Courts Commons^™

Trending @ Rwu Law: Dean Yelnosky's Post: United States Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims Visits Rwu Law: 03-03-2016, Michael Yelnosky

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

The Management Of Staff By Federal Court Of Appeals Judges, Mitu Gulati, Richard A. Posner

Vanderbilt Law Review

Federal court of appeals judges have staffs consisting usually of a secretary and four law clerks; some judges have externs as well (law students working part time without pay). These staffs are essential, given judicial workloads and judges'limitations. Yet not much is known about how the judges manage their staffs. Each judge knows, of course, but judges rarely exchange information about staff management. Nor is there, to our knowledge, a literature that attempts to compare and evaluate the varieties of staff management techniques employed by federal court of appeals judges. This Essay aims to fill that gap. It is based …

Beware Of Judging A Book Just By Its Cover: Are The German Rules Of Civil Procedure, In Their Practical Application, Really As Capable To Facilitate A Speedy And Fair Trial As One Might Think?, Julia Prahl

Duke Law Master of Judicial Studies Theses

No abstract provided.

Courts Of Good And Ill Repute: Garoupa And Ginsburg’S Judicial Reputation: A Comparative Theory, Tracey E. George, G. Mitu Gulati

Faculty Scholarship

Nuno Garoupa and Tom Ginsburg have published an ambitious book that seeks to account for the great diversity of judicial systems based, in part, on how courts are designed to marshal the power of a high public opinion of the judiciary. Judges, the book posits, care deeply about their reputations both inside and outside the courts. Courts are designed to capitalize on judges’ desire to maximize their reputation, and judges’ existing stock of reputation can affect the design of the courts which they serve. We find much to like in this book, ranging from its intriguing and ambitious positive claims …

The Long Shadow Of Bush V. Gore: Judicial Partisanship In Election Cases, Michael S. Kang, Joanna M. Shepherd

Faculty Articles

Bush v. Gore decided a presidential election and is the most dramatic election case in our lifetime, but cases like it are decided every year at the state level. Ordinary state courts regularly decide questions of election rules and administration that effectively determine electoral outcomes hanging immediately in the balance. Election cases like Bush v. Gore embody a fundamental worry with judicial intervention into the political process: outcome-driven, partisan judicial decisionmaking. The Article investigates whether judges decide cases, particularly politically sensitive ones, based on their partisan loyalties more than the legal merits of the cases. It presents a novel method …

The Republican Senate And Regular Order, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Now that the 114th Congress has reached the first session’s conclusion, the purported application of regular order to a major Senate constitutional duty—rendering advice and consent on presidential nominees—merits analysis. This evaluation illuminates serious deficiencies, which plagued 2015 confirmations. Especially important was the GOP’s failure to expeditiously suggest aspirants for White House consideration, and specifically failing to fill “judicial emergencies,” provide hearings and ballots swiftly, conduct floor debates when required rapidly, and confirm more than 11 judges all year. This obstruction has numerous deleterious consequences; the most significant, however, is not fulfilling the constitutional responsibility to proffer advice and consent …

Rwu Law: The Magazine Of Roger Williams University School Of Law (Issue 9) (2016), Roger Williams University School Of Law

RWU Law

No abstract provided.

Expert Prevalence, Persuasion And Price: What Trial Participants Really Think About Experts, Andrew W. Jurs

Indiana Law Journal

By measuring how expert witnesses are actually used in court, this study offers important new data about what makes expert effective and suggests that some commonly held beliefs about experts are misguided. In doing so, the data establishes an important new baseline for measuring expert witnesses in court, updating and expanding on prior research in the field.

Reversal By Recusal? Comer V. Murphy Oil U.S.A., Inc. And The Needfor Mandatory Judicial Recusal Statements, Patrick A. Woods

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] "In many cases, if not most, voluntary judicial recusal is both an efficient use of judicial resources and an exceptional safeguard to the legitimacy of the federal judiciary. However, voluntary judicial recusal poses its own unique problems when the withdrawing judge declines to issue a statement explaining the statutory grounds for his or her recusal. Unlike when a party seeks to disqualify a judge by motion—where the reasons for recusal will, at a minimum, be set out in the motion papers—when a judge voluntarily recuses, there is not necessarily any record created as to the reasons for the recusal. …

Restoring The Civil Jury In A World Without Trials, Dmitry Bam

Faculty Publications

Early in this nation’s history, the civil jury was the most important institutional check on biased and corrupt judges. Recently, concerns about judicial bias, especially in elected state judiciaries, have intensified as new studies demonstrate the extent of that bias. But the jury of Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson is nowhere to be found. In fact, the civil jury is virtually dead. It is used in less than 1% of all civil cases, and even when it makes a rare appearance, the jury’s powers have been significantly curtailed.

This article argues that we must reimagine the civil jury to match the …

Chevron Bias, Philip A. Hamburger

Faculty Scholarship

This Article takes a fresh approach to Chevron deference. Chevron requires judges to defer to agency interpretations of statutes and justifies this on a theory of statutory authorization for agencies. This Article, however, points to a pair of constitutional questions about the role of judges – questions that have not yet been adequately asked, let alone answered.

One question concerns independent judgment. Judges have a constitutional office or duty of independent judgment, under which they must exercise their own independent judgment about what the law is. Accordingly, when they defer to agency interpretations of the law, it must be asked …

Newsroom: Yelnosky On Diversifying State Judiciary, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Trending @ Rwu Law: Mikela Almeida's Post: Esther Clark Competition Held In R. I. Supreme Court, Mikela Almeida

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Trending @ Rwulaw: Judge William E. Smith's Post: Rwu Law & The Federal Courts: A Unique Partnership, William E. Smith

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Trending@Rwu Law: Professor David Logan's Post: Diversity In The Rhode Island Judiciary, David A. Logan

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Newsroom: Logan On Judicial Diversity, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Courtroom To Classroom: Judicial Policymaking And Affirmative Action, Dylan Britton Saul

Political Science Honors Projects

The judicial branch, by exercising judicial review, can replace public policies with ones of their own creation. To test the hypothesis that judicial policymaking is desirable only when courts possess high capacity and necessity, I propose an original model incorporating six variables: generalism, bi-polarity, minimalism, legitimization, structural impediments, and public support. Applying the model to a comparative case study of court-sanctioned affirmative action policies in higher education and K-12 public schools, I find that a lack of structural impediments and bi-polarity limits the desirability of judicial race-based remedies in education. Courts must restrain themselves when engaging in such policymaking.

The Roberts Court And Penumbral Federalism, Edward Cantu

Catholic University Law Review

For several decades the Court has invoked “state dignity” to animate federalism reasoning in isolated doctrinal contexts. Recent Roberts Court decisions suggest that a focus on state dignity, prestige, status, and similar ethereal concepts—which derive from a “penumbral” reading of the Tenth Amendment—represent the budding of a different doctrinal approach to federalism generally. This article terms this new approach “penumbral federalism,” an approach less concerned with delineating state from federal regulatory turf, and more concerned with maintaining the states as viable competitors for the respect and loyalty of the citizenry.

After fleshing out what “penumbral federalism” is and its …

Challenging The Randomness Of Panel Assignment In The Federal Courts Of Appeals, Adam S. Chilton, Marin K. Levy

Faculty Scholarship

A fundamental academic assumption about the federal courts of appeals is that the three-judge panels that hear cases have been randomly configured. Scores of scholarly articles have noted this “fact,” and it has been relied on heavily by empirical researchers. Even though there are practical reasons to doubt that judges would always be randomly assigned to panels, this assumption has never been tested. This Article fill this void by doing so.

To determine whether the circuit courts utilize random assignment, we have created what we believe to be the largest dataset of panel assignments of those courts constructed to date. …

Standards Of Legitimacy In Criminal Negotiations, Wesley Macneil Oliver, Rishi Batra

Faculty Articles

Scholarship on negotiation theory and practice is rich and well developed. Almost no work has been done, however, to translate to the criminal context the lessons learned about negotiation from extensive empirical study using the disciplines of economics, game theory, and psychology. This Article suggests that defense lawyers in criminal negotiations can employ tools frequently useful to negotiators in other arenas: neutral criteria as a standard of legitimacy. Judges sometimes exercise a type of discretion analogous to prosecutorial discretion. When they do so, they offer an independent, reasoned, and publicly available assessment of the factors that a prosecutor ought to …

Judicial Selection In Congress' Lame Duck Session, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

This Article first scrutinizes the Obama Administration confirmation and nomination processes. It then critically explores selection and concludes that Republican obstruction instigated the most open positions the longest time. Because this deficiency undermines swift, economical, and fair case resolution, the Article suggests ideas to promptly decrease the remaining unoccupied judgeships after the session commences.

Judicial Participation In Plea Bargaining: A Dispute Resolution Perspective, Rishi Batra

Faculty Articles

There is a common perception that judges do not or should not play a role in the criminal plea bargaining discussions between prosecutors and defense counsel. However, in many state jurisdictions, judicial participation is allowed or even encouraged by statute or by case law. This Article briefly summarizes some of the issues with the plea bargaining process, including how structural issues with the way defense counsel are appointed and compensated, along with the power of prosecutors, makes good representation for defendants less likely. By then performing a fifty-state survey of rules for judicial participation in plea bargaining, the Article explicates …

Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent On The Meaning Of Federal Law?, Amanda Frost

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The conventional wisdom is that state courts need not follow lower federal court precedent when interpreting federal law. Upon closer inspection, however, the question of how state courts should treat lower federal court precedent is not so clear. Although most state courts now take the conventional approach, a few contend that they are obligated to follow the lower federal courts, and two federal courts of appeals have declared that their decisions are binding on state courts. The Constitution’s text and structure send mixed messages about the relationship between state and lower federal courts, and the Supreme Court has never squarely …

Recusal Failure, Dmitry Bam

Faculty Publications

The American judiciary is suffering from a terrible affliction: biased judges. I am not talking about the subconscious or unconscious biases — stemming from different backgrounds, experiences, ideologies, etc. — that everyone, including judges, harbors. Rather, I am describing invidious, improper biases that lead judges to favor one litigant over another for reasons that almost everyone would agree should play no role in judicial decision-making: the desire to repay a debt of gratitude to those who helped the judge get elected and be reelected.

In this article, I argue that that recusal has failed to prevent biased judges from rendering …

‪Measuring The Effects Of Legal Precedent In Us Federal Courts‬, Jens Frankenreiter, Daniel L. Chen, Susan Yeh

Scholarship@WashULaw

Using data for 2000-2004, our results suggest that new precedent has a strong effect on district court judges’ decision standards. Results are stronger when we focus on decisions in the same area of law. Extending the data to 2012, our results get blurred or even change direction.

Is It Law Or Something Else?: A Divided Judiciary In The Application Of Fraudulent Transfer Law Under § 546(E) Of The Bankruptcy Code, Jaclyn Weissgerber

Pace Law Review

In Part I of this Note, I will provide a general overview of leveraged buyouts. The discussion of how and why LBOs are implemented is particularly relevant to the application of fraudulent transfer analysis. In Part II, I will discuss fraudulent transfer law as defined by the Bankruptcy Code. In Part III, I will discuss which transfers within the LBO should be attacked under fraudulent transfer law and why; this section will focus on the various stakes of the parties involved in the leveraged buyout transaction. I will provide an overview of the specific factors that bankruptcy and federal appellate …

Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Butler, Courtney Weinberger

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Surgeons Or Scribes? The Role Of United States Court Of Appeals Law Clerks In "Appellate Triage", Todd C. Peppers, Micheal W. Giles, Bridget Tainer-Parkins

Marquette Law Review

none

Panel Discussion: Judges' Perspectives On Law Clerk Hiring, Utilization, And Influence, David R. Stras, Diane S. Sykes, James A. Wynn Jr.

Marquette Law Review

none

Hiring Supreme Court Law Clerks: Probing The Ideological Linkage Between Judges And Justices, Lawrence Baum

Marquette Law Review

Since the 1970s, the overwhelming majority of Supreme Court law clerks have had prior experience clerking in lower courts, primarily the federal courts of appeals. Throughout that period, there has been a tendency for Justices to take clerks from lower court judges who share the Justices’ ideological tendencies, in what can be called an ideological linkage between judges and Justices in the selection of law clerks. However, that tendency became considerably stronger between the 1970s and 1990s, and it has remained very strong since the 1990s.

This Article probes the sources of that alteration in the Justices’ selection of law …