Judges Commons^™

Lassiter V. Department Of Social Services: Why Is It Such A Lousy Case?, Brooke D. Coleman

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

On Teaching Conflicts And Why I Dislike Allstate Insurance Co. V. Hague, Thomas O. Main

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Setting Us Up For Disaster: The Supreme Court's Decision In Terry V. Ohio, Thomas B. Mcaffee

Nevada Law Journal

The controversies spawned by the Supreme Court’s decision in Terry v. Ohio are just about as expansive as the decision’s implications for the development of Fourth Amendment doctrine. And it was recently observed that it is perhaps the most criticized Fourth Amendment decision since the modern Supreme Court belatedly incorporated the amendment, and eventually the exclusionary rule.3 Fortunately, there is neither time nor space to address and fully resolve all of these controversies, or even to determine whether the case was just wrongly decided; the somewhat narrower thesis of this Article is that the long-term impact of Terry on the …

Ricci V. Destefano: Diluting Disparate Impact And Redefining Disparate Treatment, Ann C. Mcginley

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Lynch And The Lunacy Of Secularized Religion, Frederick Mark Gedicks

Nevada Law Journal

Any “worst opinion ever” essay must start with criteria of badness. I propose three: (i) failure to explain why existing doctrine dictated the result, (ii) failure to articulate a rule that judges can consistently apply in subsequent cases, and (iii) failure to protect the interests of the prevailing party. Few opinions win this trifecta, but Lynch v. Donnelly is one of them.1 Chief Justice Burger and the Lynch majority would have left the world of church and state immeasurably enriched—or at least immeasurably less screwed up—if they had not written an opinion at all.

This is, to be sure, a …

Nigro V. United States: The Most Disingenuous Supreme Court Opinion, Ever, A. Christopher Bryant

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Globe Refining Co. V. Landa Cotton Oil Co. And The Dark Side Of Reputation, Larry T. Garvin

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Blackmun (And Scalia) At The Bat: The Court's Separation-Of-Powers Strike Out In Freytag, Tuan Samahon

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Tending To Potted Plants: The Professional Identity Vacuum In Garcetti V. Ceballos, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Circumstance And Strategy: Jointly Authored Supreme Court Opinions, Laura Krugman Ray

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Hiding Behind The Cloak Of Invisibility: The Supreme Court And Per Curiam Opinions, Ira Robbins

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Per curiam--literally translated from Latin to "by the court"-is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "[a]n opinion handed down by an appellate court without identifying the individual judge who wrote the opinion." Accordingly the author of a per curiam opinion is meant to be institutional rather than individual, attributable to the court as an entity rather than to a single judge The United States Supreme Court issues a significant number of per curiam dispositions each Term. In the first six years of Chief Justice John Roberts’ tenure, almost nine percent of the Court full opinions were per curiams. The prevalence …

Supreme Court Institute Annual Report, 2011-2012, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute

SCI Papers & Reports

During the 2011-2012 academic year--corresponding to the U.S. Supreme Court’s October Term (OT) 2011--the Supreme Court Institute (SCI) provided moot courts for advocates in over 94% of the cases heard by the Court this Term and offered over a dozen programs related to the Supreme Court. All SCI moot courts held in OT 2011, listed by sitting and date of moot, and including the name and affiliation of each advocate and the number of student observers, follows the narrative portion of this report.

Swing Votes On The Current Supreme Court: The Joint Opinion In Casey And Its Progeny, R. Randall Kelso, Charles D. Kelso

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Issue 4: Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Lost Controversy Limitation Of The Federal Arbitration Act, Stephen R. Friedman

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Lay Of The Land: Examining The Three Opinions In J. Mcintyre Machinery, Ltd. V. Nicastro, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

It was a long time coming. The Supreme Court's decisions last Term in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown ended a two-decade high-court hiatus from the subject of personal jurisdiction. In McIntyre, the more controversial of the two, the Court concludes that New Jersey state courts lacked jurisdiction over a British manufacturer in a suit by a New Jersey plaintiff who was injured in New Jersey by a machine purchased by his New Jersey employer. McIntyre lacks a majority opinion, however. Instead we have a four-Justice plurality authored by Justice Kennedy, a …

Agenda: A Life Of Contributions For All Time: Symposium In Honor Of David H. Getches, University Of Colorado Boulder. School Of Law, University Of Colorado Law Review

A Life of Contributions for All Time: Symposium in Honor of David H. Getches (April 26-27)

On April 26-27, 2012, Colorado Law honored David H. Getches with a symposium to celebrate his life and legacy of trailblazing scholarship. “A Life of Contributions for All Time” featured a keynote address by Distinguished Professor Charles Wilkinson entitled, “Hero for the People, Hero for the Land and Water: Reflections on the Enduring Contributions of David Getches.” Top scholars in the fields of natural resources, water, and American Indian law reflected on Dean Getches’ contributions and their own insights into these fields, including Professor John Leshy, John Echohawk, Professor Carole Goldberg, Professor Joe Sax, Professor Rebecca Tsosie, Justice Greg Hobbs, …

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.

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.

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

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

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 …

"Of A Judiciary Nature": Observations On Chief Justice's First Opinions, Diane S. Sykes

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mediation By Judges: A New Phenomenon In The Transformation Of Justice , Louise Otis, Eric H. Reiter

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This article has three principal parts. In the first, we present an overview of judicial mediation and how it responds to some of the perceived problems with the classical model of adjudication. In this analysis, we draw especially on the experience with judicial mediation at the appellate level at the Quebec Court of Appeal. In the second part, we examine the unfolding of the mediation process itself, using an annotated guide to judicial mediation to address broader issues of both practical and theoretical concern. In the third part, we consider the crucial question of ethics in mediation, signaling some of …

Alternative Dispute Resolution And Court-Appointed Experts , Joseph R. Slights Iii, Mark G. Haug

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This article shamelessly borrows its subtitles-the Court's Tale and the Expert's Tale-from Chaucer's tale-telling. The two tales examine the life cycle of a case utilizing a court-appointed expert. The Court's Tale begins with a presumption against the court-appointed expert. Certain characteristics of a dispute, however, may be sufficient to rebut this presumption. The Court's Tale tells of one such case. The case involved complex damage calculations and irreconcilable positions that invite an objective analysis. The article then turns toward the Expert's Tale which describes how an expert helped resolve the problem. Following the Expert's Tale, the court assesses the outcome …

The Roberts Court & Executive Power, Jeffrey Rosen

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Alito/O'Connor Switch, Joan Biskupic

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Introduction To Symposium: An Enigmatic Court? Examining The Roberts Court As It Begins Year Three, Douglas W. Kmiec, Kenneth W. Starr

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Inaugural William French Smith Memorial Lecture: A Look At Supreme Court Advocacy With Justice Samuel Alito, Samuel A. Alito Jr, Douglas W. Kmiec, Carter G. Phillips, Kenneth W. Starr

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

How To Take Control Of The Runaway Litigation Train , Jeremy Fogel

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

My subject today is how informed and appropriate use of alternative dispute resolution can benefit the parties in a business dispute, both by reducing costs and by producing qualitatively better results. As I will explain, although my colleagues on the bench and I do not mind presiding over your cases, litigating a commercial case rarely is the best means of advancing the interests of the companies involved.

Hierarchy And Heterogeneity: How To Read A Statute In A Lower Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

Is statutory interpretation an activity that all courts should perform the same way? Courts and commentators implicitly so conclude. I believe that conclusion is wrong. Statutory interpretation is a court-specific activity that should differ according to the institutional circumstances of the interpreting court. The U.S. Supreme Court is not the model all other courts should emulate.

I identify three kinds of institutional differences between courts that bear on which interpretive methods are appropriate: (1) the court’s place in the hierarchical structure of appellate review, (2) the court’s technical capacity and resources, and (3) the court’s democratic pedigree, particularly as reflected …