Courts Commons^™

Case Note: Golden Gate Restaurant Association V. City And County Of San Francisco: Setting The Stage For Supreme Court Review Of The Most Important Preemption Matter In The History Of Erisa, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 995 (2008), Joshua Waldbeser

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Courtiers Of The Marble Palace: The Rise And Influence Of The Supreme Court Law Clerk, Harvey Gee

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Friction By Design: The Necessary Contest Of State Judicial Power And Legislative Policymaking, Michael L. Buenger

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Independent Of The Constitution?--Issues Raised By An Independent Federal Legislative Ethics Commission With Independent Enforcement Authority, Paul Taylor

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Acknowledgements

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Reversals: Exploring The Seventh Court, Stephen Wermiel

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Not Hearing History: A Critique Of Chief Justice Robert’S Reinterpretation Of Brown, Joel K. Goldstein

All Faculty Scholarship

In the principal opinion in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, Chief Justice Roberts invoked Brown v. Board of Education to bolster his view that the United States Constitution forbids the use of virtually all racial classifications. In its closing paragraphs, the plurality opinion claimed that the NAACP attorneys in Brown subscribed to an anticlassification view of the Constitution and that the Court adopted that view. Far from hearing history, the Chief Justice’s opinion sought to rewrite it. The discussion ignored the historic context in which Brown was argued and based its argument on extracting …

Cooper's Quiet Demise (A Short Response To Professor Strauss), Frederic M. Bloom

Publications

No abstract provided.

State Courts Unbound, Frederic M. Bloom

Publications

We may not think that state courts disobey binding Supreme Court precedent, but occasionally state courts do. In a number of important cases, state courts have actively defied apposite Supreme Court doctrine, and often it is the Court itself that has invited them to.

This Article shows state courts doing the unthinkable: flouting Supreme Court precedent, sometimes at the Court's own behest. The idea of state court defiance may surprise us. It is not in every case, after all, that state courts affirmatively disobey. But rare events still have their lessons, and we should ask how and why they emerge. …

The Accounting: Habeas Corpus And Enemy Combatants, Emily Calhoun

Publications

The judiciary should impose a heavy burden of justification on the executive when a habeas petitioner challenges the accuracy of facts on which an enemy combatant designation rests. A heavy burden of justification will ensure that the essential institutional purposes of the writ--and legitimate, separated-powers government--are preserved, even during times of national exigency. The institutional purposes of the writ argue for robust judicial review rather than deference to the executive. Moreover, the procedural flexibility traditionally associated with the writ gives the judiciary the tools to ensure that a heavy burden of justification can be imposed.

Ideological Cohesion And Precedent (Or Why The Court Only Cares About Precedent When Most Justices Agree With Each Other), Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

This Article examines the profound role that ideological cohesion plays in explaining the Supreme Court's willingness to advance a coherent vision of the law - either by overruling precedents inconsistent with that vision or by establishing rule-like precedents intended to bind the Supreme Court and lower courts in subsequent cases. Through case studies of the New Deal, Warren, and Rehnquist Courts, this Article calls attention to key differences between Courts in which five or more Justices pursue the same substantive objectives and Courts which lack a dominant voting block. In particular, when five or more Justices pursue the same substantive …

Judicial Compensation And The Definition Of Judicial Power In The Early Republic, James E. Pfander

Michigan Law Review

Article III's provision for the compensation of federal judges has been much celebrated for the no-diminution provision that forecloses judicial pay cuts. But other features of Article Ill's compensation provision have largely escaped notice. In particular, little attention has been paid to the framers' apparent expectation that Congress would compensate federal judges with salaries alone, payable from the treasury at stated times. Article III's presumption in favor of salary-based compensation may rule out fee-based compensation, which was a common form of judicial compensation in England and the colonies but had grown controversial by the time of the framing. Among other …

Does An Accused Forfeit The Confrontation Right By Murdering A Witness, Absent A Purpose To Render Her Unavailable?, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

If an accused murdered a witness, should he be deemed to have forfeited the right under the Sixth Amendment "to be confronted with" the witness, absent proof that the accused committed the murder for the purpose of rendering her unavailable as a witness?

Waiting For The Other Shoe: Hudson And The Precarious State Of Mapp, David A. Moran

Articles

I have no idea whether my death will be noted in the New York Times. But if it is, I fear the headline of my obituary will look something like: "Professor Dies; Lost Hudson v. Michigan' in Supreme Court, Leading to Abolition of Exclusionary Rule." The very existence of this Symposium panel shows, I think, that my fear is well-grounded. On the other hand, I am not quite as fearful that Hudson foreshadows the complete overruling of Mapp v. Ohio2 and Weeks v. United States3 as I was when I published an article just three months after the Hudson decision …

Can Glucksberg Survive Lawrence? Another Look At The End Of Life And Personal Autonomy, Yale Kamisar

Articles

In Washington v. Glucksberg, the Court declined to find a right to physician-assisted suicide ("PAS") in the Constitution. Not a single Justice dissented. One would expect such a ruling to be quite secure. But Lawrence v. Texas, holding that a state cannot make consensual homosexual conduct a crime, is not easy to reconcile with Glucksberg. Lawrence certainly takes a much more expansive view of substantive due process than did Glucksberg. It is conceivable that the five Justices who made up the Lawrence majority-all of whom still sit on the Court-might overrule Glucksberg. For various reasons, …

Is A Forensic Laboratory Report Identifying A Substance As A Narcotic 'Testimonial'?, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

Is a state forensic analyst's laboratory report, prepared for use in a criminal proceeding and identifying a substance as cocaine, "testimonial" evidence and so subject to the demands of the Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)?

Pharma's Nonobvious Problem, Rebecca S. Eisenberg

Articles

This Article considers the effect of the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. on the nonobviousness standard for patentability as applied to pharmaceutical patents. By calling for an expansive and flexible analysis and disapproving of the use of rigid formulas in evaluating an invention for obviousness, KSR may appear to make it easier for generic competitors to challenge the validity of drug patents. But an examination of the Federal Circuit's nonobviousness jurisprudence in the context of such challenges reveals that the Federal Circuit has been employing all along the sort of flexible …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Law Professors In Support Of Petitioner Goss International Corp., Salil Kumar Mehra, Jay Tidmarsh

Court Briefs

No. 07-618
Goss International Corp. v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

From the Introduction and Summary of Argument

This case presents issues of jurisdiction, equity, and international comity that require this Court’s resolution. As we understand the facts, in 2003 the petitioner, Goss International, obtained a judgment under the Antidumping Act of 1916, 15 U.S.C. § 72 (2000) (repealed 2004), against the respondents, which are a Japanese corporation and its wholly-owned American subsidiary. The consonance between the Antidumping Act and the obligations of the …

Issue 2: Annual Survey 2007 Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Corporate And Business Law, Gregory R. Bishop, Laurence V. Parker

University of Richmond Law Review

In 2005, the Virginia Stock Corporation Act (the "Virginia Act") was extensively revised and updated for the first time since 1985. Having just undertaken such a major revision to the Virginia Act,

the General Assembly further amended the Act in a more targeted fashion in 2006 and 2007. Section II of this article addresses some of the changes that have taken place since the 2005 amendments and gives a brief overview of some conforming changes that have been incorporated in the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act (the "Nonstock Act").

There has also been a concerted effort to conform the language and …

Exclusion Confusion? A Defense Of The Federal Circuit's Specific Exclusion Jurisprudence, Peter Curtis Magic

Michigan Law Review

Specific exclusion has become a controversial limitation on the doctrine of equivalents, which is itself an essential and controversial area of patent law. The doctrine of equivalents allows a patentee to successfully claim infringement against devices that are outside of the literal reach of the language used by the patentee in her patent to describe what she claims as her invention. The Supreme Court has prescribed some of the outer limits of the doctrine of equivalents and articulated the underlying policy concerns that inform its analysis-noting that courts should balance protection of the patentee's intellectual property with the public's reasonable …

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 …

A Dream Deferred, Lewis M. Steel '63

Articles and Writings

No abstract provided.

Native America And The Rule Of Law, Dr. Joe Shirley Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Issue 4: Symposium Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Author Index

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Case Index

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Subject Index

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Title Index

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Issue 3: Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.