Courts Commons^™

Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Commander V. Israel Internet Association, Uzi Vogelman, Asher Grunis, Noam Sohlberg

Translated Opinions

Facts: In August 2010, the Israel Police ordered major Israeli Internet access providers to block access to eight gambling websites operating outside the State of Israel. The orders were based on section 229 of the Penal Law that permits the District Police Commander to order the closure of any illegal gaming, lottery, or gambling place. The access providers complied with the orders and the Israel Internet Association petitioned the Administrative Affairs Court against the District Commander, contesting the closure, in the interests of Israeli web-users and the general public. The Internet access providers did not petition against the closure of …

The Collision Of Law And Science: American Court Responses To Developments In Forensic Science, Sarah Lucy Cooper

Pace Law Review

This paper considers how American courts have responded to developments in forensic science by focusing on four popular forensic science disciplines: (1) fingerprint identification (friction ridge analysis); (2) firearms identification (tool-mark analysis); (3) bite mark identification (forensic odontology); and (4) arson investigation (fire science). Part I briefly explores the relationship between law and science. Part II charts the development of the legal frameworks that govern the admissibility of expert evidence in America. Part III discusses the identification methods employed by these four disciplines and provides examples of erroneous identifications. Part IV comments on the NAS Report findings that relate to …

Buying A Judicial Seat For Appeal: Caperton V. A.T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., Is Right Out Of A John Grisham Novel, Richard Gillespie

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court's Take On Immigration In Nken V. Holder: Reaffirming A Traditional Standard That Affords Courts More Time And Flexibility To Decide Immigration Appeals Before Deporting Aliens, Elizaveta Kabanova

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

California And Uncle Sam's Tug-Of-War Over Mary Jane Is Really Harshing The Mellow, Daniel Mortensen

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Thinking Outside The Bars: Examining All The Options In Sentencing, Lindsay Lasalle, Courtney Bryan, Larry Spottsville, Charles E. Auslander Iii

Working in the Public Interest Conferences

Covers the rationale behind the growing use of alternative court programs in the United States and the common methods applied in these programs.

Resolving The Alj Quandary, Kent H. Barnett

Scholarly Works

Three competing constitutional and practical concerns surround federal administrative law judges (“ALJs”), who preside over all formal adjudications within the executive branch. First, if ALJs are “inferior Officers” (not mere employees), as five current Supreme Court Justices have suggested, the current method of selecting many ALJs likely violates the Appointments Clause. Second, a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision reserved the question whether the statutory protections that prevent ALJs from being fired at will impermissibly impinge upon the President’s supervisory power under Article II. Third, these same protections from removal may, on the other hand, be too limited to satisfy impartiality …

In Memoriam: The Honorable Harry L. Carrico, Hon. John A. Gibney Jr., Wendy C. Perdue, John G. Douglass, William G. Broaddus, Victoria A.B. Willis

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Issue 3: Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Preemption And Choice-Of-Law Coordination, Erin O'Hara O'Connor, Larry E. Ribstein

Michigan Law Review

The doctrine treating federal preemption of state law has been plagued by uncertainty and confusion. Part of the problem is that courts purport to interpret congressional intent when often Congress has never considered the particular preemption question at issue. This Article suggests that courts deciding preemption cases should take seriously a commonly articulated rationale for the federalization of law: the need to coordinate applicable legal standards in order to facilitate a national market or to otherwise provide clear guidance to parties regarding the laws that apply to their conduct. In situations where federal law can serve a coordinating function but …

Statutes In Common Law Courts, Jeffrey A. Pojanowski

Journal Articles

The Supreme Court teaches that federal courts, unlike their counterparts in the states, are not general common law courts. Nevertheless, a perennial point of contention among federal law scholars is whether and how a court’s common law powers affect its treatment of statutes. Textualists point to federal courts’ lack of common law powers to reject purposivist statutory interpretation. Critics of textualism challenge this characterization of federal courts’ powers, leveraging a more robust notion of the judicial power to support purposivist or dynamic interpretation. This disagreement has become more important in recent years with the emergence of a refreshing movement in …

Doe Co., Ltd V. Doe, Uzi Vogelman, Isaac Amit, Esther Hayut

Translated Opinions

[This abstract is not part of the Court's opinion and is provided for the reader's convenience. It has been translated from a Hebrew version prepared by Nevo Press Ltd. and is used with its kind permission.]

The Supreme Court (Justice Vogelman, Justices Hayut and Amit, concurring) granted leave to appeal, upheld the appeal and ruled as follows.

The Court considered the proceedings on the premise that the provisions of section 70(e1) of the Courts Act [Consolidated Version], 5744-1984 (hereinafter – the “Act”), which refers to a “suspect” as defined in section 70(e2) of the Act “as someone against whom a …

Take My Child, Please - A Plea For Radical Nonintervention, William M. Marticorena

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The California Youth Authority: Planning For A Better Tomorrow, Pearl S. West

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Statement Of William S. White, William S. White

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Security For Costs Requirement In California - A Violation Of Procedural Due Process?, Jerel L. Ellington

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Compendium Of Major California Juvenile Law Decisions With Brief Analyses, 1979, Michael T. Lubinski, Robert M. Triplett

Pepperdine Law Review

Society has been plagued with the problem of whether the police, the courts and the correction agencies are to administer juveniles for their protection and treatment, or for their punishment. To facilitate a better understanding of juvenile administration the authors have analyzed the California juvenile law cases for the year 1979. The article consists of six major area of interest; parent-child custody, sentencing, procedure, jurisdiction, evidentiary and constitutional which will be used to highlight some of the more significant decisions in the past year, thus enabling the reader to assess changes occurring in the juvenile system.

Fare V. Michael C.: Juveniles And In Custodial Interrogations , Gregory S. Chudacoff

Pepperdine Law Review

In the principal case, Fare v. Michael C., the United States Supreme Court rejects the position of the Supreme Court of California that a juvenile's request for the presence of his probation officer constitutes an invocation of the juvenile's right to remain silent within the meaning of the Miranda decision. The author examines the rationale applied by each court enroute to this split of opinion, and suggests a middle ground which would accommodate the concerns of both courts with respect to the protection of an accused juvenile at the custodial interrogation stage.

Status Offenders Should Be Removed From The Juvenile Court , Luke Quinn, Peter M. Hutchison

Pepperdine Law Review

Inadequate financial resources and overcrowded juvenile placement facilities have frequently been cited as grounds for the abrogation of the juvenile court's practice of retaining jurisdiction over status offenders. In this article, Judge Quinn suggests the existence of even more compelling reasons which support diversion of status offenders to programs better suited to their particular needs. The author contends that the juvenile court's jurisdiction should be confined to matters of fact-finding and adjudication, rather than intruding into areas within the domain of the parents, and into areas in which the court lacks the necessary expertise. It is argued that diversion of …

A Rationale For The Abolition Of The Juvenile Court's Power To Waive Jurisdiction , John Gasper, Daniel Katkin

Pepperdine Law Review

The juvenile court's power to waive jurisdiction which entails the transfer of juvenile offenders to adult courts presents a topic of longstanding controversy. It's rationale, one of protection of the public, has been labeled by the authors as untenable. Moreover, it is asserted that waiver of jurisdiction in such cases contravenes the very cornerstone of the juvenile court process--the doctrine of parens patriae. Three methods of transfer are seen to exist--legislative, prosecutorial, and judicial. Focusing on the latter, the authors posit an argument advocating the abrogation of the concept of waiver. Justification for this proposition is seen to flow from …

Juvenile Discovery: A Developing Trend And A Word Of Caution, Diane Geraghty

Pepperdine Law Review

The use of discovery is acknowledged as essential to the efficient administration of justice and to the fairness of the adversary system in both civil and criminal proceedings. However, the juvenile court system has been slow to implement various means of discovery, largely as a result of the doctrine of parens patriae and the unique nature of the juvenile process. Although a discernible trend indicates acceptance of pretrial discovery, there has been considerable experimentation at decisional and statutory levels to develop procedurally protective discovery mechanisms. Professor Geraghty traces the use of discovery in juvenile proceedings and devotes particular attention to …

Procedural Rights In The Juvenile Court: Incorporation Or Due Process?, Glen W. Clark

Pepperdine Law Review

The landmark Supreme Court decision in In re Gault established, among other things, a juvenile's right to counsel in delinquency prosecutions. However, the decision left unanswered certain questions relating to the nature and scope of that right. In this article, the author examines whether or not Gault initiated a special due process right to counsel for juveniles apart from that body of sixth amendment law previously developed in criminal cases. Alternatively, he wonders whether Gault was meant to initiate a process of selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the juvenile justice system. The author critically analyzes the resulting …

From Gault To Fare And Smith: The Decline In Supreme Court Reliance On Delinquency Theory , Victor L. Streib

Pepperdine Law Review

The Supreme Court's reliance upon research and scholarly commentaries which examine the sociological factors that contribute to delinquent behavior has declined considerably during the last fourteen years. The author, in an effort to explain this decline, analyzes the seven major juvenile cases which have been considered by the Court since 1966. He conducts this analysis by focusing upon the subject matter of each decision, the importance of the issues arising therein and the author of each opinion. While some similarities appear, no consistent pattern emerges from this analysis. The article concludes that while juvenile law is an area which is …

Shearson V. United States Department Of Homeland Security: The Sixth Circuit Exempts National Security From The Privacy Act, Douglas A. Behrens

Legislation and Policy Brief

“ARMED AND DANGEROUS.” Imagine those words flashing on a Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) agent’s computer screen as you attempt to reenter your country of birth from a relaxing vacation. Reacting to the computerized warning, the CBP agents detain and question you for several hours before you are released from custody—without an explanation—and allowed to continue on your trip home as if nothing had happened.

This hypothetical scenario became very real for Julia Shearson and her four-year old daughter in January 2006, and marked the beginning of her quest for answers. Why was she flagged as “ARMED AND DANGEROUS?” What …

The End Of An Era: The Supreme Court (Finally) Butts Out Of Punitive Damages For Good, Jim Gash

Florida Law Review

Part I of this Article chronicles and summarizes the development of the Supreme Court’s punitive damages jurisprudence. Over the past two decades, the Court has increasingly constitutionalized various aspects of punitive damages jurisprudence, using both procedural and substantive due process rationales. A set of three “guideposts” has emerged that courts are to use in determining whether a punitive damages award runs afoul of constitutional guarantees.

Part II outlines the multiple punishments problem that is currently facing courts throughout the country and provides a brief overview of the various failed attempts and current proposals to remedy this problem.

Part III provides …

Two Faces Of Judicial Restraint (Or Are There More?) In Mcdonald V. City Of Chicago, Nelson Lund

Florida Law Review

Since the days of the Warren Court, conservatives have attacked “judicial activism.” Beginning with Judge Robert Bork’s Supreme Court nomination hearings, and lately with increasing frequency, liberals have sought to turn the tables. Critics now charge that conservative judges are activists, especially when they undermine liberal precedents or strike down liberal legislation. Defenders of judicial activism have all but disappeared. One sign of this apparent consensus is that all Supreme Court nominees now promise to be paragons of judicial restraint.

Some politicians and commentators have suggested that nominees are dissembling when they make such statements, and some of the sitting …

People V. Drew: Adoption Of The Ali Rule Of Insanity In California , David Darbyshire

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dedicatory Address: Act Well Your Part: Therein All Honor Lies , William H. Rehnquist

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bauguess V. Paine: The Denial Of The Attorney Fee Sanction At The (Mis)Trial Stage, Steven D. Campen

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The California Supreme Court Survey: A Review Of Decisions: December 1980 - February 1981, Drago C. Baric, William C. Bollard

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.