Courts Commons^™

Wrongful Convictions In Singapore: A General Survey Of Risk Factors, Siyuan Chen, Eunice Chua

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

This article seeks to raise awareness about the potential for wrongful convictions in Singapore by analysing the factors commonly identified as contributing towards wrongful convictions in other jurisdictions, including institutional failures and suspect evidence. It also considers whether the social conditions in Singapore are favourable to discovering and publicising wrongful convictions. The authors come to the conclusion that Singapore does well on a number of fronts and no sweeping reforms are necessary However there are areas of risk viz the excessive focus on crime control rather than due process, which require some tweaking of the system.

The Consequences Of Congress’S Choice Of Delegate: Judicial And Agency Interpretations Of Title Vii, Margaret H. Lemos

Faculty Scholarship

Although Congress delegates lawmaking authority to both courts and agencies, we know remarkably little about the determinants-and even less about the consequences-of the choice between judicial and administrative process. The few scholars who have sought to understand the choice of delegate have used formal modeling to illuminate various aspects of the decision from the perspective of the enacting Congress. That approach yields useful insight into the likely preferences of rational legislators, but tells us nothing about how (or whether) those preferences play out in the behavior of courts and agencies. Without such knowledge, we have no way of testing the …

Nature Or Nurture? Judicial Lawmaking In The European Court Of Justice And The Andean Tribunal Of Justice, Laurence R. Helfer, Karen J. Alter

Faculty Scholarship

Are international courts power-seeking by nature, expanding the reach and scope of international rules and the courts’ authority where permissive conditions allow? Or, does expansionist lawmaking require special nurturing? We investigate the relative influences of nature versus nurture by comparing expansionist lawmaking in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the Andean Tribunal of Justice (ATJ), the ECJ’s jurisdictional cousin and the third most active international court. We argue that international judges are more likely to become expansionist lawmakers where they are supported by substate interlocutors and compliance constituencies, including government officials, advocacy networks, national judges, and administrative agencies. This …

A Coase Theorem For Constitutional Theory, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

There is much to admire about Barry Friedman’s new book, The Will of the People. Explaining how the institution of judicial review was made safe for democracy in America, Friedman’s story is extensively researched, beautifully written, scrupulously nonpartisan about the modern Court, and frequently humorous. What is more, his primary claim—that the Supreme Court of the United States is very much a democratic institution because judicial review always has been responsive to public opinion—is, to a large extent, convincing. I have taught The Will of the People in my first-year constitutional law course, and I plan to do so again. …

Resolving Cases On The Merits, Jay Tidmarsh

Journal Articles

Prepared for a Symposium on Civil Justice Reform, this essay examines the role of the “on the merits” principle in modern American procedure. After surveying the possible meanings of the phrase, the essay critiques its most common understanding due to its economic inefficiency and its lack of strong philosophical support. Relying on the recent work of Amartya Sen, the essay proposes that the principle be replaced with a “fair outcome” principle that melds both “procedural” and “substantive” concerns.

Stare Decisis As Judicial Doctrine, Randy J. Kozel

Journal Articles

Stare decisis has been called many things, among them a principle of policy, a series of prudential and pragmatic considerations, and simply the preferred course. Often overlooked is the fact that stare decisis is also a judicial doctrine, an analytical system used to guide the rules of decision for resolving concrete disputes that come before the courts.

This Article examines stare decisis as applied by the U.S. Supreme Court, our nation’s highest doctrinal authority. A review of the Court’s jurisprudence yields two principal lessons about the modern doctrine of stare decisis. First, the doctrine is comprised largely of malleable factors …

A Conversation About Problem-Solving Courts: Take 2, Jane M. Spinak

Faculty Scholarship

The University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class symposium on problem-solving courts surfaced a wide array of issues on the meaning and practices of these courts. My prepared remarks at the symposium addressed the first issue discussed in this article: the potential disparate impact of problem-solving courts on minority families who are disproportionately affected by these court processes. The second part of the article draws on the discussion during the symposium to reflect on the difficulty supporters and critics of the problem-solving court movement have in talking and listening to each other.

Framing Justice: Media, Bias, And Legal Decisionmaking, Perry L. Moriearty

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Caperton V. A.T. Massey Coal Co.: Something Is Rotten In The State Of West Virginia—A Common-Law Approach To Constitutional Judicial Disqualification, Benjamin A. Levin

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Diggs V. State: A Not-So-Plain Error? , Maggie T. Grace

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reply: Exploring Panel Effects, Pauline Kim

Scholarship@WashULaw

This Reply responds to methodological criticisms of an earlier empirical study of panel effects on the United States Court of Appeals, Deliberation and Strategy on the United States Courts of Appeals, which appeared in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. That study found that federal appellate judges appeared to be more or less open to influence by their panel colleagues depending upon how the preferences of the panel members align with the preferences of the circuit as a whole. On the other hand, their willingness to avoid dissents and go along with their panel colleagues seemed unaffected by their relative …

Countering The Majoritarian Difficulty, Stefanie A. Lindquist, Amanda Frost

Scholarship@WashULaw

Most state court judges are elected to office, and thus must be attentive to voter preferences just like other elected officials. Critics of judicial elections fear that subjecting judges to majoritarian pressures jeopardizes the rights of disfavored groups and undermines the rule of law, and accordingly call for their abolition. The reality, however, is that judicial elections are firmly entrenched in thirty-eight states, and thus appear to be a permanent part of the legal landscape.

This article suggests that the so-called “majoritarian difficulty” posed by elected judges can be tempered by regular interactions with appointed, life-tenured federal judges, who are …

Public Opinion, Cultural Change, And Constitutional Adjudication, Calvin R. Massey

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

All Rise! Standing In Judge Betty Fletcher’S Court, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

In this essay, based on a talk given at the Washington Law Review’s March 2009 symposium in honor of Senior Ninth Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher and her three decades of service on that court, I selectively survey her opinions on justiciability issues: standing, ripeness, mootness, and political questions. A significant starting point for this survey is Professor Richard Pierce’s 1999 law review article, Is Standing Law or Politics?, arguing that many Supreme Court votes in standing cases generally, and appellate judges’ votes in environmental-standing cases specifically, can be explained better on the basis of politics than by reference to …

The Frequency, Predictability, And Proportionality Of Jury Awards Of Punitive Damages In State Courts In 2005: A New Audit, Neil Vidmar, Mirya Holman

Faculty Scholarship

The state of punitive damages in the United States has been a controversial topic for more than three decades, resulting in litigation reaching the U.S. Supreme Court and state supreme courts. Various business advocacy groups have sought to drastically curb or eliminate punitive damages while plaintiffs’ lawyers and consumer groups vigorously defend the use of punitive damages. State legislatures have responded with many substantive and procedural reforms over the years. Yet, in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, the United States Supreme Court, while approvingly citing empirical evidence indicating that there are “not mass-produced runaway awards” and that “by most accounts …

On Not Being “Not An Originalist”, H. Jefferson Powell

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

How Delaware Law Can Support Better Corporate Governance, James D. Cox

Faculty Scholarship

Corporate governance, or more particularly, improving corporate governance, has been an important national topic for decades – indeed from the first appearance of the public corporation. Within this discourse, we frequently find that the public and academics alike have short memories. We too frequently focus on the present more than on the sweep of history. So it is with the present corporate governance discussions. We tend to begin with the collapse of Enron in late 2001 and focus on the most recent tinkering with governance, such as the New York Stock Exchange's (NYSE) and Nasdaq's listing requirements and the novel, …

Talking Judges, Mitu Gulati, Jack Knight

Faculty Scholarship

What kinds of empirical questions about themselves and their colleagues on the bench are judges interested in asking? This was the topic of a recent conference at the Duke Law School. Our Essay reflects on the ways in which the judges at this conference and at a prior one talked about the empirical study of their community. To put it mildly, most of the judges were not fans of the empirical research. Our interest in this Essay is not, however, in responding to the judicial criticisms. Rather it is in drawing insights about how judges view themselves and their profession …

Law, Facts, And Power, Elizabeth G. Thornburg

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The Supreme Court’s opinion in Ashcroft v. Iqbal is wrong in many ways. This essay is about only one of them: the Court’s single-handed return to a pleading system that requires lawyers and judges to distinguish between pleading facts and pleading law. This move not only resuscitates a distinction purposely abandoned by the generation that drafted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but also serves as an example of the very difficulties created by the distinction. The chinks in the law-fact divide are evident in Iqbal itself - both in the already notorious pleading section of the opinion, and in …

The Ioc Made Me Do It: Women's Ski Jumping, Vanoc And The 2010 Winter Olympics, Margot Young

All Faculty Publications

This case comment discusses the judicial decisions in Sagen v. VANOC regarding the constitutional challenge brought by women ski jumpers to their exclusion from the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics. While the claimants argued that the constitutional equality provision (section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) had been infringed, the BC courts' decisions focussed on the novelty of the state action problem. At least one level of court accepted that the exclusion was discriminatory but the challenge failed because the decision to exclude lay within the power of the International Olympic Committee, an entity beyond the ambit of …

Guest Editor's Introduction, Special Issue: Ensuring Access To Justice For Self-Represented, Amy Applegate

Articles by Maurer Faculty

I am pleased to be the guest editor of his special issue of Family Court Review, which focuses on "Access to Justice for Self-Represented Litigants." I am even more pleased that this issue includes articles written by some of the leaders of Indiana's pro bono legal community; several outstanding students; my collaborators who conduct research about the effect of self-representation in the mediation context, especially where there is intimate partner violence or abuse (IPVA); and colleagues in the national clinical and law school pro bono community whose students provide pro bono services to disadvantaged or marginalized individuals with family …

Giving Unconscionability More Muscle: Attorney's Fees As A Remedy For Contractual Overreaching, Stephen E. Friedman

Georgia Law Review

This Article seeks to broaden the conversation about unconscionability. While most of the discussion has focused on the appropriate standard for determining unconscionability, this Article focuses on the appropriate remedy to be imposed when unconscionability is found. The current remedy for unconscionability is nonenforcement or limited enforcement of unconscionable contracts or contract terms. This remedy is inadequate and seriously undermines unconscionability's effectiveness as a tool for policing against contractual overreaching. The Article proposes that courts be given discretion to award attorney's fees to consumers who successfully establish the unconscionability of a standard form contract. Such a remedy would enable unconscionability …

Reform In California's Immigration Enforcement And Immigration Court, Nelson E. Gil

CMC Senior Theses

According to the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistic, California accounts for approximately 2,600,000 illegal immigrants in 2009. This number represents about 25 percent of the entire estimated illegal immigrant population in the United States, which is roughly 10.8 million. Between 2003 and 2008, the U.S. government removed 1,446,338 noncitizens from the United States. This rise in deportation is a result o the changes that have been enacted by the federal government over the years that transformed the nature of immigration enforcement. This thesis explores the California Immigration Enforcement system from the programs established to apprehend illegal aliens …

Snyder V. Louisiana: Continuing The Historical Trend Towards Increased Scrutiny Of Peremptory Challenges, John P. Bringewatt

Michigan Law Review

In March 2008, the Supreme Court decided Snyder v. Louisiana, the latest in the line of progeny of Batson v. Kentucky. This Note demonstrates that Snyder is part of a historical pattern of Supreme Court decisions concerning the use of peremptory challenges in which the Court has moved away from permitting the unfettered use of the peremptory challenge in favor of stronger Equal Protection considerations. Snyder alters the requirements for trial judges in deciding Batson challenges by requiring them to provide some explanation of their reasons for accepting a prosecutor's justification of a peremptory challenge. Snyder is the …

Boumediene V. Bush: Habeas Corpus, Exhaustion, And The Special Circumstances Exception, Brandon C. Pond

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Liability Survey: Inaccurate, Unfair, And Bad For Business, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce uses its Survey of State Liability to criticize judiciaries and seek legal change but no detailed evaluation of the survey’s quality exists. This article presents evidence that the survey is substantively inaccurate and methodologically flawed. It incorrectly characterizes state law; respondents provide less than 10 percent correct answers for objectively verifiable responses. It is internally inconsistent; a state threatened with judicial hellhole status ranked first in the survey while venues not on the list ranked lower. The absence of correlation between survey rankings and observable activity suggests that other factors drive the rankings. Two factors …

Penalizing Poverty: Making Criminal Defendants Pay For Their Court-Appointed Counsel Through Recoupment And Contribution, Helen A. Anderson

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Over thirty years ago the United States Supreme Court upheld an Oregon statute that allowed sentencing courts, with a number of important procedural safeguards, to impose on indigent criminal defendants the obligation to repay the cost of their court appointed attorneys. The practice of ordering recoupment or contribution (application fees or co-pays) of public defender attorney's fees is widespread, although collection rates are unsurprisingly low. Developments since the Court's decision in Fuller v. Oregon show that not only is recoupment not cost-effective, but it too easily becomes an aspect of punishment, rather than legitimate cost recovery. In a number of …

"Once Victim, Always Victim": Compensated Individuals Under The Amended Sentencing Guidelines On Fraud, Jacqueline Harrington

Michigan Law Review

Until recently, courts disagreed over whether individuals who were compensated by a third party such as a bank or insurance company ought to count as victims for purposes of the multiple-victim sentencing enhancement in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines on Fraud. The most recent Amendments to the Guidelines resolve this split, permitting compensated individuals to be counted as victims where their identity was used in the commission of the fraud. However, the new Guidelines do not resolve a separate split, likely to become more divisive under the new Guidelines, over whether both compensated individuals and their compensators can simultaneously be treated …

The Stigma Of Conviction: Coram Nobis, Civil Disabilities, And The Right To Clear One's Name, David Wolitz

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

The End Of Objector Blackmail?, Brian T. Fitzpatrick

Vanderbilt Law Review

For many years, courts and commentators have been concerned about a phenomenon in class action litigation referred to as objector "blackmail." The term "blackmail" is used figuratively rather than literally; so-called objector "blackmail" is simply a specific application of the general concern with legal regimes that permit one or more individuals to "hold out" and disrupt collective action. The holdout problem in class action litigation stems from the following series of events: When a class action is settled, class members who do not like the proposed settlement are permitted to file objections with the federal district court that must approve …