Courts Commons^™

Asking The First Question: Reframing Bivens After Minneci, Alexander A. Reinert, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

In Minneci v. Pollard, decided in January 2012, the Supreme Court refused to recognize a Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents suit against employees of a privately run federal prison because state tort law provided an alternative remedy, thereby adding a federalism twist to what had been strictly a separation-of-powers debate. In this Article, we show why this new state-law focus is misguided. We first trace the Court’s prior alternative-remedies-to-Bivens holdings, illustrating that this history is one narrowly focused on separation of powers at the federal level. Minneci’s break with this tradition raises several concerns. On a doctrinal level, …

Deleuze And The Maiden: A Short Introduction To Legal Pornology, Laurent De Sutter

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rumors Of The Sharia Threat Are Greatly Exaggerated: What American Judges Really Do With Islamic Family Law In Their Courtrooms, Asifa Quraishi-Landes

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cloudy Weather, With Occasional Sunshine: Consumer Loans, The Legislature, And The Supreme Court Of Japan, Shigenori Matsui

All Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court of Japan, despite its well-known passive and conservative stance towards constitutional adjudication, occasionally shows quite a creative and liberal attitude. Recently, the Supreme Court of Japan has shown this attitude in its development of pro-consumer jurisprudence involving consumer loan cases. This development is still more noteworthy because the Supreme Court of Japan ignored the legislature's intent to overturn its previous judgments and practically wiped out a statutory provision enacted by the legislature. As a result of this development, millions of consumers could demand refunds from consumer loan companies, and consumer loan companies went into serious financial troubles, …

Book Review. Epstein, L., Et. Al., The Behavior Of Federal Judges: A Theoretical And Empirical Study Of Rational Choice, Ashley A. Ahlbrand

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

‘Germans Are The Lords And Poles Are The Servants’: The Trial Of Arthur Greiser In Poland, 1946, In The Hidden Histories Of War Crimes Trials (Kevin Jon Heller & Gerry Simpson Eds., 2013), Mark A. Drumbl

Books and Chapters

In the aftermath of World War II, the first conviction of an influential Nazi German official for the crime of waging aggressive war was delivered not by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, but, rather, by the Supreme National Tribunal of Poland sitting in Poznán. The accused was Arthur Greiser. Beginning in September 1939, Greiser served as Gauleiter (i.e. Governor) of the Warthegau, a large expanse of western Poland that had been illegally annexed to Nazi Germany. The Warthegau's residents suffered brutally under Greiser's boot.

The Polish Tribunal sentenced Greiser to death on July 9, 1946. His execution by public …

“Dealing With The Appellate Caseload Crisis”: The Report Of The Federal Courts Study Committee Revisited, Roger J. Miner

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Increasing Referrals To Small Claims Mediation Programs: Models To Improve Access To Justice, Heather Scheiwe Kulp

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

The justice system is in crisis. In 2011, 85% of Connecticut's family court cases had at least one self-represented litigant. In Massachusetts, 92% of parties appearing in housing cases are selfrepresented. New York saw self-representation in 97% of child support cases. Although judges and attorneys are learning to adapt to this new reality, the strain is felt strongly by bench and bar alike.

This article explores a service that many courts already offer-small claims mediation-and studies how courts may more effectively refer parties to such services. Specifically, this article identifies six primary models courts use to refer parties to small …

Hawaiian Land Disputes: How The Uncertainty Of The Native Hawaiian Indigenous Tribal Status Exacerbates The Need For Mediation, Donna S. Salcedo

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

Many people see the Hawaiian Islands as a paradise in the Pacific Ocean. However, most are unaware that history has left an unpleasant and permanent scar on the original inhabitants of the islands, the Native Hawaiians. It is often forgotten that the islands were once ruled by its monarchy. In fact, the Hawaiian Kingdom was not overthrown until 1893, and the islands did not reach statehood until 1959. Despite this however, Native Hawaiians have never officially been considered an indigenous tribe. This lack of recognition from the federal government has caused a strong sense of injustice that is prevalent throughout …

Is Adjudication A Public Good? "Overcrowded Courts" And The Private Sector Alternative Of Arbitration, Stephen J. Ware

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

Courts are underfunded, dockets are crowded, and litigation is slow. These observations lead many lawyers and judges to call for increased court funding. While I would like to see a significantly higher percentage of government spending go to courts, I do not believe that is likely to happen. So I suggest we think about "underfunded" courts differently.

A Research Agenda For Uncooperative Federalists, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Building A Taxonomy Of Litigation: Clusters Of Causes Of Action In Federal Complaints, Christina L. Boyd, David A. Hoffman, Zoran Obradovic, Kosta Ristovski

Scholarship@WashULaw

This project empirically explores civil litigation from its inception by examining the content of civil complaints. We utilize spectral cluster analysis on a newly compiled federal district court dataset of causes of action in complaints to illustrate the relationship of legal claims to one another, the broader composition of lawsuits in trial courts, and the breadth of pleading in individual complaints. Our results shed light not only on the networks of legal theories in civil litigation but also on how lawsuits are classified and the strategies that plaintiffs and their attorneys employ when commencing litigation. This approach permits us to …

Litigating Toward Settlement, Christina L. Boyd, David A. Hoffman

Scholarship@WashULaw

Civil litigation typically ends when the parties compromise. While existing theories of settlement primarily focus on information exchange, we instead examine how motion practice, especially non-discovery motions, can substantially shape parties’ knowledge about their cases and thereby influence the timing of settlement. Using docket-level federal district court data, we find a number of strong effects regarding how motions can influence this process, including that the filing of a motion significantly speeds case settlement, that granted motions are more immediately critical to settlement timing than motions denied, and that plaintiff victories have a stronger effect than defendant victories. These results provide …

Paved With Good Intentions: Sentencing Alternatives From Neuroscience And The Policy Of Problem-Solving Courts, Emily R. Murphy

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

General Law In Federal Court, Bradford R. Clark, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.

Journal Articles

Conventional wisdom maintains that the Supreme Court banished general law from federal courts in 1938 in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins when the Court overruled Swift v. Tyson. The narrative asserts that Swift viewed the common law as a “brooding omnipresence,” and authorized federal courts to disregard state common law in favor of general common law of their own choosing. The narrative continues that Erie constrained such judicial lawmaking by banishing general law from federal courts. Contrary to this account, Swift and Erie represent compatible conceptions of federal judicial power when each decision is understood in historical context. At the …

When Is Finality Final? Second Chances At The Supreme Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Where Corporations Are: Why Casual Visits To New York Are Bad For Business, Jeanne L. Schroeder, David G. Carlson

Articles

In this article, we examine the recent case of Hotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC v. Falor (2010), from the New York Court of Appeals. In this case, New York’s highest court held that LLCs are “present” in New York for jurisdictional purposes when the president of the LLC has submitted to New York jurisdiction in an unrelated law suit against him personally, and where the president came to New York for a deposition in that action. This, we claim, was unconstitutional. In addition, the New York Court of Appeals pronounced itself obliged by the United States Constitution to change the …

Front-Of-Package Nutrition Claims: Trustworthy Facts Or Deceptive Marketing? Closing The Loopholes In Labeling, Kathryn E. Hayes

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The note argues that front-of-package (FOP) labeling on children's food products is insufficient and often misleading, failing to meet basic nutritional standards. It advocates for the adoption of uniform, science-based labeling standards developed by an objective body like the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to help parents make healthier choices. The analysis highlights the limitations of self-regulation by manufacturers and the need for stronger governmental oversight to address deceptive practices and improve public health outcomes.

Why Can't We Be (F)Rands?: The Effect Of Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory Commitments On Standard-Essential Patent Licensing, Robert D. Keeler

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

This Note explores the effect of a patent holder's reasonable and non-discriminatory ("RAND") commitments to standard-setting organizations on their patent claims which are declared "standard-essential" by the standard-setting organization. It also analyzes the current standard-essential patent ("SEP") licensing system used by the majority of standard-setting organizations around the world and proposed modifications thereto.

This Note looks toward the current case of Microsoft v. Motorola Mobility, the recent Google Settlement with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), and various calls for reform from other areas of the government. The Note concludes that it appears that we are moving toward a system in …

Judging The Flood Of Litigation, Marin K. Levy

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court has increasingly considered a particular kind of argument: that it should avoid reaching decisions that would “open the floodgates of litigation.” Despite its frequent invocation, there has been little scholarly exploration of what a floodgates argument truly means, and even less discussion of its normative basis. This Article addresses both subjects, demonstrating for the first time the scope and surprising variation of floodgates arguments, as well as uncovering their sometimes-shaky foundations. Relying on in-depth case studies from a wide array of issue areas, the Article shows that floodgates arguments primarily have been used to protect three institutions: …

The Role Of Courts In "Making" Law In Japan: The Communitarian Conservatism Of Japanese Judges, John O. Haley

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Professor Haley is an outstanding international and comparative law scholars, widely credited with having popularized Japanese legal studies in the United States. In 1969, Haley received a fellowship from the University of Washington and was in one of the first classes to graduate from the Asian Law Program, now, the Asian Law Center. After working for several years in law firms in Japan, he joined the law faculty at the University of Washington, where he remained for nearly twenty-six years during which time he directed the Asian and Comparative Law Program. In June 2012, Professor Haley was awarded The Order …

Undue Burdens In Texas, Jennifer S. Hendricks

Publications

No abstract provided.

Ip Injury And The Institutions Of Patent Law, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

This paper reviews Creation Without Restraint: Promoting Liberty and Rivalry in Innovation, the pathbreaking book by Christina Bohannan and Herbert Hovenkamp (Oxford Univ. Press 2012). The Review begins by summarizing the book’s descriptive insights and analyzing one of its important normative proposals: the adoption of an IP injury requirement. This requirement would demand that infringement plaintiffs prove -- before obtaining damages or an injunction -- an injury to the incentive to innovate. After explaining how this requirement is easy to justify under governing law and is largely consistent with recent Supreme Court decisions in the field of patent law, the …

Geography And Justice: Why Prison Location Matters In U.S. And International Theories Of Criminal Punishment, Steven Arrigg Koh

Faculty Scholarship

This Article is the first to analyze prison location and its relationship to U.S. and international theories of criminal punishment. Strangely, scholarly literature overlooks criminal prison designation procedures—the procedures by which a court or other institution designates the prison facility in which a recently convicted individual is to serve his or her sentence.

This Article identifies this gap in the literature—the prison location omission—and fills it from three different vantage points:

(1) U.S. procedural provisions governing prison designation;

(2) international procedural provisions governing prison designation; and

(3) the relationship between imprisonment and broader theories of criminal punishment.

Through comparison of …

Spatial Legality, Due Process, And Choice Of Law In Human Rights Litigation Under U.S. State Law, Anthony J. Colangelo, Kristina Kiik

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Framing the topic of this symposium as “Human Rights Litigation in State Courts and Under State Law” effectively orients the discussion around the rights of plaintiffs from the outset, the central question being whether they have enforceable rights in U.S. state courts under state law. Standing in the way are various legal doctrines. In broad strokes, the relevant questions become: Which doctrines do, or should, either facilitate or obstruct human rights litigation in U.S. state courts and under state law? How are courts applying these doctrines? How should courts apply these doctrines?

Many of the doctrines that potentially stand in …

Prison Is Prison, Brooke Coleman

Faculty Articles

Two indigent men stand before two separate judges. Both will be sent to prison if they lose their cases. One receives appointed counsel, but the other does not. This discrepancy seems terribly unjust, yet the Supreme Court has no problem with it. It recently affirmed in Turner v. Rogers, that where an indigent individual is subject to criminal charges that can result in incarceration, he has a right to appointed counsel, but where an indigent individual is subject to civil proceedings where incarceration is a consequence, he does not. In other words, criminal and civil proceedings have different rules, and …

A Twice-Told Tale: Plausibility And Narrative Coherence In Judicial Storytelling, Chris Rideout

Faculty Articles

What makes the stories told in court believable, and thus convincing? Part of the answer, this article suggests, lies in narrative coherence. Stories “make sense” and are plausible, not because they necessarily correspond in a direct way to “what really happened,” but rather because they seem structurally whole, consistent, and complete. They have achieved narrative coherence. After considering the role of narrative coherence in the plausibility of narratives, the article presents a typology for narrative coherence, breaking it down into external and internal coherence, with further component parts to each one. The article then turns to the Supreme Court case …

Casual Ostracism: Jury Exclusion On The Basis Of Criminal Convictions, Anna Roberts

Faculty Articles

Statutes in forty-eight states permit the exclusion of those with felony convictions from criminal juries; thirteen states permit the exclusion of those with misdemeanor convictions. The reasons given for these exclusions, which include the assumption that those with convictions are embittered against the state, do not justify their costs. Procedural justice theories indicate that embitterment of those with criminal convictions need not – and should not – be assumed. Rather, policymakers should do what they can to avoid such embitterment. This article therefore proposes that automatic statutory exclusions on the basis of criminal convictions should be abandoned. If a juror …

Full Disclosure: Cognitive Bias, Informants, And Search Warrant Scrutiny, Mary Bowman

Faculty Articles

This article posits that cognitive biases play a significant role in the gap between the rhetoric regarding Fourth Amendment protection and actual practices regarding search warrant scrutiny, particularly for search warrants based on informants’ tips. Specifically, this article examines the ways in which implicit bias, tunnel vision, priming, and hindsight bias can affect search warrants. These biases can affect each stage of the search warrant process, including targeting decisions, the drafting process, the magistrate’s decision whether to grant the warrant, and post-search review by trial and appellate courts. These biases create room for informant falsehoods to go unchecked, with a …

Lafler And Frye: A New Constitutional Standard For Negotiation, Rishi Batra

Faculty Articles

The Sixth Amendment guarantees "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." In 1984, the Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington established the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel that is a violation of this right. In a pair of decisions handed down in 2012, Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye the Supreme Court extended the holding in Strickland to cover ineffective assistance by defense counsel in the plea-bargaining phase. Recognizing that pleas account for ninety-five percent of all criminal convictions, the court stated that "the negotiation …