Courts Commons^™

Reframing The Dilemma Of Contractually Expanded Judicial Review: Arbitral Appeal Vs. Vacatur , Eric Van Ginkel

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") of 1925 was created to ensure enforceability of agreements to arbitrate. The FAA is the centerpiece of the federal arbitration policy as construed by the Supreme Court. Section 10(a) FAA enumerates grounds on which an arbitral award can be set aside. The central issue discussed herein is whether parties can agree by contract to allow one of the parties to initiate review of the arbitral award by a court that would otherwise have jurisdiction over those parties, or whether the court's powers are somehow limited to the grounds for vacatur enumerated in Section 10(a) FAA. …

Contracting Around Ruaa: Default Rules, Mandatory Rules, And Judicial Review Of Arbitral Awards, Christopher R. Drahozal

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

By specifying that its provisions generally are default rules and listing particular exceptions, the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (“RUAA”) provides much needed certainty and avoids unnecessary litigation, at least compared to the Federal Arbitration Act, which does not always identify which of its provisions are default rules. In one important respect, however, RUAA jettisons that valuable certainty. The RUAA drafters left open (or at least sought to leave open) the question whether parties can contract to expand the grounds for judicial review of arbitration awards beyond those set out in the statute. In other words, the drafters purported not to …

Legal Scholarship Highlight: Confronting Supreme Court Fact Finding, Allison Orr Larsen

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Africa And The International Criminal Court: Collision Course Or Cooperation, Charles Chernor Jalloh

North Carolina Central Law Review

No abstract provided.

Back To The Future (Reviewing David Bernstein, Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights Against Progressive Reform (2011)), William D. Araiza

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Modern Odysseus Or Classic Fraud - Fourteen Years In Prison For Civil Contempt Without A Jury Trial, Judicial Power Without Limitation, And An Examination Of The Failure Of Due Process, Mitchell J. Frank

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Taking The English Right To Counsel Seriously In American Civil Gideon Litigation, Scott F. Llewellyn, Brian Hawkins

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Courts have rejected a right to counsel for indigent civil litigants under the U.S. Constitution. But in some American states, that right arguably already exists as a matter of common law, albeit derived from centuries-old English common and statutory law. This Article analyzes the viability of arguments for incorporating the old English right to counsel in the twenty-seven American states that continue to recognize old English common and statutory law as a source of binding authority. Such "originalist" arguments may be appealing to judges who are more willing to revive a historically based right than establish a new right based …

Yick Wo At 125: Four Simple Lessons For The Contemporary Supreme Court, Marie A. Failinger

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

The 125th anniversary of Yick Wo v. Hopkins is an important opportunity to recognize the pervasive role of law in oppressive treatment of Chinese immigrants in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It is also a good opportunity for the Supreme Court to reflect on four important lessons gleaned from Yick Wo. First, the Court should never lend justification to the evil of class discrimination, even if it has to decline to rule in a case. Second, where there is persistent discrimination against a minority group, the Court must be similarly persistent in fighting it. Third, the Court needs to take …

Towards A Balanced Approach For The Protection Of Native American Sacred Sites, Alex Tallchief Skibine

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

Protection of "sacred sites" is very important to Native American religious practitioners because it is intrinsically tied to the survival of their cultures, and therefore to their survival as distinct peoples. The Supreme Court in Oregon v. Smith held that rational basis review, and not strict scrutiny, was the appropriate level of judicial review when evaluating the constitutionality of neutral laws of general applicability even when these laws impacted one's ability to practice a religion. Reacting to the decision, Congress enacted the Relgious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which reinstated the strict scrutiny test for challenges to neutral laws of general …

Rluipa: What's The Use, Jason Z. Pesick

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

After Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), which protects religious land use, many observers feared that the legislation would allow religious organizations to flout land-use regulations. Because RLUIPA defines "religious exercise" broadly, these observers feared the law would protect an array of nonworship uses, including commercial ventures, as long as a religious entity owned the land. More than a decade after RLUIPA's passage, this Note concludes that courts have not interpreted religious exercise as broadly as those observers feared. Courts have not, however, settled on a clear or consistent way of interpreting religious …

The Decline Of Oral Argument In The Federal Courts Of Appeals: A Modest Proposal For Reform, David R. Cleveland, Steven Wisotsky

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Assessing And Addressing The Problems Caused By Life Tenure On The Supreme Court, Philip D. Oliver

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

The Wane In Spain (Of Universal Jurisdiction): Spain's Forgetful Democratic Transition And The Prosecution Of Tyrants, James J. Friedberg

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hazy Shades Of Winter: Resolving The Circuit Split Over Preliminary Injunctions, Rachel A. Weisshaar

Vanderbilt Law Review

The preliminary injunction is an extraordinarily powerful remedy. After only an initial hearing, a court can command the nonmovant to perform-or to refrain from performing-an action, enforceable by criminal contempt. This supposedly temporary form of relief is often, in practical terms, dispositive of the case because the preliminary injunction remains in effect unless and until a subsequent decision vacates it.

An Inconvenient Lie: Big Tobacco Was Put On Trial For Denying The Effects Of Smoking; Is Climate Change Denial Off-Limits?, Elizabeth Dubats

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

Plaintiffs have made several notable attempts to bring nuisance, trespass, and negligence suits against major sources of greenhouse gas emissions for climate change related injuries. While climate change is a widely recognized environmental issue, courts have refused to recognize it as a basis for a valid cause of action in tort, finding either petitioners lack standing to bring the claim, or that the claim raises political questions that should not be addressed by the judiciary. Some more recent climate change tort claims have also included allegations of fraud on the part of the hydrocarbon industry for actively perpetuating misinformation about …

Standing Lessons: What We Can Learn When Conservative Plaintiffs Lose Under Article Iii Standing Doctrine, Heather Elliott

Indiana Law Journal

The Supreme Court’s Article III standing doctrine has plagued liberal groups for nearly forty years. Recently, however, the doctrine has blocked a number of conservative lawsuits opposing gay marriage, the 2010 health care law, and the expansion of federal funding for stem cell research.

What can we learn from these cases? Because contemporary criticisms of standing doctrine have usually come from the left and defenses from the right, it is commonplace to associate arguments for broad standing with left-wing political agendas.

But, as some scholars have shown, a version of narrow standing helped liberals protect New Deal legislation in the …

Can California Save Its Death Sentences? Will Californians Save The Expense?, Scott W. Howe

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Photographer's Copyright - Photograph As Art, Photograph As Database, Justin Hughes

Articles

No abstract provided.

Actual Versus Perceived Performance Of Judges, Theodore Eisenberg, Talia Fisher, Issi Rosen-Zvi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Searching And Seizing After 9/11: Developing And Applying Empirical Methodology To Measure Judicial Output Inthe Supreme Court's Section 8 Jurisprudence, Richard Jochelson, Michael Weinrath, Melaine Janelle Murchison

Dalhousie Law Journal

In 2005, Margit Cohn and Mordechai Kremnitzer created a multidimensional model to measure judicial discourse inherent in the decision making of constitutional courts. Their model set out multiple indicia bywhich to measure whether the court acted within proper constitutional constraints in order to determine the extent to which a court rendered a decision that was activist or restrained. This study attempts to operationalize that model. We use this model to analyze changes in interpretation of search and seizure law under section 8 after the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms at the Supreme Court of Canada. The …

Allegedly "Biased", "Intimidating," And "Incompetent" State Court Judges And The Questionable Removal Of State Law Class Actions To Purportedly "Impartial" And "Competent" Federal Courts -- A Historical Analysis Of Class Action Dispositions In Federal And State Courts, 1925-2011, Willy E. Rice

William & Mary Business Law Review

Judges as well as members of plaintiffs’ and defense bars agree: a class action is a superior, efficient, and inexpensive procedural tool to litigate disputes that present similar questions of fact and law. To be sure, corporations and insurers have a long history of filing successful class actions against each other in state courts. Yet those corporate entities convinced Congress to embrace an uncommon view: continuing to allow allegedly “hostile” and “biased” state judges and juries to hear and decide everyday consumers’ “purely substantive state law class actions” is unfair and inefficient. Responding to the plea, Congress enacted the Class …

The Boundaries Of Most Favored Nation Treatment In International Investment Law, Tony Cole

Michigan Journal of International Law

Contemporary international investment law is characterized by fragmentation. Disputes are heard by a variety of tribunals, which often are constituted solely for the purpose of hearing a single claim. The law applicable in a dispute is usually found in a bilateral agreement, applicable only between the two states connected to the dispute, rather than in a multilateral treaty or customary international law. Moreover, the international investment community itself is profoundly divided on many issues of substantive law, meaning both that the interpretation given to international investment law by a tribunal will be determined largely by those who sit on it, …

Discretionary (In)Justice: The Exercise Of Discretion In Claims For Asylum, Kate Aschenbrenner

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Section 208(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides that asylum may be granted to an applicant who meets the definition of a refugee-that is, someone who has been persecuted or has a well-founded fear of future persecution in her own country on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Asylum is a discretionary form of relief which means that the United States government is not required to grant asylum to every refugee within the United States but instead may decide whether or not to do so. This Article sets out in Part …

Agency And Equity: Why Do We Blame Clients For Their Lawyers' Mistakes, Adam Liptak

Michigan Law Review

If you were to ask a child whether it would be fair to execute a prisoner because his lawyer had made a mistake, the answer would be no. You might even get a look suggesting that you had asked a pretty stupid question. But judges treat the issue as a hard one, relying on a theory as casually accepted in criminal justice as it is offensive to principles of moral philosophy. This theory holds that the lawyer is the client's agent. What the agent does binds the principal. But clients and lawyers fit the agency model imperfectly. Agency law is …

Facades Of Justice, Norman W. Spaulding

Michigan Law Review

Representing Justice is a book of encyclopedic proportions on the iconography of justice and the organization of space in which adjudication occurs. Professors Judith Resnik and Dennis Curtis have gathered a provocative array of images, ranging from the scales of the Babylonian god Shamash-"judge of heaven and earth"-on a 4,200-year-old seal (pp. 18- 19 & fig. 23), and a 600-year-old painting of Saint Michael weighing the souls at the Last Judgment with sword and scales in hand (p. 23 fig. 25) to the tiny Cook County Courthouse in Grand Marais, Minnesota, 110 miles north of Duluth (p. 372 fig. 226), …

Remodeling The Multi-Door Courthouse To "Fit The Forum To The Folks": How Screening And Preparation Will Enhance Adr, Tim Hedeen

Faculty Articles

The article offers information on remodeling of multi-door courthouse to enhance Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) efficiency. It informs that symposium, The Future of Court ADR: Mediation and Beyond that was held in September 2011 featured scholars and practitioners to discuss the past and future of ADR. It informs that research and practice in mediation have deepened the understanding in engaging with prospective clients.

Georgia's New Evidence Code - An Overview, Paul S. Milich

Georgia State University Law Review

On May 3, 2011, Governor Nathan Deal signed into law House Bill 24 (HB 24) bringing a new set of evidence rules to the State of Georgia.

The new rules went into effect on January 1, 2013. The author of this article was the Reporter for the State Bar Evidence Study Committee when new rules were first proposed back in the mid-1980s, and again throughout the recent, successful effort to reform the rules.

Part I of this article will give a brief history of the twenty-six-year effort to bring new evidence rules to Georgia. Part II will provide a structural …