Courts Commons^™

A Comparison Of The American Model And French (-Inspired) Appellate Model, Frederic Blockx

Duke Law Master of Judicial Studies Theses

Both the American and the French legal system have a three-tiered structure. However, the respective roles and functions of the courts on each step of the ladder is vastly different in both. Whereas the general system in the U.S. is to have one trial court and two ‘higher’ courts (a court of appeals and a supreme court), the French / European continental system consists of two ‘factual’ courts (the basic level and the court of appeals), and one ‘legal’ (the supreme court) with limited or even inexistent possibilities to look at the facts.

The purpose of this thesis is to …

Determining Enhanced Damages After Halo Electronics: Still A Struggle?, Veronica Corcoran

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

35 U.S.C. § 284 of the Patent Act allows district courts to use their discretion to award enhanced damages up to three times the amount found or assessed in the case of patent infringement. This Comment will consider how the Supreme court of the United States’ holding in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse electronics, Inc. changed the landscape of enhanced damages awards in light of willful infringement.

First, this Comment will examine the Federal Circuit’s approach that now embraces both an objective and subjective inquiry in determining enhanced damages, which may resolve the concern over the rigidity in the Seagate …

State Standing In United States V. Texas: Opening The Floodgates To States Challenging The Federal Government Or Proper Federalism?, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

In United States v. Texas, the Supreme Court by an equally divided vote, 4 to 4, affirmed the decision of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that the State of Texas had Article III standing to challenge in federal court the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) directive establishing a Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (“DAPA”) program to grant lawful immigration status to millions of undocumented immigrants. A serious question is whether state standing in this case will open the floodgates to allow states to challenge virtually every federal executive action. On the other hand, …

The African Court And Human Rights: What Lies Ahead For The Merged Court?, Florence Shu-Acquaye

Faculty Scholarship

This paper examines the African Court of People’s and Human Rights, the historical evolution, criticism, and explores issues that the Court may deal with as it assumes its new and envisioned role and form as the Merged Court.

Why The Categorical Approach Should Not Be Used When Determining Whether An Offense Is A Crime Of Violence Under The Residual Clause Of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (C), Mary Frances Richardson

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

How Defendant Characteristics Affect Sentencing And Conviction In The Us, Payton Kuenzli

Honors Undergraduate Theses

This research study analyzes whether or not there is any relationship between sentencing and conviction and certain defendant characteristics in the US legal system. In the midst of a time where the nation is strongly divided politically, the topic is often the center of research projects and discussions in academic journals. Specifically, this research explores the 3 characteristics- race, gender, and socioeconomic status. Within this article, multiple case studies from other journals are cited in which research and experiments have suggested that these factors do have influence on both whether or not a defendant gets convicted or for how long …

Without Evidence: Joel Richard Paul’S John Marshall, Kevin C. Walsh

Scholarly Articles

John Marshall—soldier, lawyer, legislator, statesman, and fourth chief justice of the United States—led a long public life that spanned from the American Revolution to the rise of Jacksonian democracy. Joel Richard Paul’s full-length biography takes the reader from Marshall’s birth on the Virginia frontier in 1755, to his death in 1835 at the head of an American judiciary that had gained significantly in power and respect because of Marshall’s leadership over the preceding 34 years.

Expert Report Of Catherine Smith, J.D.: Juliana V. United States, Catherine Smith

Scholarly Articles

The Founders created the architecture for the rights of children to self-determination and protection from the sins of their forebears. A central tenet of our democracy is that government, including these federal defendants, should not deprive children (the next generation) of the foundational elements of their lives, liberties or property and should not impose hardships on them for matters of which they have no control. This historical tradition and intent of the Founders of our nation has not always been realized, but has evolved over time as our society gains new insights and understandings of children and our notions of …

International Judicial Practices: Opening The "Black Box" Of International Courts, Jeffrey L. Dunoff, Mark A. Pollack

Michigan Journal of International Law

This paper utilizes “practice theory” to identify and analyze the everyday practices of international judges, with particular focus on practices associated with judicial decision-making. Examining judicial practices illuminates a wide range of otherwise hidden activities that shape international judicial opinions; provides a pathway toward uncovering the subjective understandings that international judges attach to their own behaviors; and reveals underlying causal processes and mechanisms that influence tribunal decisions. By opening the “black box” of international courts, the practice turn permits us to shed light on their inner workings, and thereby enrich our understanding of these increasingly important bodies.

Justice Outside Of Criminal Courtrooms And Jailhouses, In Arcs Of Global Justice: Essays In Honour Of William A. Schabas (Margaret M. Deguzman & Diane Marie Amann Eds., 2018), Mark A. Drumbl

Books and Chapters

This chapter examines alternate forms of transitional justice, notably, customary forms of dispute resolution, restitution, reparations, amnesties, and civil sanctions. It suggests that the international community’s preference for criminal trials as accountability mechanisms in the aftermath of genocide results in the ‘othering’ of these alternate forms of justice. Such ‘othering’ narrows legal pluralism to questions of the location of criminal process and the imposition of custodial punishment (who prosecutes, who sentences?), rather than a richer examination of how deployment of a conceptual diversity of overlapping mechanisms could promote shared objectives of accountability, justice, and transition.

Delaware's Retreat: Exploring Developing Fissures And Tectonic Shifts In Delaware Corporate Law, James D. Cox, Randall S. Thomas

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Crowdsourcing & Data Analytics: The New Settlement Tools, Bernard Chao, Christopher Robertson, David Yokum

Faculty Scholarship

By protecting the right to a jury, the State and Federal Constitutions recognize the fundamental value of having civil and criminal disputes resolved by laypersons. However actual trials are relatively rare, in part because parties seek to avoid the risks and cost of trials, and courts seek to clear dockets efficiently. Even as settlement may be desirable, it is sometimes difficult to resolve a dispute. Parties naturally view their cases from different perspectives, and these perspectives often cause both sides to be overly optimistic, seeking unreasonably large or unreasonably small resolutions.
/="/">
/="/">This article describes a novel method of …

Why Courts Fail To Protect Privacy: Race, Age, Bias, And Technology, Bernard Chao, Catherine Durso, Ian Farrell, Christopher Robertson

Faculty Scholarship

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable “searches and seizures,” but in the digital age of stingray devices and IP tracking, what constitutes a search or seizure? The Supreme Court has held that the threshold question is supposed to depend on and reflect the “reasonable expectations” of ordinary members of the public concerning their own privacy. For example, the police now exploit the “third party” doctrine to access data held by email and cell phone providers, without securing a warrant, on the Supreme Court’s intuition that the public has no expectation of privacy in that information. Is that assumption correct? If …

Brief Of Professors William Baude And Stephen E. Sachs As Amici Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, William Baude, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

This case presents the question whether to overrule Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979). That question requires careful attention to the legal status of sovereign immunity and to the Constitution’s effect on it, which neither Hall nor either party has quite right. The Founders did not silently constitutionalize a common-law immunity, but neither did they leave each State wholly free to hale other States before its courts. While Hall’s holding was mostly right, other statements in Hall are likely quite wrong—yet this case is a poor vehicle for reconsidering them.

Hall correctly held that States lack a constitutional immunity …

Strategic Publication, Ben Grunwald

Faculty Scholarship

Under the standard account of judicial behavior when a panel of appellate court judges cannot agree on the outcome of a case, the panel has two options. First, it can publish a divided decision with a majority opinion and a dissent. Panels usually do not take this route because a dissent dramatically increases the probability of reversal. The second and more common option is for the panel to bargain and compromise over the reasoning of the decision and then publish a unanimous opinion.

This Article argues that a divided panel has a third option: strategic publication. The panel can choose …

Erie As A Way Of Life, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Challenges Facing Judges Regarding Expert Evidence In Criminal Cases, Paul W. Grimm

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Climate Change Litigation In The Federal Courts: Jurisdictional Lessons From California V. Bp, Gil Seinfeld

Michigan Law Review Online

On March 21 of this year, something unusual took place at a U.S. courthouse in San Francisco: a group of scientists and attorneys provided Federal District Judge William H. Alsup with a crash course in climate science. The five-hour tutorial was ordered by Judge Alsup in connection with a lawsuit that had been filed by the cities of Oakland and San Francisco (“the Cities”) against the world’s five largest producers of fossil fuels. The central issue in the case is whether the energy companies can be held liable for continuing to market fossil fuels long after they learned that such …

Court Capture, Jonas Anderson

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

Capture — the notion that a federal agency can become controlled by the industry the agency is supposed to be regulating — is a fundamental concern for administrative law scholars. Surprisingly, however, no thorough treatment of how capture theory applies to the federal judiciary has been done. The few scholars who have attempted to apply the insights of capture theory to federal courts have generally concluded that the federal courts are insulated from capture concerns.

This Article challenges the notion that the federal courts cannot be captured. It makes two primary arguments. As an initial matter, this Article makes the …

Bias On Trial: Toward An Open Discussion Of Racial Stereotypes In The Courtroom, Mikah K. Thompson

Faculty Works

In the 2017 case Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, the U.S. Supreme Court discussed several safeguards that are in place to assist the trial court in identifying racial bias among jurors. These safeguards include voir dire examination regarding racial bias, observation of juror demeanor and conduct that might demonstrate racial bias, reports of racially biased comments or actions by jurors during trial, and non-juror evidence of racial bias after trial. The Court acknowledged that these safeguards may be insufficient at times and therefore added a fifth one, holding that trial courts may review evidence suggesting that racial bias was a motivating factor …

Remedial Reading: Evaluating Federal Courts’ Application Of The Prejudice Standard In Capital Sentences From “Weighing” And “Non-Weighing” States, Sarah Gerwig-Moore

Articles

On March 31, 2016, the State of Georgia executed my client, Joshua Bishop. Until the time of his execution, several successive legal teams challenged his conviction and sentence through the usual channels: direct appeal, state habeas corpus proceedings, and federal habeas corpus proceedings. The last hearing on the merits of his case was before a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which accepts appeals from death penalty cases out of Georgia, Florida, and Alabama. In a lengthy opinion describing the many mitigating circumstances present in Mr. Bishop’s case, the Eleventh Circuit denied relief. This …

Cumulative Finality, Bryan Lammon

Georgia Law Review

A proper notice of appeal is a necessary first step in
most federal appeals. But federal litigants sometimes
file their notice of appeal early, before district court
proceedings have ended. When those proceedingsfinally
end and no new notice is filed, the law of cumulative
finality determines what effect-if any-the premature
notice has. Sometimes the notice is effective and the
appeal proceeds as normal. Sometimes it's not, and
litigants lose their right to appeal.
At least, that's how the law of cumulative finality looks
from a distance. Up close, the courts of appeals are
hopelessly divided on matters of cumulative finality. …

Bailing On Bail: The Unconstitutionality Of Fixed, Monetary Bail Systems And Their Continued Use Throughout The United States, Margaret E. Margaret

Georgia Law Review

Incarceratingdefendants prior to trial was designed to be
the exception, not the norm. Many state and local
jurisdictionsthroughout the United States, however, employ
fixed, monetary bail systems that result in the systematic pre-
trial incarceration of indigent defendants solely because of
their inability to pay for their release. Not only do such bail
systems violate indigent defendants' constitutional rights,
they also contribute to the billions spent by local governments
each year on maintainingovercrowded jails and have lasting
effects on those indigent defendants wrongfully detained.
This Note explores the constitutionalityof fixed, monetary
bail systems through the lens of a recent Georgiacase, …

Patent Pilot Program Perspectives: Patent Litigation In The Northern District Of Illinois, 17 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 348 (2018)

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

A Patent Pilot Program, or PPP, is geared towards giving designated judges in various districts more experience with patent cases. The Volume 17 RIPL Executive Board interviewed several participating judges in the Northern District of Illinois’ PPP.

This note is comprised of interviews with Judge Thomas M. Durkin, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly, and Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois; taken over the course of May and June of 2017 by the Volume 17 RIPL Board members Kaylee Willis and Benjamin Lockyer. Its contents compile a uniform effort by both the judges interviewed …

The Supreme Court: A Help Or A Hindrance To The Federal Circuit's Mission?, 17 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 298 (2018), Donald Dunner

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Before the establishment of the Federal Circuit, the system of patent enforcement was deeply flawed, with the circuit courts then responsible for reviewing district court patent decisions harboring widely varying attitudinal views in the interpretation of the patent law. Suggestions for solving the problem through a single specialized appellate patent court were consistently rejected due to general hostility to specialized courts. The formation of the Federal Circuit in 1982 initially appeared to solve the problem in providing uniform and predictable rules governing the enforcement of patents, an essential aspect of the court’s mission. The Supreme Court did not provide any …

Artis V. District Of Columbia—What Did The Court Actually Say?, Doron M. Kalir

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

On January 22, 2018, the Supreme Court issued Artis v. District of Columbia. A true "clash of the titans," this 5-4 decision featured colorful comments on both sides, claims of "absurdities," uncited use of Alice in Wonderland vocabulary ("curiouser," anyone?), and an especially harsh accusation by the dissent that "we’ve wandered so far from the idea of a federal government of limited and enumerated powers that we’ve begun to lose sight of what it looked like in the first place."

One might assume that the issue in question was a complex constitutional provision, or a dense, technical federal code …

The Role Of Section 718.2(A)(Ii) In Sentencing For Male Intimate Partner Violence Against Women, Isabel Grant

All Faculty Publications

This article examines sentencing for male intimate partner violence against women since the 1996 enactment of s 718.2(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code, which requires that a spousal/common-law relationship between an offender and victim be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing. The article argues that, while in general appellate courts in Canada are taking this violence seriously, cases involving level I sexual assaults still demonstrate the longstanding tendency to treat the intimate relationship as mitigating. Further appellate guidance is necessary on how courts should reconcile s 718.2(a)(ii) with s 718.2(e), which requires that all options other than incarceration be considered when …

Feminist Judging Matters: How Feminist Theory And Methods Affect The Process Of Judgment, Bridget J. Crawford

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The word “feminism” means different things to its many supporters (and undoubtedly, to its detractors). For some, it refers to the historic struggle: first to realize the right of women to vote and then to eliminate explicit discrimination against women from the nation's laws. For others, it is a political movement, the purpose of which is to raise awareness about and to overcome past and present oppression faced by women. For still others, it is a philosophy--a system of thought--and a community of belief centering on attaining political, social, and economic equality for women, men, and people of any gender. …

Rewriting Judicial Opinions And The Feminist Scholarly Project, Bridget J. Crawford

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

In 1995, the authors of a law review article examining “feminist judging” focused on the existing social science data concerning women judges and compared the voting records and opinions of the only female Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor. Based on this review, the authors concluded that appointing more women as judges would make little difference to judicial outcomes or processes. The authors accused those who advocated for more women on the bench of having a hidden feminist agenda and bluntly concluded that “[b]y any measure, feminist judges fit very uneasily in most …

Studying The "New" Civil Judges, Anna E. Carpenter, Jessica K. Steinberg, Colleen F. Shanahan, Alyx Mark

Articles, Chapters in Books and Other Contributions to Scholarly Works

We know very little about the people and institutions that make up the bulk of the United States civil justice system: state judges and state courts.Our understanding of civil justice is based primarily on federal litigationand the decisions of appellate judges. Staggeringly little legalscholarship focuses on state courts and judges. We imply do not know what mostjudges are doing in their day-to-day courtroom roles or in their roles asinstitutional actors and managers of civil justice infrastructure. We know little about the factors that shape and influence judicial practices, let alone the consequences of those practices for courts, litigants, and the …