Courts Commons^™

On The Federalization Of The Administration Of Civil And Criminal Justice, William W. Schwarzer, Russell R. Wheeler

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

By Reason Of Their Sex: Feminist Theory Postmodernism And Justice , Tracy E. Higgins

Faculty Scholarship

Both the Supreme Court's jurisprudence of gender and feminist legal theory have generally assumed that some identifiable and describable category of woman exists prior to the construction of legal categories. For the Court, this woman-whose characteristics admittedly have changed over time-serves as the standard against which gendered legal classifications are measured. For feminism, her existence has served a different but equally important purpose as the subject for whom political goals are pursued. To the extent that the definitions of the category diverge, the differences among definitions are played out in feminist critiques of the Court's gender jurisprudence, and, occasionally, in …

Of Laws And Men: An Essay On Justice Marshall's View Of Criminal Procedure, Bruce A. Green, Daniel C. Richman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Shouting Down The Voice Of The People: Political Parties, Powerful Pac's And Concerns About Corruption, Clarisa Long

Faculty Scholarship

The Federal Election Campaign Act limits the amount of financial support that political parties may give to candidates for federal office. Clarisa Long argues that these restrictions violate political parties' First Amendment rights of speech and association. Because the flow of money in the political process is a proxy for speech, the First Amendment requires that political actors have access to at least one unrestricted avenue of communication. While individuals' and PACs' First Amendment rights are protected because they may make unrestricted independent expenditures, parties do not have this opportunity. Courts have failed to protect party speech, rationalizing that the …

A Modest Proposal For A Political Court, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

I offer a modest proposal. You can decide for yourself whether it is offered in the spirit of Jonathan Swift, or whether I mean it to be taken seriously.

Character Evidence, James L. Kainen

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Must Carry And The Courts: Bleak House, The Sequel, Nick Allard

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Brecht V. Abrahamson: Harmful Error In Habeas Corpus Law, James S. Liebman, Randy Hertz

Faculty Scholarship

For the past two and one-half decades, the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have applied the same rule for assessing the harmlessness of constitutional error in habeas corpus proceedings as they have applied on direct appeal of both state and federal convictions. Under that rule, which applied to all constitutional errors except those deemed per se prejudicial or per se reversible, the state could avoid reversal upon a finding of error only by proving that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court adopted this stringent standard in Chapman v. California to fulfill the federal …

Hail Britannia?: Institutional Investor Behavior Under Limited Regulation, John C. Coffee Jr., Bernard S. Black

Faculty Scholarship

A central puzzle in understanding the governance of large American public firms is why most institutional shareholders are passive. Why would they rather sell than fight? Until recently, the Berle-Means paradigm – the belief that separation of ownership and control naturally characterizes the modern corporation – reigned supreme. Shareholder passivity was seen as an inevitable result of the scale of modern industrial enterprise and of the collective action problems that face shareholders, each of whom owns only a small fraction of a large firm's shares.

A paradigm shift may be in the making, however. Rival hypotheses have recently been offered …

When Courts Refuse To Frame The Law And Others Frame It To Their Will, Susan P. Koniak

Faculty Scholarship

In the aftermath of Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler's settlement with the government,¹ two versions of the story have emerged. The most popular version features the government actors as villains-villains with new and lethal weapons at their disposal, willing to enforce law that has leapt full grown from their heads like Zeus' child, law of which the rest of the civilized world was unaware. The counterstory, less often told but not without adherents, casts the lawyers of Kaye, Scholer as the villains: unscrupulous and greedy lawyers ready to break any rule, defile any process, twist any truth on …

Symposium On Securities Law Enforcement Priorities, Roberta S. Karmel

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Habeas Hagioscope, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

If you would understand American law, American politics, and the elusive difference between the two, look no further. Federal habeas corpus for state prisoners opens a window on the workings of our national government, overt and covert. I mean in this Article to describe the scene that is revealed. A rich account of experience in recent years can contribute to a deeper understanding of our government by arranging the players and the set in context and sequence. The record will show a number of things to be true.

Judicial Vacancies And Delay In The Federal Courts: An Empirical Evaluation, In Symposium, The Civil Justice Reform Act, A. Kimberley Dayton

Faculty Scholarship

This Article examines the relationship between federal district court judicial vacancies --whether caused by the executive branch's failure to timely nominate judges, Congress's failure to confirm presidential nominees, or some other reason -- and delays in processing the civil caseload. The hypotheses tested are several configurations of the hypothesis “judicial vacancies cause delay.” The statistical method of analysis of covariance is used to test this hypothesis and thereby evaluate the degree to which delays, defined by reference to certain case management statistics, are correlated to vacancy rates in individual federal district courts, and within the federal system as a whole. …

Chase Court And Fundamental Rights: A Watershed In American Constitutionalism, The , Robert J. Kaczorowski

Faculty Scholarship

Three weeks before he died in May 1873, the frail and ailing Salmon P. Chase joined three of his brethren in dissent in one of the most important cases ever decided by the United States Supreme Court, the Slaughter-House Cases.1 This decision was a watershed in United States constitutional history for several reasons. Doctrinally, it represented a rejection of the virtually unanimous decisions of the lower federal courts upholding the constitutionality of revolutionary federal civil rights laws enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War. Institutionally, it was an example of extraordinary judicial activism in overriding the legislative will of …

Using Comparative Fault To Replace The All-Or-Nothing Lottery Imposed In Intentional Torts Suits In Which Both Plaintiff And Defendant Are At Fault , Gail D. Hollister

Faculty Scholarship

All or nothing. For years this idea of absolutes has been a hallmark of tort law despite the inequities it has caused. Plaintiffs must either win a total victory or suffer total defeat. In recent years courts and legislatures have begun to recognize the injustice of the all-or-nothing approach and to replace it with rules that permit partial recoveries that are more equitably tailored to the particular facts of each case. The most dramatic example of this more equitable approach is the nearly universal rejection of contributory negligence in favor of comparative fault in negligence cases. Almost all jurisdictions, however, …

Pluralism, The Prisoner's Dilemma, And The Behavior Of The Independent Judiciary, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

Discussions of Thayer's conception of judicial review, as this symposium amply demonstrates, tend to be normative. Professor Nick Zeppos's paper, which offers more of a positive analysis, is therefore a welcome addition. Zeppos's paper includes three especially valuable insights. First, he demonstrates the close parallel between Thayer's theory of judicial review and the Supreme Court's Chevron doctrine. The former would have the judiciary enforce clear constitutional commands but otherwise defer to legislative understandings of constitutional meaning; the latter would have courts enforce clear legislative commands but otherwise defer to administrative interpretations of statutes. Second, he offers evidence that in both …

Historical Framework For Reviving Constitutional Protection For Property And Contract Rights , James L. Kainen

Faculty Scholarship

Post-New Deal constitutionalism is in search of a theory that justifies judicial intervention on behalf of individual rights while simultaneously avoiding the charge of "Lochnerism."' The dominant historical view dismisses post-bellum substantive due process as an anomalous development in the American constitutional tradition. Under this approach, Lochner represents unbounded protection for economic rights that permitted the judiciary to read laissez faire, pro-business policy preferences into the constitutional text. Today's revisionists have mounted a substantial challenge to the dismissive views of traditionalists. Indeed, some claim Lochner reached the right result, but for the wrong reason. The revisionists characterize substantive due process …

Reel Time/Real Justice, Kimberlé W. Crenshaw

Faculty Scholarship

Like the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings a few months before, the Rodney King beating, the acquittal of the Los Angeles police officers who "restrained" him and the subsequent civil unrest in Los Angeles flashed Race across the national consciousness and the gaze of American culture momentarily froze there. Pieces of everyday racial dynamics briefly seemed clear, then faded from view, replaced by presidential politics and natural disasters.

This Essay examines in more depth what was exposed during the momentary national focus on Rodney King. Two main events – the acquittal of the police officers who beat King and the civil …

The Politics Of Judicial Structure: Creating The United States Court Of Veterans Appeals, Laurence R. Helfer

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Judicial Federalism In Action: Coordination Of Litigation In State And Federal Courts, William W. Schwarzer, Nancy E. Weiss, Alan Hirsch

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

"Comparing Medical Provider Performance: A First Look At The New Era Of Medical Statistics", Neil B. Cohen, Aaron D. Twerski

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Judicial Deference To The Pto's Interpretations Of The Patent Law, R. Carl Moy

Faculty Scholarship

This article attempts to provide a basis upon which to preserve the Federal Circuit's current lawmaking primacy. Given the large body of preexisting literature on Chevron, USA, Inc v. Natural Resources Defense Council, it does not address whether Chevron allocates power between agencies and the courts optimally. Rather, the article examines how the PTO's statutory interpretations should be reviewed under Chevron. In Section I, the article places the examination in context by describing the Chevron decision and its general implications. Section II of the article examines how Chevron should be applied specifically in the context of reviewing statutory interpretations of …

Case Management In The Eastern District Of Virginia, In Symposium, Civil Litigation In The 1990'S, Part Ii, A. Kimberley Dayton

Faculty Scholarship

Part I of this Article describes the administrative structure of the Eastern District of Virginia and its case management practices. Part II demonstrates that, despite the Eastern District of Virginia's status as one of the busiest federal district courts, it has consistently been one of the most efficient and effective federal courts in the nation. As a result, in Part III, this Article concludes that the experience of the Eastern District of Virginia raises many questions about the premises underlying the Civil Justice Reform Act, the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules, and the means by which Congress and the …

On The Brink: The First Amendment In The Rehnquist Court, 1990-91 Term, Joel Gora

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Reply: Imperfect Bargains, Imperfect Trials, And Innocent Defendants, Robert E. Scott

Faculty Scholarship

To understand what is and is not wrong with plea bargaining, one must understand the relationship of bargains to trials. Unsurprisingly, we disagree with much of what Judge Frank Easterbrook and Professor Stephen Schulhofer say about that relationship. Most of those disagreements need not be rehearsed here; readers attentive enough to wade through their essays and ours will pick up the key points readily enough. But there is one point where the dispute is at once sharp and hidden. It has to do with the fact that both trials and bargains are flawed.

That fact might seem obvious, but the …

Greenmail, The Control Premium And Shareholder Duty, Roberta S. Karmel

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Principled Decision Making And The Proper Role Of Federal Appellate Courts: The Mixed Questions Conflict, Evan Tsen Lee

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Getting There: A Brief History Of The Politics Of Supreme Court Appointments, Calvin R. Massey

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Power Not Reason: Justice Marshall's Valedictory And The Fourth Amendment In The Supreme Court's 1990 Term , Bruce A. Green

Faculty Scholarship

In its 1990 Term, the United States Supreme Court heard five cases involving the Fourth Amendment. In this article, Professor Bruce Green analyzes these five search-and-seizure decisions in light of Justice Marshall's criticism that '[Plower, not reason, is the new currency of this Court's decision-making." He examines the various considerations the Court advances in its Fourth Amendment analysis-interpretive principle, policy, and precedent--and discovers inconsistencies in the importance assigned to each of these considerations in a series of cases decided very close together by virtually the same Justices. Each approach controlled, Professor Green argues, only when it could be said to …

Impeachment Exception To The Exclusionary Rules: Policies, Principles, And Politics, The , James L. Kainen

Faculty Scholarship

The exclusionary evidence rules derived from the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments continue to play an important role in constitutional criminal procedure, despite the intense controversy that surrounds them. The primary justification for these rules has shifted from an "imperative of judicial integrity" to the "deterrence of police conduct that violates... [constitutional] rights." Regardless of the justification it uses for the rules' existence, the Supreme Court continues to limit their breadth "at the margin," when "the acknowledged costs to other values vital to a rational system of criminal justice" outweigh the deterrent effects of exclusion. The most notable limitation on …