Courts Commons^™

Maybe Dick Speidel Was Right About Court Adjustment, Robert A. Hillman

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In a symposium to honor Professor Richard Speidel, a giant in the field of contract and commercial law for over four decades, this contribution argues that Speidel may have been correct in asserting that, in limited circumstances, court adjustment of disrupted long-term contracts makes sense. I assert that nothing courts have decided or writers have analyzed since the ALCOA case proves that court adjustment is wrong-headed. But, as with so many policy issues, we may never identify the "best" judicial approach to disrupted long-term contracts because resolution depends on too many variables and unknowns.

Remarks, More Remarks And A Grounds Of Decision: One Judgment Too Many? Tt Durai V Public Prosecutor, Unreported Magistrate's Appeal, S. Chandra Mohan

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

In May 2008, the High Court dismissed the appeal of former NKF CEO, T T Durai, against his conviction and sentence. What is little known is that one of Durai's six grounds of appeal was in fact upheld. The appellate judge subsequently devoted nine out of 12 paragraphs of his four-page Grounds of Decision, to explain is reasons for doing so. Although this ruling did not affect the final outcome of the Durai appeal, it has to some extent helped to settle a question that has vexed criminal law practitioners in recent years. This concerns the legality and propriety of …

The Legality And Practicality Of Remote Witness Testimony, Fredric Lederer

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Letter To Clerk Of Court Re: Ronald Jackson, Roger J. Miner '56

Correspondence

No abstract provided.

Stages Of Judgment Citizen Court Experiment Report, Courtney Breese

Massachusetts Office of Public Collaboration Publications

Over the past several years, the Massachusetts Office of Dispute Resolution and Public Collaboration (MODR) has worked with the Kettering Foundation to establish a Public Policy Institute (PPI) for public deliberation at the University of Massachusetts Boston. In June 2008, the Kettering Foundation invited MODR to join other research partners across the country in a research experiment influenced by Daniel Yankelovich‟s Seven Stages of Public Understanding. The purpose of this experiment is to test how effectively a citizen court process model communicates public opinion on contentious public policy issues to public officials and the media.

MODR agreed to join in …

Civil Partnership: Your Questions Answered - A Comprehensive Analysis Of The Civil Partnership Bill, Fergus Ryan

Reports

The Civil Partnership Bill 2009 arguably represents the most momentous change in Irish Family Law in a generation. The Bill proposes a substantial new legal status for registered same-sex partners, as well as important changes to the law as it relates to cohabitants. This report addresses the provisions of the Bill as initiated, analysing the potential impact of the Bill in clear and accessible language. The Report also highlights potential difficulties with the Bill, and suggests possible enhancements to the Bill as initiated.

The Future For Collected Prosecutorial Evidence At The International Criminal Tribunal For Rwanda, Gerda Visser

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article focuses on the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and its Office of the Prosecutor (OTP), emphasizing the need to balance the preservation of sensitive information with the public's right to access historical records. It highlights the ICTR's role in developing international criminal law standards and the challenges of managing its vast archive, particularly regarding witness protection, privacy, and future prosecutions. The article proposes establishing an international judicial archive with a legal reviewing body to oversee access to the OTP database, ensuring transparency while safeguarding sensitive data.

Toward A Coherent Test For Disparate Impact Discrimination, Jennifer L. Peresie

Indiana Law Journal

Statistics are generally plaintiffs' primary evidence in establishing a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination. Thus, the use, or misuse, of statistics dictates case outcomes. Lacking a coherent test for disparate impact, courts choose between the two prevailing tests, statistical significance and the four-fifths rule, in deciding cases, and these tests frequently produce opposite results. Litigants thus face considerable uncertainty and the risk that a judge's preferred outcome will dictate which test is applied. This Article recognizes that the two tests perform complementary functions that both play a useful role in determining whether liability should be imposed. statistical significance …

The European Court Of Human Rights And The Freedom Of Expression, Jean-François Flauss

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: An Ocean Apart? Freedom of Expression in Europe and the United States. This Article was originally written in French and delivered as a conference paper at a symposium held by the Center for American Law of the University of Paris II (Panthèon-Assas) on January 18-19, 2008.

Overcoming Soviet Legacy: Non-Enforcement Of The Judgments Of The European Court Of Human Rights By The Russian Judiciary, Yulia Dernovsky

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The note examines the challenges Russia faces in its interactions with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), highlighting the surge in complaints against Russia and the country's increasing resistance to the ECtHR's rulings. It explores the ECtHR's evolving role in interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights as a living instrument and the tensions arising from Russia's domestic legal framework and political hostility toward the Court. The analysis underscores the need for both internal reforms in Russia and external adjustments to the ECtHR's procedures to address the growing caseload and ensure compliance with human rights standards.

Making The Interests Of The Child Paramount: Representation For Children In The Hague Convention On The Civil Aspects Of International Child Abduction, Elizabeth Pitman

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, while innovative in addressing child welfare, fails to ensure children's independent representation in proceedings, undermining their ability to voice their interests. This Note advocates for amending the Convention to require legal representation for children in all cases, aligning it with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which guarantees children the right to express their views in judicial proceedings. The absence of such representation leads to incomplete records and inadequate protection of children's best interests, as highlighted by cases like Arianna Adan. Ensuring independent …

Batson, Empowerment And New Jury Models: The Case For ‘Open Inquiry’, Patrick C. Brayer

Faculty Works

This 2009 article recommends the practice technique of “open inquiry,” which encourages attorneys and courts to ask jurors to openly identify their race, gender, and ethnicity during voir dire for purposes of appellate review under Batson v. Kentucky and related holdings. An open inquiry helps protect the rights of all jurors to sit. It thus creates a greater chance that juries are more diverse and promotes more voices and experiences during deliberation. The open inquiry method also promotes individual juror participation and increases the group's receptiveness toward individual voices during deliberations. Most importantly, open inquiry forces practitioners to rethink how …

Standing Still In The Roberts Court, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

In 2007, The New York Times reported "limiting the ability of plaintiffs to bring or appeal lawsuits" had emerged as an early "theme" of the Roberts Court. The Wall Street Journal concurred, reporting "the biggest change under Chief Justice Roberts might not involve who wins on the merits" but "who gets through the courthouse door in the first place." An early consensus is emerging... that one effect of the Roberts Court is to make it more difficult for prospective plaintiffs to have their day in federal court.

Because standing decisions are more insulated from legislative revision than other sorts of …

From The Chair, Lela P. Love

Articles

No abstract provided.

Imbree V Mcneilly: A View From Singapore, Yihan Goh

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

In Imbree v. McNeilly, the High Court of Australia ruled that a learner driver is no longer to be held to the standard of a reasonable but unqualified (and inexperienced) driver in negligence claims. It is the modest aim of this case note to show that Imbree, while a decision on a narrow point, in fact hints at a larger difficulty in the ascertainment of the standard of care in individual cases. It is in this context that it will be suggested that, when the time comes for Singapore courts to consider the applicability of Imbree, this difficulty should be …

Xilinx And The Arm's-Length Standard, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah

Articles

On May 7 the Ninth Circuit decided Xilinx v. Commissioner. By a 2-1 majority, the panel reversed the Tax Court and held that costs of employee stock options must be included in the pool of costs subject to a tax-sharing agreement. The Xilinx decision is important for three reasons. First, cost sharing is probably the key element in current transfer pricing law because it is the principal way in which profits from intangibles get shifted from the United States to low-tax jurisdictions. Moreover, informed observers agree that the allocation of income from intangibles is the most important problem in transfer …

Sunshine In Litigation Act Of 2009: Hearing Before The Subcomm. On Commercial And Administrative Law Of The H. Comm. On The Judiciary, 111th Cong., June 4, 2009 (Statement Of Sherman L. Cohn, Prof. Of Law, Geo. U. L. Center), Sherman L. Cohn

Testimony Before Congress

I urge that the issue before the Congress in the proposed “Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2009” is really one of social values and a choice to be made among various values and that that is a substantive matter rather than a mere matter of procedure. It is a choice among values that Congress, the legislative arm of the federal government, is charged with making and in this case should make.

Corruption In Our Courts: What It Looks Like And Where It Is Hidden, Stratos Pahis

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Beyond Borders: Disassembling The State-Based Model Of Federal Forum Fairness, Jamelle C. Sharpe

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rethinking The Federal Role In State Criminal Justice, Nancy J. King, Joseph L. Hoffmann

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This Essay argues that federal habeas review of state criminal cases squanders resources the federal government should be using to help states reform their systems of defense representation. A 2007 empirical study reveals that federal habeas review is inaccessible to most state prisoners convicted of non-capital crimes, and offers no realistic hope of relief for those who reach federal court. As a means of correcting or deterring constitutional error in non-capital cases, habeas is failing and cannot be fixed. Drawing upon these findings as well as the Supreme Court's most recent decision applying the Suspension Clause, the authors propose that …

Islamic Headscarves And Slippery Slopes, Murat Borovali

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Wyeth V. Levine And Its Implications, Brian Wolfman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wyeth v. Levine sharply limited the availability of implied preemption as a defense in pharmaceutical cases. In this Analysis & Perspective, attorney Brian Wolfman discusses the decision and its implications for prescription drug litigation as well as litigation in other areas that are regulated by the federal government.

After Wyeth, Wolfman says, a defendant in a prescription drug case must demonstrate a ‘‘tight fit between the labeling change proposed by the manufacturer (and rejected by the FDA) and the labeling change that the plaintiff contends would have prevented her injuries.’’ Moreover, he says, …

Letter To Clerk Of Court Re: Harold Harris, Roger J. Miner '56

Correspondence

No abstract provided.

The Swinging Pendulum Of Sentencing Reform: Political Actors Regulating District Court Discretion, Lydia Brashear Tiede

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

Ripe Standing Vines And The Jurisprudential Tasting Of Matured Legal Wines—And Law & Bananas: Property And Public Choice In The Permitting Process, Donald J. Kochan

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

The Federal Circuit's Licensing Law Jurisprudence: Its Nature And Influence, Robert W. Gomulkiewicz

Washington Law Review

The Federal Circuit serves as the central appellate court for U.S. patent law appeals. Outside of patent law, scholars have noted the Federal Circuit’s distinct lack of influence on the law. Thus, unnoticed, the Federal Circuit has become one of the most influential actors in the creation of intellectual property licensing law. Its influence reaches across all areas of intellectual property, industries, and all federal circuits and state courts. But the Federal Circuit’s influence on licensing law is more than just a matter of academic interest: licensing is critical to innovation in the information economy. Licenses underlie the creation and …

Unmasking Judicial Extremism, Carl Tobias

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

"An Opportunity For Effective Cross-Examination": Limits On The Confrontation Right Of The Pro Se Defendant, Alanna Clair

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The rights of a defendant to confront his accusers and conduct his defense without the assistance of counsel are sacrosanct in the American judicial system. The rights of the defendant are even sometimes exalted at the expense of the rights of the public or of victims of crime. This Note examines the problem of a pro se defendant using his confrontation right to intimidate or harass his alleged victims testifying against him. It is well-established that the confrontation right is not unconditional. The problem comes in determining whether the courts can place limits on the confrontation right of a pro …

Conditions On Taking The Initiative: The First Amendment Implications Of Subject Matter Restrictions On Ballot Initiatives, Anna Skiba-Crafts

Michigan Law Review

Nearly half of U.S. states offer a ballot initiative process that citizens may use to pass legislation or constitutional amendments by a popular vote. Some states, however, impose substantive restrictions on the types of initiatives citizens may submit to the ballot for a vote-precluding, for example, initiatives lowering drug penalties or initiatives related to religion. Circuit courts are split on whether and how such restrictions implicate the First Amendment. This Note argues that-rather than limiting "expressive conduct" protected only minimally by the First Amendment, or limiting pure conduct that does not garner any First Amendment protectionsubject matter restrictions on ballot …

Issue 4: Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.