Courts Commons^™

Mengele's Birthmark: The Nuremberg Code In United States Courts, George J. Annas

Faculty Scholarship

Experimentation on human beings is so difficult to justify that the attempt is seldom even made. Usually its justification is simply assumed, and vague notions of progress or national emergency are suggested as sufficient rationales. The United States, a society dedicated to both progress and human rights, has been profoundly ambivalent about human experimentation. On the one hand, we have consistently argued in our ethical codes that the rights and welfare of research subjects must be protected; on the other hand, we have consistently used perceived emergencies, both national and medical, as an excuse to jettison individual rights and welfare …

The Great Writ In Action: Empirical Light On The Federal Habeas Corpus Debate, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

The national debate regarding federal habeas corpus for state prisoners is fueled in the main by ideology. To some, the authority of the federal courts to entertain constitutional challenges to state criminal convictions is the embodiment of all that was right about the Warren Court and the vision that Court offered of a meaningful system of American liberty, underwritten by independent federal tribunals willing and able to check the coercive power of government. By this account, the Bill of Rights is the protean source of safeguards for individual freedom - commanding generous, imaginative, and insightful elaboration by federal courts at …

Rent Appropriation And The Labor Law Doctrine Of Successorship, Keith N. Hylton

Faculty Scholarship

When there is a change of corporate control in a business enterprise a question arises as to whether the new employer should be bound by the predecessor's collective bargaining relationship with the union representing the predecessor's employees. This is known as the successorship problem in labor law.' Successorship doctrine is complex and controversial. Several commentators have attempted to reconcile Supreme Court decisions and to ascertain the assumptions underlying the Court's opinions in this area.2 This Article does not attempt to do this, although paradoxically, the arguments presented may lead to reconciliation of many of the Supreme Court's decisions relating to …

Administrative Failure And Local Democracy: The Politics Of Deshaney, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay is an effort to construct a normative basis for a constitutional theory to resist the Supreme Court's recent decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services.¹ In DeShaney, the Court decided that a local social service worker's failure to prevent child abuse did not violate the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment even though the social worker "had reason to believe" the abuse was occurring. ² Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion for the Court held that government inaction cannot violate due process unless the state has custody of the victim, ³ thus settling a controversial …

Book Review: The Limits Of Judicial Power: The Supreme Court In American Politics, David S. Bogen

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Reforming Jury Trials, William W. Schwarzer

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Common-Law Background Of Nineteenth-Century Tort Law, The , Robert J. Kaczorowski

Faculty Scholarship

A century ago Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., examined the history of negligence in search of a general theory of tort. He concluded that from the earliest times in England, the basis of tort liability was fault, or the failure to exercise due care. Liability for an injury to another arose whenever the defendant failed "to use such care as a prudent man would use under the circumstances.” A decade ago Morton J. Horwitz reexamined the history of negligence for the same purpose and concluded that negligence was not originally understood as carelessness or fault. Rather, negligence meant "neglect or failure …

Federal Jurisdiction, Ronald J. Mann

Faculty Scholarship

One important task of the federal judiciary is to resolve cases presenting tensions between national and state governments. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit justly is renowned for its work in this area. One major, if not sensational, arena in which these tensions surface is in cases presenting issues of federal jurisdiction, pursuant to which federal courts allocate power between the national and state judicial systems.

During the survey period the Fifth Circuit published almost one hundred opinions dealing with substantive issues of federal jurisdiction. Like others before me, I have not undertaken in this essay …

Sunstein's New Canons: Choosing The Fictions Of Statutory Interpretation Exchange, Eben Moglen, Richard J. Pierce Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

In Interpreting Statutes in the Regulatory State, Cass Sunstein grapples with two of the most difficult and important questions concerning governance of the modern administrative state. First, what institution should have the dominant role in interpreting ambiguous agency-administered statutes? And second, how should the institution perform that task? Sunstein rejects the Supreme Court's answer to the first question, characterizing its assignment of a dominant interpretive role to agencies in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v Natural Resources Defense Council as "the fox guarding the hen house." Sunstein prefers to charge judges with the responsibility of resolving most interpretive disputes. In answer to …

Choosing Judges The Democratic Way, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

A generation ago, the pressing question in constitutional law was the countermajoritarian difficulty.' Americans insisted their government was a democratic republic and took that to mean rule by a majority of elected representatives in various offices and bodies, federal and local. Yet courts whose members had not won election presumed to override the actions of executive and legislative officers who had. The conventional answer to this apparent paradox was the Constitution, which arguably owed its existence to the people directly. Judicial review was justified, accordingly, when court decisions were rooted firmly in the particular text, structure, or historical backdrop of …

Beyond Parity: Section 1983 And The State Courts, Susan Herman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Considering Political Alternatives To "Hard Look" Review, Peter L. Strauss

Faculty Scholarship

That is absolutely right. I am sufficiently confused by the facts that are already on the table – two of them in particular. One (the dog that I thought was barking in that interesting first chart Don Elliott put up, on which he did not remark), is that the first two periods of judicial review he showed us had 337 and 294 cases of judicial review each; for the third period, for the same length of time, the figure is about 800. Something is going on there. The other is just a square conflict that our moderator is much better …

"Bad" Judicial Activism And Liberal Federal-Courts Doctrine: A Comment On Professor Doernberg And Professor Redish, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

JUDUCIAL ACTIVISM IS often portrayed as a liberal vice. This perception is wrong both historically and, as Professor Redish argues, ³ currently as well. The federal judiciary has been and still is an activist institution, working with both substantive law and jurisdictional rules to achieve its own policy goals. It has done this in statutory, constitutional, and common-law matters. Specifically, the Supreme Court of the United States has actively-shaped the jurisdiction of the federal courts in a restrictive and generally conservative manner.

Professors Doernberg⁴ and Redish attack this last form of activism by the federal courts, activism in shaping …

Vanessa Redgrave V. Boston Symphony Orchestra, Inc.: A Breach Of Constitutional Dimension, Maria O'Brien

Faculty Scholarship

In Vanessa Redgrave v. Boston Symphony Orchestra, Inc., 399 Mass. 93 (1987), the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued an important ruling on the parameters of the Commonwealth's relatively new Civil Rights Act (MCRA)' by answering two questions certified to it by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The SJC held that MCRA is essentially the state equivalent of 42 U.S.C. §1983 without the federal "state action" requirement.' This article briefly examines the SJC's decision in Redgrave in light of Massachusetts precedent and the vast federal experience with §1983 actions (Section I) and then considers the …

Task Force Reports On Women In The Courts: The Challenge For Legal Education, Elizabeth M. Schneider

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

What The Constitution Means By Executive Power, Charles J. Cooper, Orrin Hatch, Eugene V. Rowstow, Michael E. Tigar

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Enforcement Provisions Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1866: A Legislative History In Light Of Runyon V. Mccrary, The Review Essay And Comments: Reconstructing Reconstruction, Robert J. Kaczorowski

Faculty Scholarship

The purpose of this Comment is to examine the history of the enactment and early enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 from the perspective of the remedies Congress sought to provide to meet the problems that necessitated the legislation. Its main foci are the statute's enforcement provisions and their early implementation, an aspect of the history of the statute that has not been fully considered in relation to section one, the provision that has received the most scholarly attention. The occasion of this study is the Supreme Court's reconsideration of Runyon v. McCrary' in Patterson v. McLean Credit …

Apartheid And The South African Judiciary, Lawrence G. Baxter

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Response Prepared To White House Analysis Of Judge Bork’S Record (Biden Report), Christopher H. Schroeder, Jeffrey Peck

Faculty Scholarship

Originally published as a Report to the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Joseph Biden, on the nomination of Robert H. Bork to the United States Supreme Court.

A Judicial Declaration Of Martial Law, Lawrence G. Baxter

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Modern Misunderstanding Of Original Intent, H. Jefferson Powell

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Assessing The Effects Of Case Characteristics And Settlement Forums On Dispute Outcomes And Compliance, Neil Vidmar

Faculty Scholarship

McEwen and Maiman (1986) have disagreed with my claim that the case characteristic of admitted liability explains more variability in dispute outcome and compliance than whether the case was resolved through a mediation or adjudication forum. Those authors reanalyzed some of my data from an Ontario small claims court and concluded that forum type is the stronger variable. I take issue with them on a number of conceptual and methodological points. In my own reanalysis of the Ontario data I am able to demonstrate statistically that admitted liability is the stronger predictor of outcomes. I also discuss why this should …

Book Review, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Cost Of Acceptability: Blue Buses, Agent Orange, And Aversion To Statistical Evidence, Neil B. Cohen

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.: A Justice For All Seasons, Joel Gora

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Rising Above Principle, Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Hijacking Trials Overseas: The Need For An Article Iii Court, Maryellen Fullerton

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Distinguishing Justifications From Excuses, Kent Greenawalt

Faculty Scholarship

Ann swings her arm and injures Ben. She faces moral condemnation and legal liability unless she can offer an explanation that absolves her of full blame. She might make a claim of justification that, despite initial appearances, her action was desirable or proper, or she might make a claim of excuse that she does not bear full responsibility for injuring Ben. If Ann is fully justified, she will not be subject to blame or to classification as a weak or defective person. If Ann is excused, she may be regarded as wholly or partly free of blame, but she will …

Confidence In Probability: Burdens Of Persuasion In A World Of Imperfect Knowledge, Neil B. Cohen

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Reluctant Witness For The Prosecution: Grand Jury Subpoenas To Defense Counsel, Stacy Caplow

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.