Courts Commons^™

Federal And State Court Rules Governing Publication And Citation Of Opinions, Melissa M. Serfass, Jessie L. Cranford

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

Many appellate court opinions are unpublished and have no precedential value. Publication standards vary for each jurisdiction. The different standards are presented in table form.

Make Way For The Aba: Smith V. Robbins Clears A Path For Anders Alternatives, James E. Duggan, Andrew W. Moeller

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

Indigents appealing criminal convictions are entitled to court-appointed counsel. The American Bar Association suggests a standard for providing the required representation. This standard is known as the Idaho Rule.

Constitutionality Of "No-Citation" Rules, Salem M. Katsh, Alex V. Chachkes

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No-citation rules raise serious constitutional concerns. Assuming that it is constitutional to designate an opinion as nonprecedential, it is not constitutional to prohibit citing an opinion. No-citation rules are unconstitutional for two reasons. The first, citation prohibitions interfere with a litigant’s First Amendment right of speech and petition. Second, citation prohibitions violate the separation of powers.

Concluding Thoughts On The Practical And Collateral Consequences Of Anastasoff, J. Thomas Sullivan

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

The publication/citation debate inflamed by the Eighth Circuit decision has uncertain long-term implications. Among these impacts is the understanding of the parameters afforded federal courts by Article III of the United States Constitution. A number of other significant questions are raised, as well as including the access to and the reliance on the work product of the appellate courts.

The Power Of A Federal Appellate Court To Direct Entry Of Judgment As A Matter Of Law: Reflections On Weisgram V. Marley Co., Robert A. Ragazzo

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

Federal district court judges have several mechanisms for controlling civil jury functions. One mechanism is the entry of judgment as a matter of law. Federal appellate courts are able to reverse and direct entry of judgment as a matter of law. This article examines the appropriateness of such authority.

Why Judges Don't Like Petitions For Rehearing, Richard S. Arnold

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

Petitions for en banc rehearings are rarely granted. A Senior Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit provides a history and reasoning of the rehearing process and his personal observations on those petitions and processes in today's court.

No-Merit Briefs Undermine The Adversary Process In Criminal Appeals, Randall L. Hodgkinson

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

Appellate defense attorneys face a dilemma when faced with an appeal that has no obvious merit. No-merit briefs allow an attorney to forego an appeal when there is no apparent merit. In cases involving direct appeals from conviction, the cost of abandonment of the client far outweighs the benefits.

Publicity And The Judicial Power, Daniel N. Hoffman

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

The judicial branch was created in order to ensure that the rule of law and not the rule of man prevailed. Judges must use reasoning and analysis to fulfill this role. Making decisions based on mere coin tosses or without giving a reason for the decision detracts from the rule of law. Issuing decisions that cannot be published or cited also detracts the judicial role of ensuring that law rules the land.

Anastasoff V. United States And Appeals In Veterans' Cases, Charles G. Mills

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

Many cases regarding veterans' benefits are heard in the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit has a practice of issuing one sentence orders in some cases. This practice benefits veterans by allowing decisions adverse to veterans to be made without creating precedential value. Removing the practice of unpublished opinions in the Federal Circuit would extinguish this benefit.

Judging In The Days Of The Early Republic: A Critique Of Judge Richard Arnold's Use Of History In Anastasoff V. United States, R. Ben Brown

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

Judge Arnold writes in his opinion that courts have the power to interpret or find the law but not create it. He argues that this practice was well established during colonial times and that it was adopted at the nation’s creation. The source of law during the formation of the United States is not as clear as Judge Arnold claims. Courts applied their roles differently in each jurisdiction. The complex history of the appropriate role of the judiciary contradicts Judge Arnold’s claim.

When Reasonable Jurists Could Disagree: The Fifth Circuit's Misapplication Of The Frivolousness Standard, Brent E. Newton

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

A criminal appeal that is deemed frivolous is summarily dismissed without further judicial consideration. The frequency of findings of frivolousness in the Fifth Circuit has caused concern among appellate practitioners and has even led to sanctions against practitioners. This article analyzes the Fifth Circuit’s frivolousness standard.

Constitutional Revolutions: A New Look At Lower Appellate Review In American Constitutionalism, Robert Justin Lipkin

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

Judicial review allows the Supreme Court of the United States to perform revolutionary constitutional change. The United States Courts of Appeals could also be a vehicle for revolutionary constitutional adjudication.

The Unpublished, Non-Precedential Decision: An Uncomfortable Legality?, Melissa H. Weresh

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled in 2000 that its rule prohibiting the citation of unpublished opinions was unconstitutional. The decision was ultimately vacated en banc. The legality of this prohibition merits consideration by the United States Supreme Court.

California's Curious Practice Of "Pocket Review", Steven B. Katz

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

The majority of any California appellate panel is permitted to certify an opinion for publication that establishes new law or modifies existing rules. The California Supreme court can reverse any publication decision without giving any reason. This practice is called "pocket review." Pocket reviews risk thwarting legislative intent and sweeping the results under the rug.

Making The Case For Megan's Law: A Study In Legislative Rhetoric, Daniel M. Filler

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Machinery Of Law In Pharaonic Egypt: Organization, Courts And Judges On The Ancient Nile, Russ Versteeg

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The article explores the sophisticated legal system of ancient Egypt, emphasizing its dual structure that combined human judicial administration with divine oracles. It highlights the roles of key officials such as the vizier and pharaoh, the organization of courts, and the emphasis on impartiality and fairness. The analysis also underscores the integration of religious elements, particularly the use of oracles, in legal decision-making, demonstrating a blend of secular and sacred authority.

Chinese Population Transfer In Tibet, John S. Hall

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The note examines the impact of China's population transfer policies in Tibet since the 1950 invasion, arguing that these policies have led to the marginalization of Tibetans, significant environmental degradation, and human rights abuses. It explores various legal and diplomatic strategies to address these issues, including the Dalai Lama's Five Point Plan, human rights law, environmental law, and international negotiations.

Court Administration As A Tool For Judicial Reform, Christie S. Warren

Faculty Publications

This paper focuses on court administration as a component of judicial branch reform in the United States and other countries.

Over the past fifty years, state and federal court systems in the United States have undergone a process of significant change. At the beginning of the twentieth century, courts were largely dependent upon the executive branch of government for administrative support and were for the most part externally dominated, disorganized, and poorly managed. By the end of the century, they had undergone a process of administrative innovation and improvement that changed the way they were managed. In other countries, judicial …

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Multiple-Choice Exam: Or, The Schoolroom Lessons From Bush V. Gore, Marcella David

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court And The Establishment Clause At The Dawn Of The New Millennium: "Bristl[Ing] With Hostility To All Things Religious" Or Necessary Seperation Of Church And State?, Charles J. Russo, Ralph D. Mawdsley

Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Which Of The Preparatory Commission's Latest Proposals For The Definition Of The Crime Of Aggression And The Exercise Of Jurisdiction Should Be Adopted Into The Rome Statute Of The International Criminal Court?, Rachel Peirce

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

Legal Arguments In The Opinions Of Montana Territorial Chief Justice Decius S. Wade, Andrew P. Morriss

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Free? Exercise, Marci A. Hamilton

Articles

No abstract provided.

Antitrust And The Information Age: Section 2 Monopolization Analyses In The New Economy, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

On April 3, 2000, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson declared that the Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") had maintained monopoly power in the personal computer operating system market by anticompetitive means, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. A case of enormous significance, Microsoft raises difficult questions regarding how antitrust laws should be applied to information technology ("IT') companies. Specifically, many characteristics of what has come to be called the "New Economy" - and of the IT companies within it - suggest that traditional monopolization analysis may need modification. As the U.S. has moved toward an information- based …

Social Meaning And School Vouchers, Neal Devins

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Who's Afraid Of The Critique Of Adjudication?: Tracing The Discourse Of Law In Development, Kerry Rittich

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Laidlaw: Redressing The Law Of Redressability, Harold J. Krent

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Juries And Technology: Equipping Jurors For The Twenty-First Century (Symposium), Nancy S. Marder

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Outrageous Opponents: How To Stop Them In Closing Argument, Ronald L. Carlson, Michael S. Carlson

Popular Media

Most attorneys try to sum up their cases in a fashion that comports with accepted law and local practice. All too frequently, however, one has the misfortune of running into Rambo, the over-the-top opponent. Before his peroration is concluded, Rambo has trampled on the law of trial practice by making half a dozen improper arguments. He urges evidence that never came up at trial. He injects hearsay into the proceedings. He adds his own opinions about which witnesses were lying and the legal fault of your client. And, this is just the beginning. Adding insult to injury, the unjust tactics …

Managing Punitive Damages: A Role For Mandatory "Limited Generosity" Classes And Anti-Suit Injunctions?, Joan E. Steinman

All Faculty Scholarship

In this Article, I consider whether "limited generosity" classes may be used to determine a defendant's entire liability for punitive damages arising from a defined course of conduct. The goals of such a class action would include adequately punishing and deterring the defendant, keeping the defendant's liability within state-mandated and constitutional limits, and facilitating equitable distribution of the damages among injured plaintiffs. The Article describes the legal limits on punitive damages liability that states have established and that the Supreme Court has held substantive due process to impose, and then carefully examines whether such limits constitute a predicate for mandatory …