special symposium edition of the Journal is comprised of select papers and speeches presented at that event and provide thoughtful …

American Justice At A Crossroads: Remarks Of Thomas J. Stipanowich, Thomas J. Stipanowich

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

In April, 2010, a prominent group of judges, attorneys, academics, private dispute resolution professionals, and policymakers gathered to reflect upon the current state and future of the American justice system. A symposium entitled American Justice at a Crossroads: A Public and Private Crisis was held at Pepperdine University School of Law under the joint sponsorship of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, the Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, and the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR Institute). This special symposium edition of the Journal is comprised of select papers and speeches presented at that event and provide thoughtful …

American Justice At A Crossroads: Remarks Of Kathleen Bryan, Kathleen Bryan

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

In April, 2010, a prominent group of judges, attorneys, academics, private dispute resolution professionals, and policymakers gathered to reflect upon the current state and future of the American justice system. A symposium entitled American Justice at a Crossroads: A Public and Private Crisis was held at Pepperdine University School of Law under the joint sponsorship of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, the Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, and the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR Institute). This special symposium edition of the Journal is comprised of select papers and speeches presented at that event and provide thoughtful …

American Justice At A Crossroads: Opening Remarks, Kenneth Starr

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

In April, 2010, a prominent group of judges, attorneys, academics, private dispute resolution professionals, and policymakers gathered to reflect upon the current state and future of the American justice system. A symposium entitled American Justice at a Crossroads: A Public and Private Crisis was held at Pepperdine University School of Law under the joint sponsorship of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, the Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, and the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR Institute). This special symposium edition of the Journal is comprised of select papers and speeches presented at that event and provide thoughtful …

An Unnecessary Consternation: An Analysis Of The Future Of Eu Arbitration In The Wake Of The West Tankers Decision, Mark G. Materna

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This article proposes that, despite the West Tankers decision, parties are still not free to breach the terms of an arbitration agreement. On the contrary, there has been a strong trend by English courts to find ways of preventing parties from breaching such agreements. In short, this article serves to quell the panic and elucidate that the West Tankers decision is not a nail in the coffin, but rather a mechanism to reiterate European courts' dedication to ensuring that arbitration provisions remain a potent force against economic infidelity. Part II of this article will provide a brief background of anti-suit …

Waiving Rights Goodbye: Class Action Waivers In Arbitration Agreements After Stolt-Nielsen V. Animalfeeds International , Diana M. Link, Richard A. Bales

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This article first argues that to determine the enforceability of a class action waiver, courts should take a "totality of the circumstances" approach rather than adopting a bright-line rule. A set of defined factors that also allows courts to consider real-world issues facing litigants will provide a substantial framework for courts to interpret this area of the law and will lead to more consistent and well-reasoned outcomes in the future. These factors include: the probable size of each class member's individual recovery, the potential for retaliation against class members, the awareness of potential class members that their rights have been …

Random Chance Or Loaded Dice: The Politics Of Judicial Designation, Todd C. Peppers, Katherine Vigilante, Christopher Zorn

Scholarly Articles

Here, we take advantage of a unique characteristic of the procedures of the U.S. courts of appeals—the discretion held by chief judges to designate district court judges to three-judge appellate panels— to examine empirically the importance of oversight and judicial hierarchy on judges' behavior in those courts. Specifically, we examine the extent to which decisions about the policy preferences of designated judges vary systematically with the ideological tenor of the chief judge himself, the court as a whole, and the U.S. Supreme Court. More simply put, we ask: are district court judges selected to sit on appeals court panels simply …

Veterans Court: Towards The Implementation Of A Collaborative Justice Model In San Luis Obispo County, Daniel Smee

Continuing Education (CAPSTONE)

Veterans’ treatment courts represent an emerging trend across the country of collaborative justice designed to deal with criminal justice issues stemming from problems linked to military service. This approach places the veteran in VA (Veterans Affairs) treatment programs as a diversion from incarceration. There are few such courts in California (nine) largely in non-rural counties. This study investigated two rural counties, Tulare and Santa Barbara with Veterans courts to develop a model for such a court in San Luis Obispo County. Early recidivism data at the one-year point for Tulare County showed a zero percent rate of criminal behavior (12 …

Legal Affinities: Explorations In The Legal Form Of Thought, Patrick Mckinley Brennan

Working Paper Series

This is my Introduction to Legal Affinities: Explorations in the Legal Form of Thought (forthcoming 2012) (co-edited with H. Jefferson Powell and Jack Sammons), a volume of essays dedicated to exploring the work of Joseph Vining. The Introduction introduces Vining’s phenomenology of law and surveys the themes and topics developed by the volume’s eight authors: Joseph Vining, Judge John T. Noonan, Jr., Rev. John McCausland, H. Jefferson Powell, Jack Sammons, Steve Smith, James Boyd White, and Patrick Brennan.

On Locating The Rights Of Lost, 45 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1051 (2012), Ricardo A. Sunga Iii

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Faa Law, Without The Activism: What If The Bellwether Cases Were Decided By A Truly Conservative Court, Richard C. Reuben

Faculty Publications

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided an extraordinary number of cases under the Federal Arbitration Act in the last half century, a pattern that continues today at the pace of a case or two a year. During this time, Republican presidential candidates have made much political hay out of the Supreme Court, running against the Warren Court’s “liberal activism” by promising to appoint judges who would decide cases more conservatively. In this article, I analyze whether this promise has been fulfilled in the context of the Supreme Court’s FAA jurisprudence by identifying the core principles of judicial conservatism – restraint, …

Professionalism And Advocacy At Trial – Real Jurors Speak In Detail About The Performance Of Their Advocates, Mitchell J. Frank, Osvaldo F. Morera

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Ideological Divide: Conflict And The Supreme Court's Certiorari Decision , Emily Grant, Scott A. Hendrickson, Michael S. Lynch

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article bridges a gap in existing literature by evaluating, from an empirical perspective, the impact of conflict among the lower courts on the Supreme Court’s decision to grant or deny a petition for a writ of certiorari. Specifically, this Article looks at the political ideology of the lower courts involved in a split of authority on federal law and compares those positions to the political ideology of the Supreme Court itself. This Article concludes that the ideological content of lower court opinions in a conflict case impacts the Supreme Court’s certiorari decisions in a statistically significant way, and thus …

Africa And The International Criminal Court, Charles C. Jalloh

Articles

No abstract provided.

Judicial Decision Making In A World Of Natural Law And Natural Rights, George C. Christie

Faculty Scholarship

This article was my contribution to a symposium celebrating the achievements of John Finnis held at the Villanova University School of Law. Finnis’ greatest work is his Natural Law and Natural Rights. I agree with Finnis’ rejection of an approach to natural law which focuses on the notion of natural rights. Finnis’ approach instead focuses on a natural law that is based on the idea that there are certain basic human goods such as the search for knowledge, the maintenance of life, the sharing of fellowship with other human beings, the capacity to enjoy aesthetic experiences, and the exercise …

No Justice In Utah's Justice Courts: Constitutional Issues, Systemic Problems, And The Failure To Protect Defendants In Utah's Infamous Local Courts, Samuel P. Newton, Teresa L. Welch, Neal G. Hamilton

Utah OnLaw: The Utah Law Review Online Supplement

Utah’s justice of the peace courts look and feel exactly like district courts, yet they lack the benefits and protections afforded to citizens charged with more serious offenses. Utah should strongly consider abolishing its justice courts in order to integrate them into a statewide system of justice that would “keep the peace” for all of the state’s citizens. If Utah does not abolish its justice courts, then it should implement the procedures and reforms outlined in this Article. Utah continues to have an opportunity to provide meaningful, and constitutional, justice administered at its local level. Once these reforms were implemented, …

The Distinctiveness Of Appellate Adjudication, Heidi Li Feldman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This paper concerns two topics which, I hope to show, are vitally connected. One is the distinctive importance of appellate adjudication in the legal system of United States. The other is the workings of entangled concepts in the law. That appellate adjudication is important in some sense may seem obvious to everybody (to a few it will seem obvious that appellate adjudication is unimportant). My point will be that via appellate adjudication courts engineer entangled legal concepts, and it is this aspect of appellate adjudication that is both crucial and unique to it, at least in the U.S. legal system. …

New Paths For The Court: Protections Afforded Juveniles Under Miranda; Effective Assistance Of Counsel; And Habeas Corpus Decisions Of The Supreme Court’S 2010/2011 Term, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Eleventh Annual Albert A. Destefano Lecture On Corporate, Securities & Financial Law At The Fordham Corporate Law Center: Are Federal Judges Competent? Dilettantes In An Age Of Economic Expertise, The Honorable Jed Rakoff

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

The title of my little talk here tonight is “Are

Federal Judges Competent?” This naturally raises the question of whether I am competent to answer that question. I put this question to myself, and, after careful consideration of both sides of the argument, concluded that I am competent to determine whether I am competent. As H. L. Mencken once said, “A judge is a law student who grades his own exams.”

Decarceration Courts: Possibilities And Perils Of A Shifting Criminal Law, Allegra M. Mcleod

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

A widely decried crisis confronts U.S. criminal law. Jails and prisons are overcrowded and violence plagued. Additional causes for alarm include the rate of increase of incarcerated populations, their historically and internationally unprecedented size, their racial disproportionality, and exorbitant associated costs. Although disagreement remains over the precise degree by which incarceration ought to be reduced, there is a growing consensus that some measure of decarceration is desirable.

With hopes of reducing reliance on conventional criminal supervision and incarceration, specialized criminal courts proliferated dramatically over the past two decades. There are approximately 3,000 specialized criminal courts in the United States, including …

Could Specialized Criminal Courts Help Contain The Crises Of Overcriminalization And Overincarceration?, Allegra M. Mcleod

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In contrast to the existing scholarly commentary on specialized criminal courts, which is largely trapped in the mode of advocacy—alternately celebratory or disparaging, and insufficiently attentive to the remarkable variation between different specialized criminal courts—this article introduces an analytic framework and critical theoretical account of four contending criminal law reformist models at work in specialized criminal courts. These four criminal law reformist models include:

(1) a therapeutic jurisprudence model,

(2) a judicial monitoring model,

(3) an order maintenance model, and

(4) a decarceration model.

Based on a multi-method approach consisting of site visits, and an analysis of archived interviews, the …

The Anti-Messiness Principle In Statutory Interpretation, Anita S. Krishnakumar

Faculty Publications

Many of the Supreme Court's statutory interpretation opinions reflect a juisprudential aversion to interpreting statutes in a manner that will prove "messy" for implementing courts to administer. Yet the practice of construing statutes to avoid "messiness" has gone largely unnoticed in the statutory interpretation literature. This Article seeks to illuminate the Court's use of "anti-messiness" arguments to interpret statutes and to bring theoretical attention to the principle of "messiness" avoidance. The Article begins by defining the concept of anti-messiness and providing a typology of common anti-messiness arguments used by the Supreme Court. It then considers some dangers inherent in the …

A Judicial Retrospective: Significant Decisions By The Arkansas Supreme Court From 1991 Through 2011, Robert L. Brown

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

In 2008, a study issued by the University of Chicago ranked the Arkansas Supreme Court as the second best state supreme court in the nation, based on the justices' productivity in issuing opinions, quality of opinions, and independence from partisan pressures. The last two decades have seen the Arkansas Supreme Court issue a multitude of opinions considering separation of powers, public education, prior restraint of the press, expanded rights under the Arkansas Constitution, class actions and tort reform.

This article highlights many of the most significant opinions from the last two decades and comments on their impact in Arkansas and …

Contemporary Meaning And Expectations In Statutory Interpretation, Hillel Y. Levin

Scholarly Works

This Article introduces and explores an approach to, or theme within, statutory interpretation, one grounded in contemporary meaning and expectations. This approach posits that judges interpreting ambiguous statutes are and should be constrained by the understanding and expectations of the contemporary public as to the law’s meaning and application. These are developed in response to, and mediated by, the actions and statements of government officials and the broader community. The Article argues that this apparently radical approach is necessary in order for law to maintain its moral force, and further that the principles underlying it are embedded in several doctrines …

Justice John Paul Stevens, Originalist, Diane Marie Amann

Scholarly Works

Commentators, including the author of a recent book on the Supreme Court, often attempt to give each Justice a methodological label, such as “practitioner of judicial restraint,” “legal realist,” “pragmatist,” or “originalist.” This Essay first demonstrates that none of the first three labels applies without fail to Justice John Paul Stevens; consequently, it explores the extent to which Justice Stevens’s jurisprudence paid heed to the fourth method, “originalism.” It looks in particular at Justice Stevens’s opinions in recent cases involving firearms, national security, and capital punishment. Somewhat at odds with conventional wisdom, the Essay reveals Justice Stevens as a kind …

The Chevron Two-Step In Georgia's Administrative Law, David Shipley

Scholarly Works

The Georgia Supreme Court and Court of Appeals have long accepted the General Assembly’s authority to enact legislation that establishes administrative agencies and empowers those agencies to promulgate rules and regulations to implement their enabling statutes. In addition, the Georgia Constitution provides that the General Assembly may authorize agencies to exercise quasi-judicial powers. Administrative agencies with broad powers enjoy a secure position under Georgia law.

Like federal and state administrative agencies throughout the nation, Georgia’s many boards, commissions and authorities make policy when they apply their governing statutes in promulgating regulations of general applicability, and in ruling on specific matters …

Transtemporal Separation Of Powers In The Law Of Precedent, Randy Beck

Scholarly Works

The rule of stare decisis creates a presumption that a court’s ruling on a legal question remains binding in later decisions by the same court or hierarchically inferior courts. This presumption promotes stability in the law and protects reliance interests. Decisions that narrowly construe or overrule prior opinions can therefore seem like unprincipled threats to the rule of law.

This article seeks to highlight some countervailing themes in the case law, showing that stability and the protection of reliance interests are not the exclusive concerns underlying the law of precedent. The relevant doctrine attempts to balance these objectives with competing …