Courts Commons^™

The History, Meaning, And Use Of The Words Justice And Judge, Jason Boatright

St. Mary's Law Journal

The words justice and judge have similar meanings because they have a common ancestry. They are derived from the same Latin term, jus, which is defined in dictionaries as “right” and “law.” However, those definitions of jus are so broad that they obscure the details of what the term meant when it formed the words that eventually became justice and judge. The etymology of jus reveals the kind of right and law it signified was related to the concepts of restriction and obligation. Vestiges of this sense of jus survived in the meaning of justice and judge. …

Temporary Restraining Orders To Enforce Intellectual Property Rights At Trade Shows: An Empirical Study, Marketa Trimble

Brooklyn Law Review

Infringements of intellectual property (IP) rights by exhibitors at trade shows (also called trade fairs or exhibitions), such as infringements committed through exhibitions of or offers to sell infringing products, can be extremely damaging to IP right owners because of the wide exposure that trade shows provide for infringing IP; the promotion of the infringing IP and the contacts made by infringers at trade shows can facilitate further infringements after a trade show that can be very difficult for IP right owners to prevent. IP right owners therefore seek to obtain emergency injunctive relief to stop trade show infringements immediately—if …

U.S. Government Aviation Safety Information Resources, Bert Chapman

Libraries Faculty and Staff Presentations

Presentation covering U.S. Government aviation safety information resources. Topics addressed include U.S. laws,legislation, regulations, court cases, information resources from agencies such as the Federal Aviation Administration, Transportation Security Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, congressional aviation oversight committees and congressional support agencies including the Congressional Budget Office, Congressional Research Service, and Government Accountability Office.

Litigating Federal Habeas Corpus Cases: One Equitable Gateway At A Time, Eve Brensike Primus

Other Publications

Habeas corpus, also known as the Great Writ, was meant to be a “bulwark against convictions that violate fundamental fairness,” according to the Supreme Court. Yet today, federal courts provide relief in fewer than half of one percent of cases in which a non-capital state prisoner seeks relief through habeas. The Great Writ, it would seem, is no longer so great. In Litigating Federal Habeas Corpus Cases: One Equitable Gateway at a Time, Eve Brensike Primus examines the various procedural and substantive hurdles that have been erected in the past half century that make it nearly impossible for state prisoners …

Florida’S Constitution Revision Commission [Crc]: Behind-The-Scenes Insights From Bob Butterworth, Florida’S Former Attorney General And Member Of The 1998 Crc, Alvan Balent Jr.

University of Miami Law Review

Once every twenty years, the Florida Constitution mandates the convening of a thirty-seven-member body that is charged with reviewing the state constitution and submitting any recommended changes to the general public for approval. This entity is formally known as the Constitution Revision Commission, and between March 2017 and May 2018, it met for the third time in Florida’s history. Eight amendments, some with multiple parts, were proposed, and if any of these proposals are approved by 60% of the voters in the November 2018 general election, they will become “the supreme law of the land” for the State of Florida.

Reassigning Cases On Remand In The Interests Of Justice, For The Enforcement Of Appellate Decisions, And For Other Reasons That Remain Unclear, Jonathan D. Colan

University of Miami Law Review

Federal appellate courts have the authority to order reassignment of cases to different district judges as part of their supervisory authority over the district courts within their circuits. This Article examines the categories of cases in which the Eleventh Circuit has ordered reassignment to different district court judges on remand and explains the rationale underlying reassignment in each category. The more understandable cases address both the appearance and the presence of bias or impropriety by the original trial judge. This Article describes the general principles underlying the Eleventh Circuit’s reassignment practices and then questions why reassignment is necessary in cases …

"Dirty" Experts: Ethical Challenges Concerning, And A Comparative Perspective On, The Use Of Consulting Experts, David S. Caudill

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

U.S. attorneys often hire consulting experts who potentially never get named as testifying experts. The same practice is evident in Australia, where the colloquial distinction is between a “clean” and a “dirty” expert, the latter being in the role of a consultant who is considered a member of the client’s “legal team.” A “clean” expert named as a witness is then called “independent,” signaling that he or she is not an advocate. In contrast to the U.S. discourse concerning consulting and testifying experts, focused on discovery issues, the conversation in Australia betrays immediate ethical concerns that both (i) explain why …

Dirty Experts: Ethical Challenges Concerning, And A Comparative Perspective On, The Use Of Consulting Experts, David S. Caudill

Faculty Publications

U.S. attorneys often hire consulting experts who potentially never get named as testifying experts. The same practice is evident in Australia, where the colloquial distinction is between a “clean” and a “dirty” expert, the latter being in the role of a consultant who is considered a member of the client’s “legal team.” A “clean” expert named as a witness is then called “independent,” signaling that he or she is not an advocate. In contrast to the U.S. discourse concerning consulting and testifying experts, focused on discovery issues, the conversation in Australia betrays immediate ethical concerns that both (i) explain why …

The ‘Ginsburg Rule’ Is Not An Excuse To Avoid Answering The Senate’S Questions, Lori A. Ringhand, Paul M. Collins Jr.

Popular Media

An op-ed by Lori Ringhand and Paul M. Collins Jr. on Supreme Court nominees' unwillingness to provide answers on cases under the wrongly named "Ginsburg Rule." Nominees since the 1930s have balanced the competing needs of the Senate and the Judiciary by claiming a privilege to not opine on currently contested cases while freely offering their opinion about cases that used to be controversial but are no longer.

The Texas Standards For Appellate Conduct: An Annotated Guide And Commentary, Gina M. Benavides, Joshua J. Caldwell

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

The legal profession is bound by ethical rules that govern and guide our conduct and actions as lawyers. One of the under-appreciated, but profoundly important set of guidelines is the Texas Standards for Appellate Conduct. These Standards serve as an excellent practice guide for appellate practitioners and appellate courts and as a model code of conduct for the Bar as a whole.

The goal of this Article is to dissect the Texas Standards for Appellate Conduct and provide useful commentaries for the readers to better appreciate and understand each element of the Standards. The commentaries provide direct case examples and …

The Paragraph 20 Paradox: An Evaluation Of The Enforcement Of Ethical Rules As Substantive Law, Donald E. Campbell

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

This Article addresses an issue courts across the country continue to struggle with: When are ethics rules appropriately considered enforceable substantive obligations, and when should they only be enforceable through the disciplinary process? The question is complicated by the ethics rules themselves. Paragraph 20 of the Scope section of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct includes seemingly contradictory guidance; it states the Rules are not to be used to establish civil liability, but also that they can be “some evidence” of a violation of a lawyer’s standard of care. Most states have adopted this paradoxal Paragraph 20 language. Consequently, courts …

Causation And "Legal Certainty" In Legal Malpractice Law, Vincent R. Johnson

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

A line of California cases holds that causation of damages in legal malpractice actions must be proven with “legal certainty.” This Article argues that judicial references to legal certainty are ambiguous and threaten to undermine the fairness of legal malpractice litigation as a means for resolving lawyer-client disputes. Courts should eschew the language of legal certainty and plainly state that damages are recoverable if a legal malpractice plaintiff proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that those losses were factually and proximately caused by the defendant’s breach of duty.

Forum Selection Clauses And Consumer Contracts In Canada, Tanya J. Monestier

Journal Articles

Every day, billions of people use the online social media platform, Facebook. Facebook requires, as a condition of use, that users “accept” its terms and conditions—which include a forum selection clause nominating California as the exclusive forum for dispute resolution. In Douez v. Facebook, the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether this forum selection clause was enforceable, or whether the plaintiff could proceed with her suit in British Columbia.

The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately decided that the forum selection clause was not enforceable. It held that the plaintiff had established “strong cause” for departing from the forum selection clause. …

The Impact Of The Singapore International Commercial Court And Hague Convention On Choice Of Court Agreements On Singapore’S Private International Law, Wei Yao, Kenny Chng

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

The advent of the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) and the enactment of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 (the Hague Convention) in Singapore presents an intriguing case study of the issues raised by the co-mingling of the rules of an international convention, jurisdictional rules for an international commercial court, and traditional common law jurisdictional principles within the private international law and procedural rules of a single national jurisdiction. This article highlights several key issues raised by the interaction between the SICC, Hague Convention, and common law jurisdictional rules, and proposes solutions to streamline these three sets …

Singapore High Court Rejects Application To Adjourn Enforcement Of Foreign Arbitral Award, Wei Ming Tan, Aaron Yoong, Lixin Chen

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

In the recent decision of Man Diesel & Turbo SE v I.M. Skaugen Marine Services Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 132, the Singapore High Court (“HC”) rejected an application to adjourn the enforcement of an arbitral award that was also the subject of a setting aside application in Denmark, the seat of the arbitration. This case is the first of its kind in Singapore and provides clarity as to when litigants can seek an adjournment of proceedings to enforce a foreign arbitral award.

The Impact Of The Singapore International Commercial Court And Hague Convention On Choice Of Court Agreements On Singapore’S Private International Law, Wei Yao, Kenny Chng

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

The advent of the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) and the enactment of the Hague Convention on Choiceof Court Agreements 2005 (the Hague Convention) in Singapore presents an intriguing case study of the issues raised by theco-mingling of the rules of an international convention, jurisdictional rules for an international commercial court, andtraditional common law jurisdictional principles within the private international law and procedural rules of a singlenational jurisdiction. This article highlights several key issues raised by the interaction between the SICC, HagueConvention, and common law jurisdictional rules, and proposes solutions to streamline these three sets of rules into acoherent and …

Twelve Injured Men: Why Injured Jurors Should Not Receive Workers' Compensation Coverage From The Courts, Corey Baron

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note argues that the legislature should add a provision to New York’s Workers’ Compensation Act that expressly precludes jurors from coverage. Such a provision would comport with the policy underlying the statute, the statute’s structure, and the statute’s language. Moreover, that legislative provision would prevent the court from wasting the considerable time and expense of grappling with other courts’ inconsistent interpretations of workers’ compensation statutes and their underlying policies. First, Part I of this Note provides an overview of the workers’ compensation law and explores the policies underlying the advent of workers’ compensation statutes. Then, Part II surveys …

What Makes A Good Judge?, Brian M. Barry

Reports

This article overviews research demonstrating the factors beyond the law that can affect judicial decision-making.

Scotus's 2017-2018 Term: More Of The 'Passive Virtues', John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[exerpt] "Examine a timelier topic: the court's decision to effectively punt on the major religious freedom and partisan gerrymandering cases it was poised to decide this term. For the court's restrain in these cases may have some relation to our turbulent political times."

Brief Of Amicus Curiae, In Re Opinions & Orders Of This Court Addressing Bulk Collection Of Data Under The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, No. Misc. 13-08 (Fisa Ct. June 13, 2018), Laura K. Donohue

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Under separation of powers doctrine, Congress lacks the authority to pass statutes to grant, or deny, the FISC jurisdiction over its opinions. All three branches agree that FISC is an Article III court. Constitutional courts are vested with “the judicial power” of the United States, which is insulated from the other two branches. It includes the power to issue opinions disposing of cases. If the other branches could strip the courts of authority over their judgments, they would be able to manipulate the law, undermining the protections for judicial independence. The “least dangerous branch” would lose all power. All it …

“Who Will Judge The Many When The Game Isthrough?”: Considering The Profound Differencesbetween Mental Health Courts And “Traditional”Involuntary Civil Commitment Courts, Michael L. Perlin

Seattle University Law Review

For forty years, we have known that involuntary civil commitment hearings are—in most jurisdictions—“charades.” When the Supreme Court noted, in Parham v. J.R., that the average length of a civil commitment hearing ranged from 3.8 to 9.2 minutes, the reaction of many who had done these cases was, “What? So long?!” The characterization of such hearings as being a “greased runway” to a state institution has never been disputed. Lawyers representing these individuals were bored or contemptuous; judges simply wanted to get cases moving; opposing counsel looked at their wrist watches to see when the cases would be done. This …

Law School News: Dean Yelnosky Applauds Uniform Bar Exam Decision 06-08-2018, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

My Name Is Not 'Respondent Mother': The Need For Procedural Justice In Child Welfare Cases, Vivek S. Sankaran

Articles

You are a parent whose children are in foster care. Your court hearing is today, after which you hope your children will return home. Upon leaving the bus, you wait in line to enter the court. At the metal detectors you’re told you can’t bring your cell phone inside. With no storage options, you hide your phone in the bushes, hoping it will be there when you return.

Supreme Court Institute Annual Report, 2017-2018, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute

SCI Papers & Reports

During the U.S. Supreme Court’s October Term (OT) 2017 – corresponding to the 2017-2018 academic year –the Supreme Court Institute (SCI) provided moot courts for advocates in 98% of the cases heard by the Supreme Court, offered a variety of programs related to the Supreme Court, and continued to integrate the moot court program into the education of Georgetown Law students.

A list of all SCI moot courts held in OT 2017 – arranged by argument sitting and date of Moot, and including the name and affiliation of each advocate and the number of observers – follows the narrative portion …

Rwu First Amendment Blog: Jared Goldstein's Blog: Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling: No Constitutional Right To Discriminate (For Now) 06-05-2018, Jared A. Goldstein

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Vulnerability, Access To Justice, And The Fragmented State, Elizabeth L. Macdowell

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

This Article builds on theories of the fragmented state and of human and institutional vulnerability to create a new, structural theory of “functional fragmentation” and its role in access to justice work. Expanding on previous concepts of fragmentation in access to justice scholarship, fragmentation is understood in the Article as a complex phenomenon existing within as well as between state institutions like courts. Further, it is examined in terms of its relationship to the state’s coercive power over poor people in legal systems. In this view, fragmentation in state operations creates not only challenges for access, but also opportunities for …

Batson For Judges, Police Officers & Teachers: Lessons In Democracy From The Jury Box, Stacy L. Hawkins

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

In our representative democracy we guarantee equal participation for all, but we fall short of this promise in so many domains of our civic life. From the schoolhouse, to the jailhouse, to the courthouse, racial minorities are underrepresented among key public decision-makers, such as judges, police officers, and teachers. This gap between our aspirations for representative democracy and the reality that our judges, police officers, and teachers are often woefully under-representative of the racially diverse communities they serve leaves many citizens of color wanting for the democratic guarantee of equal participation. This critical failure of our democracy threatens to undermine …

Fairness In The Exceptions: Trusting Juries On Matters Of Race, Virginia Weeks

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

Implicit bias research indicates that despite our expressly endorsed values, Americans share a pervasive bias disfavoring Black Americans and favoring White Americans. This bias permeates legislative as well as judicial decision-making, leading to the possibility of verdicts against Black defendants that are tainted with racial bias. The Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado provides an ex post remedy for blatant racism that impacts jury verdicts, while jury nullification provides an ex ante remedy by empowering jurors to reject convicting Black defendants when to do so would reinforce racially biased laws. Both remedies exist alongside a trend limiting the …

Social Work Students’ Attitudes And Beliefs About Mental Health Courts, Nicholas Bettosini, Conrad Paul Akins-Johnson

Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations

Mental Health Courts (MHCs) are a diversion program for mentally ill offenders in lieu of incarceration. The Substance Abuse and Mental Services Administration (SAMHSA) developed these specialized court programs in the 1990’s to assist mentally ill offenders in overcoming barriers to treatment. While new laws have begun to change the way mentally ill offenders are viewed from a law enforcement standpoint, social workers’ attitudes and beliefs about these programs have not been studied. This quantitative study’s purpose was to examine Master of Social Work (MSW) Graduate students’ attitudes and beliefs of mentally ill offenders and MHCs. Social work student participants …

A Status Update For Texas Voir Dire: Advocating For Pre-Trial Internet Investigation Of Prospective Jurors, Luke A. Harle

St. Mary's Law Journal

The Internet provides trial attorneys an additional tool to investigate the backgrounds of prospective jurors during voir dire. Online searches of a person’s name and social media accounts can reveal information that could be used as grounds for a challenge for cause or to facilitate intelligent use of peremptory strikes. Texas lawmakers have not yet provided any official guidance as to whether attorneys can investigate prospective jurors online or how they might do so, should it be allowed. Texas’s current voir dire structure, judicial opinions, and ethics opinions, together, support the notion that Texas trial attorneys should be given opportunities …