Courts Commons^™

Private Property Rights Protection Legislation Across The Nation, Nancie G. Marzulla

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

25 pages (includes 1 map).

Contains footnotes.

Takings And Water Rights [Includes Unsigned Annotations By David Getches], David H. Getches

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

13 pages (includes 1 illustration).

Includes unsigned annotations by David Getches.

Searching For Basinwide Solutions To Endangered Species Problems Of The South Platte Of Colorado, James S. Lochhead

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

42 pages (includes illustrations and map).

Contains endnotes.

Regulatory Taking Of Public Water And Land Resource Development Rights After Lucas, Jerome C. Muys

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

7 pages.

“Takings” And The Endangered Species Act, Oliver A. Houck

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

3 pages.

Mining Regulation And Takings, Mark Squillace

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

10 pages.

Contains footnotes.

Mining Regulation(S) And Takings, Lawrence G. Mcbride

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

12 pages.

Contains footnotes.

The Fifth Amendment And The Retained Sovereignty Doctrine: A Study Of The Endangered Species Act And The Central Valley Project Improvement Act As Applied To Central Valley Project Water Service Contracts, Brian E. Gray

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

12 pages.

What A Federal Natural Resource Management Agency Can Do To Avoid Takings, John D. Leshy

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

6 pages.

The Endangered Species Act And Constitutional Takings, Robert Meltz

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

18 pages.

Contains references.

Mining Regulation And Takings, L. Thomas Galloway

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

15 pages.

Property Rights And Public Resources, Mark L. Pollot

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

4 pages.

City Of Tigard And Takings Law, Richard D. Lazarus

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

10 pages.

Contains 1 page of references.

Regulatory Takings And Resources: What Are The Constitutional Limits?, Virginia S. Albrecht

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

52 pages.

Contains footnotes.

Agenda: Regulatory Takings And Resources: What Are The Constitutional Limits?, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center, Byron R. White Center For The Study Of American Constitutional Law

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

Sponsored by the University of Colorado's Natural Resources Law Center and the Byron R. White Center for American Constitutional Study.

Conference organizers, faculty and/or moderators included University of Colorado School of Law professors David H. Getches, Lawrence J. MacDonnell, Gene R. Nichol, Jr. and Mark Squillace.

Governmental regulation for environmental protection and other important public purposes can affect the manner in which land and natural resources are developed and used. The U.S. constitution (and most state constitutions) prohibit the government from "taking" property without payment of compensation. Originally intended to apply to situations where the government physically seized private property …

Takings And Retroactivity, Jan G. Laitos

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

25 pages.

Contains references.

Floodplain And Wetland Regulatory “Takings”, Jon A. Kusler

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

4 pages.

The Regulatory Takings Doctrine: A Critical Overview, J. Peter Byrne

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

15 pages.

Background Principles Of Wetlands Law: The Early History, Fred P. Bosselman

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

15 pages.

Contains 3 pages of references.

The Equal Access To Justice Act--Are The Bankruptcy Courts Less Equal Than Others?, Matthew J. Fischer

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that the bankruptcy courts have authority under the BAJA to shift fees against the federal government. Part I discusses the relevant caselaw and examines the basis of the current controversy. Part II examines the statutory language, the legislative history, and the stated purposes of the BAJA and concludes that each of these aspects of the statute demonstrates a congressional intent to grant fee-shifting authority to the bankruptcy courts. Part III considers alternatives to finding bankruptcy court jurisdiction over BAJA disputes, rejecting each as inefficient and unnecessary. This Note concludes that courts should construe the BAJA consistently with …

Litigation And Inequality: Federal Diversity Jurisdiction In Industrial America, David A. Luigs

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Litigation and Inequality: Federal Diversity Jurisdiction in Industrial America by Edward A. Purcell, Jr.

Pragmatism Applied: Imagining A Solution To The Problem Of Court Congestion, Michael L. Seigel

UF Law Faculty Publications

Can we improve the efficiency of jury trials? If so, would this reduce the problem of court congestion? Is there any reason to favor this approach over those that seek to avoid jury trials altogether?

This Article attempts to answer these difficult questions. It does so by articulating and then employing a methodology suggested by recent scholarly ruminations about the philosophy of pragmatism and its implications for legal scholarship and practice. Although pragmatism does not provide "right answers" to questions of legal doctrine-indeed, it rejects the notion that such things exist-it does provide some guidance in formulating the search for …

Perceptions Of Civil Justice: The Litigation Crisis Attitudes Of Civil Jurors, Valerie P. Hans, William S. Lofquist

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Public perceptions that the civil justice system is in crisis are apparently widespread, but little is known about the causes or correlates of such views. This article analyzes the litigation crisis attitudes of a sample of civil jurors. Like the public, jurors endorsed a number of statements suggesting that there is a litigation crisis. Factor analysis identified two independent components: general concern over excessive litigation, and criticism of the civil jury. Litigation crisis views were found in all demographic and attitudinal subgroups. However, attitudes about the civil justice system were related to the respondent's political efficacy, claims consciousness, belief in …

Proposal To Change The Patent Reexamination Statute To Eliminate Unnecessary Litigation, 27 J. Marshall L. Rev. 887 (1994), Marvin Motsenbocker

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Defamation By Will: Theories And Liabilities, 27 J. Marshall L. Rev. 749 (1994), Paul T. Whitcombe

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dangerous Precedent: Federal Government Attempts To Vacate Judicial Decisions Upon Settlement, 27 J. Marshall L. Rev. 689 (1994), Robert P. Deyling

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Déjà-Vu All Over Again- Elliott's Critique Of Eyewitness Experts, Saul M. Kassin, Phoebe C. Ellsworth, Vicki L. Smith

Articles

Echoing McCloskey and Egeth (1983), and motivated by Kassin, Ellsworth, and Smith's (1989) survey of 63 eyewitness experts, Elliott (1993) recently attacked the use of psychological experts on eyewitness testimony. There are two principal shortcomings of this critique. First, it misrepresents the eyewitness literature and the experts who use it. Second, it merely parrots complaints of the past. The same old arguments are made about the lack of sufficient research evidence, the standards by which experts should conduct their affairs, and the impact of it all on the jury. Perhaps the field needs periodic prodding and consciousness-raising on this issue, …

The Death And Transfiguration Of Frye, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

The rule of Frye v. United States was seventy years old, and had long dominated American law on the question of how well established a scientific principle must be for it to provide the basis for expert testimony. Even after the passage of the Federal Rules of Evidence, several of the federal circuits, as well as various states, purported to adhere to Frye's "general acceptance" standard. But now, unanimously, briefly, and with no apparent angst, the United States Supreme Court has held in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. that the Frye rule is incompatible with the Federal Rules.

Removal And The Eleventh Amendment: The Case For District Court Remand Discretion To Avoid A Bifurcated Suit, Mitchell N. Berman

Michigan Law Review

This Note concludes that the Sixth Circuit was half right: when a civil action names both state and private defendants - what this Note terms a "mixed case" - and when the claims against private defendants arise under federal law, the district court must grant removal of the case8 and must remand the claims against the state defendant. However, this Note also observes that the Fifth Circuit probably achieved the better result. After defendants have removed a mixed case to federal court and the district court has remanded the barred claims, the dual court systems and the parties will usually …

Jurors' Views Of Civil Lawyers: Implications For Courtroom Communication, Valerie P. Hans, Krista Sweigart

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In courtroom communication, lawyers play a key role. During presentations of opening statements and closing arguments, and through examination and cross-examination of witnesses, lawyers communicate the merits of the case that the jury is to decide. Yet there is surprisingly little systematic information about how jurors perceive lawyers' communication activities. This Article presents new information based upon an interview study with civil jurors about how jurors view and evaluate attorneys and their courtroom behavior. The results of this study are used to make recommendations about enhancing the effectiveness of lawyers' communications.