Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Judges (76)
- Constitutional Law (73)
- Criminal Law (52)
- Criminal Procedure (40)
- Jurisprudence (40)
-
- Legislation (39)
- Litigation (35)
- International Law (33)
- Law and Society (33)
- Legal History (31)
- Law and Politics (27)
- State and Local Government Law (27)
- Supreme Court of the United States (27)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (25)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (24)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (23)
- Jurisdiction (21)
- Administrative Law (20)
- Evidence (18)
- Human Rights Law (17)
- Legal Profession (17)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (15)
- Legal Remedies (15)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (13)
- Civil Procedure (12)
- Consumer Protection Law (12)
- Health Law and Policy (12)
- Intellectual Property Law (12)
- Institution
-
- BLR (47)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (30)
- University of Michigan Law School (25)
- UIC School of Law (16)
- University of Richmond (14)
-
- University of Arkansas Little Rock (12)
- University of Georgia School of Law (12)
- Georgetown University Law Center (11)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (11)
- University of Colorado Law School (9)
- Duke Law (8)
- Seattle University School of Law (8)
- Brigham Young University Law School (7)
- Loyola University Chicago, School of Law (7)
- William & Mary Law School (7)
- Notre Dame Law School (6)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (6)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (6)
- Chicago-Kent College of Law (5)
- Cornell University Law School (5)
- University of Missouri School of Law (5)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (5)
- Boston University School of Law (4)
- Pace University (4)
- Cleveland State University (3)
- Mitchell Hamline School of Law (3)
- University at Buffalo School of Law (3)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (3)
- West Virginia University (3)
- American University Washington College of Law (2)
- Keyword
-
- Courts (68)
- Judges (30)
- Constitutional Law (21)
- United States Supreme Court (18)
- Jurisprudence (16)
-
- Law and Society (16)
- General Law (15)
- Criminal Law and Procedure (14)
- International Law (14)
- Politics (13)
- Practice and Procedure (13)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (12)
- Legal History (12)
- Legislation (12)
- Human Rights Law (11)
- Jurisdiction (11)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (11)
- Supreme Court (11)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (10)
- Federal courts (9)
- Juries (9)
- Law and Economics (9)
- Administrative Law (8)
- Federalism (8)
- Legal Profession (8)
- National Conference on Appellate Justice (8)
- Commercial Law (7)
- Constitution (7)
- Corporations (7)
- Economics (7)
- Publication
-
- ExpressO (46)
- Faculty Publications (16)
- Faculty Scholarship (15)
- UIC Law Review (13)
- The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process (12)
-
- Cardozo Law Review (10)
- Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal (9)
- Faculty Articles (9)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (9)
- Michigan Law Review First Impressions (9)
- University of Richmond Law Review (9)
- Indiana Law Journal (7)
- All Faculty Scholarship (6)
- Articles (6)
- Celebrating the Centennial of the Antiquities Act (October 9) (6)
- Scholarly Works (6)
- Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution (5)
- Georgia Law Review (5)
- Journal Articles (5)
- Michigan Law Review (5)
- Nevada Law Journal (5)
- Public Interest Law Reporter (5)
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (4)
- Journal of Health Care Law and Policy (4)
- Law Faculty Publications (4)
- Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law (4)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (3)
- Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice (3)
- Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications (3)
- West Virginia Law Review (3)
- Publication Type
Articles 181 - 210 of 322
Full-Text Articles in Courts
Adjudicated On The Merits?: Why The Aedpa Requires State Courts To Exhibit Their Reasoning, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 995 (2006), Ezra Spilke
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Why Legislative Findings Can Pad-Lock Redistricting Plans In Racial-Gerrymandering Cases, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1371 (2006), Frank Adams
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Dostoyevsky And The Therapeutic Jurisprudence Confession, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 41 (2006), Amy D. Ronner
Dostoyevsky And The Therapeutic Jurisprudence Confession, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 41 (2006), Amy D. Ronner
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Second Chance For Justice: Reevaluation Of The United States Double Jeopardy Standard, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 371 (2006), Andrea Koklys
Second Chance For Justice: Reevaluation Of The United States Double Jeopardy Standard, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 371 (2006), Andrea Koklys
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Always Low Prices, Always At A Cost: A Call To Arms Against The Wal-Martization Of America, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 267 (2006), Justin R. Watkins
Always Low Prices, Always At A Cost: A Call To Arms Against The Wal-Martization Of America, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 267 (2006), Justin R. Watkins
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
How Much Justice Can We Afford?: Defining The Courts' Roles And Deciding The Appropriate Number Of Trials, Settlement Signals, And Other Elements Needed To Administer Justice, John M. Lande
Faculty Publications
This article discusses how the U.S. court system can function optimally given declining trial rates and the limited resources available. The question of how much justice we can afford is a challenge that becomes more difficult as budgets fall behind the increasing demand for and cost of court services. Presumably most analysts would agree that courts should try cases when appropriate - and help litigants find just resolutions without trial when it is not needed. The courts' ability to provide trials in some cases is possible only if the vast majority of other cases are not tried.This article provides background …
Revisiting Anna Moscowitz's Kross's Critique Of New York City's Women's Court: The Continued Problem Of Solving The "Problem" Of Prostitution With Specialized Criminal Courts, Mae C. Quinn
Journal Articles
No abstract provided.
A New Prescription For America's Medical Liability System, Paul J. Barringer Iii
A New Prescription For America's Medical Liability System, Paul J. Barringer Iii
Journal of Health Care Law and Policy
No abstract provided.
Reform Of Medical Liability And Patient Safety: Are Health Courts And Medicare The Keys To Effective Change?, Randall R. Bovbjerg
Reform Of Medical Liability And Patient Safety: Are Health Courts And Medicare The Keys To Effective Change?, Randall R. Bovbjerg
Journal of Health Care Law and Policy
No abstract provided.
Health Courts And Malpractice Claims Adjudication Through Medicare: Some Questions, Timothy Stoltzfus Jost
Health Courts And Malpractice Claims Adjudication Through Medicare: Some Questions, Timothy Stoltzfus Jost
Journal of Health Care Law and Policy
No abstract provided.
An Advocate's Response To Professor Sage, Toby S. Edelman
An Advocate's Response To Professor Sage, Toby S. Edelman
Journal of Health Care Law and Policy
No abstract provided.
The Dilution Solution: Populating The Trademark A-List, Scott C. Wilcox
The Dilution Solution: Populating The Trademark A-List, Scott C. Wilcox
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
In our celebrity-conscious culture, the media serve as arbiters of fame. The editors of Us Weekly and People wield significant influence over public recognition of celebrities. Since the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (“FTDA”) amended the Lanham Act in 1995, federal courts have adopted similar roles as arbiters of fame, determining which trademarks are sufficiently famous to receive federal protection against dilution. Recent changes to the Lanham Act, however, reserve the availability of dilution actions to “A-list” marks. These changes fulfill the objectives of trademark law while achieving Congress’s intent in enacting the FTDA.
Stevens's Ratchet: When The Court Should Decide Not To Decide, Joel A. Flaxman
Stevens's Ratchet: When The Court Should Decide Not To Decide, Joel A. Flaxman
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Hidden underneath the racy death penalty issues in Kansas v. Marsh lurks a seemingly dull procedural issue addressed only in separate opinions by Justices Stevens and Scalia: whether the Court should have heard the case in the first place. As he did in three cases from the Court’s 2005 term, Justice Stevens argued in Marsh that the Court has no legitimate interest in reviewing state court decisions that overprotect federal constitutional rights. Instead, the Supreme Court should exercise its certiorari power to tip the scales against states and in favor of individuals. Granting certiorari in Marsh, Stevens argued, was not …
The High Court Remains As Divided As Ever Over The Death Penalty, George H. Kendall
The High Court Remains As Divided As Ever Over The Death Penalty, George H. Kendall
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
More than three decades ago, in Furman v. Georgia, a sharply divided Supreme Court struck down all existing capital punishment schemes be-cause the results they generated were arbitrary, discriminatory, and unreasoned. No member of that Court remains on the Court today, and the Court has grown increasingly conservative ever since. Nevertheless, impor-tant questions concerning the administration of capital punishment continue to wrought deep divisions within the Court, for instance in determining whether racial bias influences the system, in determining the sufficiency of new evidence of innocence to justify review of a defaulted claim in habeas corpus proceedings, in determining a …
The Trademark Dilution Revision Act Of 2006: A Welcome—And Needed—Change, Dale M. Cendali, Bonnie L. Schriefer
The Trademark Dilution Revision Act Of 2006: A Welcome—And Needed—Change, Dale M. Cendali, Bonnie L. Schriefer
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Some have argued that the changes to the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (the “FTDA”) embodied in the recently enacted Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (the “TDRA”) threaten to infringe upon the right to free speech. This is simply not the case. The FTDA has always protected First Amendment rights, and the TDRA clarifies and strengthens those protections. While the concept of dilution was introduced in 1927, there was no federal dilution law in the United States until 1995, when Congress passed the FTDA. Since then, various federal courts have reached different conclusions regarding issues such as: (1) what constituted …
What Is Dilution, Anyway?, Stacey L. Dogan
What Is Dilution, Anyway?, Stacey L. Dogan
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Ever since the Supreme Court decided Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. in 2003, an amendment to the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (“FTDA”) has appeared inevitable. Congress almost certainly meant to adopt a “likelihood of dilution” standard in the original statute, and the 2006 revisions correct its sloppy drafting. Substituting a “likelihood of dilution” standard for “actual dilution,” however, does not resolve a deeper philosophical question that has always lurked in the dilution debate: what is dilution, and how does one prove or disprove its probability? The statutory definition notwithstanding, this issue remains largely unanswered, leaving the courts with the …
Dilution's (Still) Uncertain Future, Graeme B. Dinwoodie, Mark D. Janis
Dilution's (Still) Uncertain Future, Graeme B. Dinwoodie, Mark D. Janis
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Dilution looked to be a potent weapon when Congress introduced it as § 43(c) of the Lanham Act in 1995. Indeed, some observers feared that it would be too potent (and in some contexts, such as cybersquatting, it successfully augmented traditional causes of action). But a series of court decisions, culminating in the Supreme Court’s 2003 Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue opinion, weakened dilution protection so profoundly that what remained wasn’t of much consequence. Congress has recently sought to breathe new life into dilution law, enacting the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (“TDRA”). Some might see this as a …
Putting The Guesswork Back Into Capital Sentencing, Sean D. O'Brien
Putting The Guesswork Back Into Capital Sentencing, Sean D. O'Brien
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
In 1972, in Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court deemed it “incon-testable” that a death sentence is cruel and unusual if inflicted “by reason of [the defendant’s] race, religion, wealth, social position, or class, or if it is imposed under a procedure that gives room for the play of such prejudices.” Arbitrary and discriminatory patterns in capital sentencing moved the Court to strike down death penalty statutes that required judges or juries to cast thumbs-up or thumbs-down verdicts against offenders found guilty of capi-tal crimes. The issue of innocence was barely a footnote in Furman; the Court’s concerns focused on …
The Revolution Enters The Court: The Constitutional Significance Of Wrongful Convictions In Contemporary Constitutional Regulation Of The Death Penalty, Jordan Steiker
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Over the last decade, the most important events in American death pen-alty law have occurred outside the courts. The discovery of numerous wrongfully convicted death-sentenced inmates in Illinois led to the most substantial reflection on the American death penalty system since the late 1960s and early 1970s. Former Illinois Governor George Ryan, a Republi-can, first declared a moratorium on executions in 2000 and eventually commuted all 167 inmates on Illinois’s death row in 2003. The events in Illinois reverberated nationwide. Almost overnight, state legislative agendas shifted from expanding or maintaining the prevailing reach of the death penalty to studying its …
Legitimizing Error, Rebecca E. Woodman
Legitimizing Error, Rebecca E. Woodman
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Since Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court has sought to harmonize competing constitutional demands under Eighth Amendment rules regulat-ing the two-step eligibility and selection stages of the capital decision-making process. Furman’s demand for rationality and consistency requires that, at the eligibility stage, the sentencer’s discretion be limited and guided by clear and objective fact-based standards that rationally narrow the class of death-eligible defendants. The selection stage requires a determination of whether a specific death-eligible defendant actually deserves that punish-ment, as distinguished from other death-eligible defendants. Here, fundamental fairness and respect for the uniqueness of the individual are the cornerstones of …
Courts, Congress, And Public Policy, Part Ii: The Impact Of The Reapportionment Revolution On Congress And State Legislatures, Jeffrey R. Lax, Mathew D. Mccubbins
Courts, Congress, And Public Policy, Part Ii: The Impact Of The Reapportionment Revolution On Congress And State Legislatures, Jeffrey R. Lax, Mathew D. Mccubbins
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Developing Trends With The Class Action Fairness Act Of 2005, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 115 (2006), Steven M. Puiszis
Developing Trends With The Class Action Fairness Act Of 2005, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 115 (2006), Steven M. Puiszis
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Judging Expertise In Copyright Law, 14 J. Intell. Prop. L. 1 (2006), William K. Ford
Judging Expertise In Copyright Law, 14 J. Intell. Prop. L. 1 (2006), William K. Ford
UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Phantom Philosophy? An Empirical Investigation Of Legal Interpretation, 65 Md. L. Rev. 841 (2006), Jason J. Czarnezki, William K. Ford
The Phantom Philosophy? An Empirical Investigation Of Legal Interpretation, 65 Md. L. Rev. 841 (2006), Jason J. Czarnezki, William K. Ford
UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship
This Article tests a model of judicial decision making that incorporates elements of both the attitudinal model and the legal model, along with measures of institutional and judicial background characteristics such as collegiality and trial court experience. We develop a measure of interpretive philosophy relying primarily on judicial opinions, which we code for certain indicators of traditional interpretive approaches (i.e., the use of interpretive tools). The critical question is whether judges with similar interpretive philosophies are more likely to agree with one another when deciding cases. Our general finding is that ideology and interpretive philosophy are not significant predictors of …
Using Court Records For Research, Teaching, And Policymaking: The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, Margo Schlanger, Denise Lieberman
Using Court Records For Research, Teaching, And Policymaking: The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, Margo Schlanger, Denise Lieberman
Articles
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is, wisely, planning the future of its enormous collection of relatively recent court records. The pertinent regulation, a “records disposition schedule” first issued in 1995 by the Judicial Conference of the United States in consultation with NARA, commits the Archives to keeping, permanently, all case files dated 1969 or earlier; all case files dated 1970 or later in which a trial was held, and “any civil case file which NARA has determined in consultation with court officials to have historical value.” Other files may be destroyed 20 years after they enter the federal …
Comparative Fiscal Federalism: What Can The U.S. Supreme Court And The European Court Of Justice Learn From Each Other's Tax Jurisprudence?, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah
Comparative Fiscal Federalism: What Can The U.S. Supreme Court And The European Court Of Justice Learn From Each Other's Tax Jurisprudence?, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah
Articles
In October 2005, a group of distinguished tax experts from the European Union and the United States, who had never met before, convened at the University of Michigan Law School for a conference on "Comparative Fiscal Federalism: Comparing the U.S. Supreme Court and European Court of Justice Tax Jurisprudence." The purpose of the conference was to shed comparative light on the very different approaches taken by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the U.S. Supreme Court to the question of fiscal federalism. The conference was sponsored by the U-M Law School, U-M's European Union Center, and Harvard Law School's …
The Riddle Of Hiram Revels, Richard A. Primus
The Riddle Of Hiram Revels, Richard A. Primus
Articles
In 1870, a black man named Hiram Revels was named to represent Mississippi in the Senate. Senate Democrats objected to seating him and pointed out that the Constitution specifies that no person may be a senator who has not been a citizen of the United States for at least nine years. Before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, the Democrats argued, Revels had not been a citizen on account of the Supreme Court's 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford. Thus, even if Revels were a citizen in 1870, he had held that status for only two years. …
Cumulative Supplement To Jurisdiction In Civil Action, Wendy Collins Perdue
Cumulative Supplement To Jurisdiction In Civil Action, Wendy Collins Perdue
Law Faculty Publications
Cumulative supplement to Jurisdiction in Civil Action Third Edition.
Comparative Fiscal Federalism: What Can The U.S. Supreme Court And The European Court Of Justice Learn From Each Other's Tax Jurisprudence?, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah
Comparative Fiscal Federalism: What Can The U.S. Supreme Court And The European Court Of Justice Learn From Each Other's Tax Jurisprudence?, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah
Articles
Last October, a group of distinguished tax experts from the European Union and the United States convened at the University of Michigan Law School for a conference on "Comparative Fiscal Federalism: Comparing the U.S. Supreme Court and European Court of Justice Tax Jurisprudence." The conference was sponsored by the Law School, the European Union Center, and Harvard Law School's Fund for Tax and Fiscal Research. Attendees from Europe included Michel Aujean, the principal tax official at the EU Commission, Servaas van Thie1, chief tax advisor to the EU Council, Michael Lang (Vienna) and Kees van Raad (Leiden), who run the …
The Housing Court Act (1972) And Computer Technology (2005): How The Ambitious Mission Of The Housing Court To Protect The Housing Stock Of New York City May Finally Be Achieved, Mary Zulack
Faculty Scholarship
1972 to concentrate housing-related cases in a single court and to involve judges in the process of seeing that the housing stock was repaired. When I agreed to contribute an essay on how the Housing Court is fulfilling its obligation to preserve the housing stock, for the October 29, 2004 conference held by The Justice Center of the New York County Lawyers' Association, I imagined I would review annual court-produced statistics. I expected this to include 30 years worth of information about repairs claimed to be needed, orders to repair issued, number of repairs actually made, the range of enforcement …