Courts Commons^™

The Poverty Defense, Michele Estrin Gilman

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Issue 2: Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Oasis Or Mirage: The Supreme Court's Thirst For Dictionaries In The Rehnquist And Roberts Eras, James J. Brudney, Lawrence Baum

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s use of dictionaries, virtually non-existent before 1987, has dramatically increased during the Rehnquist and Roberts Court eras to the point where as many as one-third of statutory decisions invoke dictionary definitions. The increase is linked to the rise of textualism and its intense focus on ordinary meaning. This Article explores the Court’s new dictionary culture in depth from empirical and doctrinal perspectives. We find that while textualist justices are heavy dictionary users, purposivist justices invoke dictionary definitions with comparable frequency. Further, dictionary use overall is strikingly ad hoc and subjective. We demonstrate how the Court’s patterns of …

The Omnipresent Specter Of Omnicare, Sean J. Griffith

Faculty Scholarship

In this Article, written for a symposium commemorating the tenth anniversary of the Delaware Supreme Court’s opinion in Omnicare, Inc. v. NCS Healthcare, Inc., I argue, notwithstanding reports to the contrary, that Omnicare is still very much with us. Although there is a line of cases that qualifies the narrow holding of the opinion, the strong reading of Omnicare, which requires a fiduciary out in every merger agreement and elevates the “unremitting” duty to remain “fully informed” to an absolute jurisprudential principle, lives on in Delaware law, animating the Court of Chancery’s controversial rulings in the recent standstill cases. Shifting …

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 …

State Courts Or Adr In Nazi-Era Art Disputes: A Choice "More Apparent Than Real"?, Christa Roodt

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

This article explores the first and arguably most important procedural choice a party can make when instituting a claim in respect to Nazi-era art, namely between alternative dispute resolution ("ADR") and state court litigation. A sound analysis of the meeting points and potential conflicts of processes involving administrative bodies, ADR fora and the judiciary can contribute to more effective law reform.

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.

Court-Packing And Compromise, Barry Cushman

Journal Articles

President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1937 Court-packing bill would have permitted him to appoint six additional justices to the Supreme Court, thereby expanding its membership to fifteen immediately. Throughout the ultimately unsuccessful campaign to enact the measure, Roosevelt was presented with numerous opportunities to compromise for a measure authorizing the appointment of fewer additional justices. The President rejected each of these proposals, and his refusal to compromise often has been attributed to stubbornness, overconfidence, or hubris. Yet an examination of the papers of Attorney General Homer S. Cummings reveals why FDR and his advisors believed that he required no fewer than …

Provisional Arrest And Incarceration In The International Criminal Tribunals, Melinda Taylor, Charles C. Jalloh

Articles

This article examines the widely ignored but important issue regarding the provisional arrest and detention of persons suspected of having committed international crimes by international or internationalized courts. The paper examines the pioneer case law and practice of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, as well as the emerging practice of the permanent International Criminal Court, to evaluate how these courts have generally addressed the rights of these individuals to due process and freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention before …

Search Engine Liability For Autocomplete Defamation: Combating The Power Of Suggestion, Michael L. Smith

Faculty Articles

In September 2012, Bettina Wulff, a former first lady of Germany, sued Google for defamation. Mrs. Wulff's complaint arose from Google's autocomplete function: when Mrs. Wulff's name was entered into the search engine, the search engine automatically suggested terms such as "prostitute" and "red light district." Rumors that Mrs. Wulff was a former prostitute dated back to 2006 when she first met Christian Wulff, her eventual husband and president of Germany from 2010 until his resignation in February 2012. Mrs. Wulff denied the truth of these rumors.

Mrs. Wulff contended that these autocomplete results were defamatory and that they caused …

Confronting The Myth Of State Court Class Action Abuses Through An Understanding Of Heuristics And A Plea For More Statistics, Patricia W. Moore

Faculty Articles

The Supreme Court heard six cases involving class actions this term. One of these cases, Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Knowles, brought the Class Action Fairness Act to the Court for the first time. Petitioner insurance company and its numerous business-interest amici repeatedly claimed before the Court that "state court class action abuses" justified removal of the case (which was based on state law and filed in state court) to federal court.

The charge of a "flood" of "abusive state court class actions" echoed the same rhetoric that CAFA's supporters used a decade ago in their ultimately successful efforts to …

Seeing Is Believing: The Csi Effect Among Jurors In Malicious Wounding Cases, Corey Call, Amy K. Cook, John D. Reitzel, Robyn D. Mcdougle

Journal of Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences

With the popularization of television crime shows that focus heavily on forensic science, such as CSI and its spin-offs, concerns about a new threat to jury trials have emerged in recent years. Dubbed the “CSI effect,” this phenomenon has reportedly come to influence the way jurors perceive forensic evidence at trials based on the way forensic evidence is presented on television. While the CSI effect has been the topic of much discussion throughout the popular press, the CSI effect has seldom been empirically tested. In this study, we present a selection of media accounts as well as criminological and …

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 …

Protecting The Innocent - The Need To Adapt Federal Asset Forfeiture Laws To Protect The Interests Of Third Parties In Digital Asset Seizures, Elizabeth Friedler

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

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.

Family Court Mediation After The Financial Crisis: A Struggle Worth New York's Attention, Jessica G. Mayer

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

This Note examines the effects of the recession on the use of mediation in New York State's family courts and argues that mediation ought to be used more, rather than less, to combat the effects of budget cuts. Section I discusses New York State's Family Court System, highlighting the system's rising caseload and dearth of resources. Section II briefly describes mediation and its use within the family court context. Section III describes the impact of the recession on NY State's Family Courts. In addition, detailed information is provided about the impact of the recession on the following programs: (1) the …

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 …

What Brady V. N.F.L. Teaches About The Devolution Of Labor Law, Michael C. Duff

All Faculty Scholarship

In this essay I argue that the Eight Circuit got things very wrong when it found, in Brady v. National Football League, that a district court’s injunctions issued against the NFL in connection with player-filed antitrust suits were barred by the Norris LaGuardia Act of 1932 (NLGA). I argue that the Court’s misreading of the NLGA strikes at the “statutory music” of labor law so dramatically as to represent a judicial unmooring from it. I chronicle other recent important, but relatively minor, judicial departures from the music. I also discuss a major but less recent departure – the employer lockout. …

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 Home-State Test For General Personal Jurisdiction, Howard M. Erichson

Faculty Scholarship

This article attempts to articulate the due process test for general in personam jurisdiction. It frames the question as what gives a state sufficiently plenary power over a person that the state may adjudicate claims against the person regardless of where the claims arose, and it answers that question in terms of a home-state relationship between the defendant and the forum state. Written for a roundtable on the upcoming Supreme Court case of DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bauman, the article urges the Court to state the home-state test for general jurisdiction more clearly than it did two years ago in Goodyear …

Telus: Asking The Right Questions About General Warrants, Steve Coughlan

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

The general warrant provisions in the Criminal Code have often been interpreted by lower courts in a way which threatens to make that power quite open-ended, and to make those warrants available as a way of making an "end run" around the requirements of other provisions. This note argues that the Supreme Court of Canada is correct, in Telus,to adopt a "substantive equivalence" approach to general warrants, thereby limiting the circumstances in which they can be used. Lower courts have sometimes taken the view that a general warrant is only unavailable if the proposed technique would fall squarely within some …

The Rise And Fall Of Duress (Or How Duress Changed Necessity Before Being Excluded By Self-Defence), Steve Coughlan

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

The Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Ryan significantly reshaped both the common law and statutory defenses of duress, harmonizing them and, in the case of the common law defense, fully articulating it for the first time. The decision is admirable for that reason. This paper argues that two further results can also be seen. First, the defense of necessity is a common law one which is conceptually similar to duress. The Court's reasoning at a policy level about duress ought therefore to be applicable to necessity: this paper traces the ways in which that latter defense ought …

The Pastor, The Burning House, And The Double Jeopardy Clause: The True Story Behind Evans V. Michigan, David A. Moran

Articles

The true story behind Evans v. Michigan is that a man who was probably innocent, and who would almost certainly have been acquitted by the jury, had his trial shortened after it became obvious to the judge that the police had picked up a man who had nothing to do with the fire. In other words, the facts set forth by the Michigan Supreme Court, and repeated by Alito, were grossly misleading. And because I, like Alito, believed the Michigan Supreme Court’s version of the facts, I made a silly mistake when I agreed to take the case. That silly …

Effective Trial Counsel After Martinez V. Ryan: Focusing On The Adequacy Of State Procedures, Eve Brensike Primus

Articles

Everyone knows that excessive caseloads, poor funding, and a lack of training plague indigent defense delivery systems throughout the states, such that the promise of Gideon v. Wainwright is largely unfulfilled. Commentators have disagreed about how best to breathe life into Gideon . Many disclaim any possibility that federal habeas corpus review of state criminal cases could catalyze reform give n the many procedural obstacle s that currently prevent state prisoners from getting into federal court. But the Supreme Court has recently taken a renewed interest in using federal habeas review to address the problem of ineffective attorneys in state …

The S&P Litigation And Access To Federal Court: A Case Study In The Limits Of Our Removal Model, Gil Seinfeld

Articles

On June 6, 2013, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the consolidation of fifteen actions filed by state attorneys general against the Standard & Poor’s rating agency for its role in the collapse of the market for structured finance securities. The cases are important: The underlying events shook markets worldwide and contributed to a global recession, the legal actions themselves take aim at foundational aspects of the way rating agencies go about their business, and the suits threaten the imposition of significant fines and penalties against S&P. So it is unsurprising that the order of the MDL …

Antitrust And The Judicial Virtues, Daniel A. Crane

Articles

Although commentators frequently debate how judges should decide antitrust cases substantively, little attention has been paid to theories of judicial virtue in antitrust decision making. This essay considers four pairings of virtues: (1) striving for substantive purity versus conceding to institutional realism; (2) incrementalism versus generalism; (3) presenting a unified face versus candidly conceding differences among judges on an appellate panel; and (4) adhering strictly to stare decisis versus freely updating precedents to reflect evolving economic learning or conditions. While recognizing the complexities that sometimes pull judges in the opposite direction, this Article gives the nod to institutional realism, incrementalism, …

Preliminary Injunction Standards In Massachusetts State And Federal Courts, Arthur D. Wolf

Faculty Scholarship

Concurrent jurisdiction frequently allows attorneys the choice of filing a complaint in state or federal court. State courts presumptively have jurisdiction over claims rooted in federal law. At times, state courts are required to entertain federal claims. Similarly, federal courts have authority over state claims because of diversity, federal question, and supplemental jurisdiction. Many claims are rooted in both state and federal law, such as antitrust, civil rights, environmental, consumer protection, and civil liberties. Confronted with the choice of state or federal court, the attorney must evaluate a variety of factors before deciding in which court to file.

In a …

Defying Gravity: The Development Of Standards In The International Prosecution Of International Atrocity Crimes, Matthew H. Charity

Faculty Scholarship

The International Criminal Court (the “ICC”), now one decade old, is still in the process of setting norms as to scope, jurisdiction, and other issues. One issue that has thus far defied resolution is a key issue of jurisdiction: the place of complementarity in deciding whether certain criminal issues impacting international standards or interests should be decided before the ICC or national tribunals. Although the Rome Statute crystallizes definitions of core international crimes that may be tried before the ICC, the process of determining whether to leave jurisdiction with the nation or allowing jurisdiction to the ICC continues to lack …

Miranda And Its (More Rights-Protective) International Counterparts, Megan A. Fairlie

Faculty Publications

The goal of this article is to encourage the international legal community to revisit its unexamined acceptance of strategic communications. This can lead to a debate that, at a minimum, should prompt Court supporters — specifically civil society members — to think carefully before engaging in conduct that creates dangerous consequences for the ICC.