Judges Commons^™

Bond Repudiation, Tax Codes, The Appropriations Process And Restitution Post-Eminent Domain Reform, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

This brief comment suggests where the anti-eminent domain movement might be heading next.

The “Csi Effect”: Better Jurors Through Television And Science?, Michael D. Mann

ExpressO

This Comment discusses how television shows such as CSI and Law & Order create heightened juror expectations. This will be published in the Buffalo Public Interest Law Journal's 2005-2006 issue.

Review Essay: Radicals In Robes , Dru Stevenson

ExpressO

This essay reviews and critiques Cass Sunstein’s new book entitled Radicals in Robes. After a discussion of Sunstein’s (somewhat misleading) rhetorical nomenclature, this essay argues that Sunstein’s proposed “minimalist” methodology in constitutional jurisprudence is beneficial, but not for the reasons Sunstein suggests. Sunstein alternatively justifies judicial restraint or incrementalism on epistemological self-doubt (cautiousness being an outgrowth of uncertainty) and his fear that accomplishments by Progressives in the last century will be undone by conservative judges in the present. Constitutional incrementalism is more convincingly justified on classical economic grounds. While affirming Sunstein’s overall thesis, this essay offers an alternative rationale for …

Review Essay: Using All Available Information, Max Huffman

ExpressO

This is a review essay entitled “Using All Available Information,” in which I review and comment on Justice Stephen Breyer’s new book, Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution, published in September 2005. Justice Breyer’s book, adapted from the Tanner Lectures given in 2005 at Harvard Law School, serves partly as a response to Justice Scalia’s 1997 volume A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. I review Justice Breyer’s book in part by comparison to and contrast with Justice Scalia’s. I propose that much about Justice Breyer’s interpretive philosophy, which centers on determining the “purposes” of texts and interpreting …

Contents: Allen Chair Symposium-State Of The Chesapeake Bay In The Twenty-First Century

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Adding Fuel To The Fire: United States V. Booker And The Crack Versus Powder Cocaine Sentencing Disparity, Briton K. Nelson

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Law Review Index, Volume Xl, 2005-2006

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Separating Rhetoric From Reality: A Political And Statistical Look At Federal Judicial Confirmation Delays, Marvin L. Longabaugh

ExpressO

In this article, I conduct a statistical analysis of confirmation delays in the ratification of appointments to the federal bench. Section II discusses the history of confirmation delays and some of the political factors that have caused these delays. Section III assesses the effect of factors such as age, education, ethnic origin, and political control of the U.S. Senate on 614 District Court appointments between 1985 and 2000. Section IV conducts a similar analysis on 362 Circuit Court appointments between 1961 and 2000. Last, Section V similarly scrutinizes all 110 Supreme Court appointments from 1789 through 2000.

Reflections On The Role Of Appellate Courts: A View From The Supreme Court, Stephen G. Breyer

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Reverse Bifurcation, Dru Stevenson

ExpressO

Reverse bifurcation is a trial procedure in which the jury determines damages first, before determining liability. The liability phase of the trial rarely occurs, because the parties usually settle once they know the value of the case. This procedure is already being used in thousands of cases – nearly all the asbestos and Fen-phen cases – but this is the first academic article devoted to the subject. This article explains the history of the procedure and analyzes why it encourages settlements, simplifies jury instructions, and produces better outcomes for the parties.

An Emerging Uniformity For International Law, David H. Moore

ExpressO

The status of international law in the U.S. legal system has been hotly contested. Most international law scholars maintain that customary international law (CIL) is federal common law immediately applicable in federal courts. A minority of scholars has responded that CIL may be applied by federal courts only when authorized by the political branches. The Supreme Court’s decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 124 S. Ct. 2739 (2004), stoked the debate. In Sosa’s wake, scholars have overwhelmingly concluded that the Supreme Court endorsed the majority view that CIL is federal common law.

This Article asserts that Sosa has been both misperceived …

Just Say "No Fishing": The Lure Of Metaphor, Beth Thornburg

ExpressO

The phrase “fishing expedition” is widely used in popular culture and in the law. In the case of metaphorical “fishing” in the law, reliance on the metaphor can act as a substitute for rigorous analysis, disguising the factors that influence a result. When used by the court, it is uninformative. Worse, the fishing metaphor may itself shape the way the court thinks about the kind of issue or claim involved. Accusations of “fishing” also affect the language and position of the litigants. Parties arguing against pleadings or discovery use the metaphor as a rhetorical weapon, stigmatizing their opponents, instead of …

Judicial Balancing In Times Of Stress: Comparing The American, British, And Israeli Approaches To The War On Terror, Michel Rosenfeld

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Precedent And Procedural Due Process: Policymaking In The Federal Courts, Sarah A. Maguire

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Toward A Federal Common Law Of Bankruptcy: Judicial Lawmaking In A Statutory Regime, Adam J. Levitin

ExpressO

Bankruptcy is a statutory system, yet it is replete with practices for which there is no direct authorization in the Bankruptcy Code. This article argues that the authorization for judicial creation of bankruptcy law beyond the provisions of the Code has been misidentified as the equity powers of bankruptcy courts. This misidentification has led courts to place inappropriate statutory and historical limitations on non-Code practices because of discomfort with unguided equitable discretion.

Both the statutory and historic limitations are problematic. The statutory authorization for the bankruptcy courts’ equitable powers appears to have been repealed by what one judge has called …

Kramer's Popular Constitutionalism: A Quick Normative Assessment, Sarah K. Harding

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Justice Stevens, The Peremptory Challenge, And The Jury (Symposium), Nancy S. Marder

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Train Our Jurors, Jonathan Koehler

Faculty Working Papers

Lay jurors are often legally and logically unprepared for trial. In response, it is recommended that jurors receive training in how to make better legal decisions. This chapter suggests that jurors should receive comprehensive training in critical legal doctrines and in how to reason with legal evidence. Jurors who cannot be trained to achieve minimal levels of competence (in the law or in basic reasoning) should be excused from jury service. Suggestions are given as to how policy makers and researchers who are interested in jury reform may wish to proceed.

Rescuing Judicial Accountability From The Realm Of Political Rhetoric, Charles G. Geyh

Articles by Maurer Faculty

The article examines the threat to judicial independence from political calls for more judicial accountability. The author begins by defining judicial accountability and discussing its purposes before breaking the concept down into three categories: institutional accountability, behavioral accountability, and decisional accountability. This process reveals that in the judicial accountability family, there is but one discrete sub-species, situated in the decisional accountability genus, that does not further accountability's proper purpose and is therefore conceptually problematic: direct political accountability for competent and honest judicial decision-making error that the politicians desire and a serious threat to judicial independence. The critical question becomes one …

The Hybrid Class Action As Judicial Spork: Managing Individual Rights In A Stew Of Common Wrong, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 231 (2006), Jon Romberg

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Adjudicated On The Merits?: Why The Aedpa Requires State Courts To Exhibit Their Reasoning, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 995 (2006), Ezra Spilke

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dostoyevsky And The Therapeutic Jurisprudence Confession, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 41 (2006), Amy D. Ronner

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Always Low Prices, Always At A Cost: A Call To Arms Against The Wal-Martization Of America, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 267 (2006), Justin R. Watkins

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Indecent Standards: The Case Of U.S. Versus Weldon Angelos, Eva Nilsen

Faculty Scholarship

In today's highly punitive culture, perhaps Weldon Angelos' fifty-five-year sentence does not seem unusual. He's a 25-year-old man who was convicted in December 2003 of selling marijuana, possessing firearms while drug dealing, and money laundering. ³ The facts proven at trial are that on three occasions in June and July, 2002, Angelos sold eight one-ounce bags of marijuana for $350 each to a government informant. ⁴ The purchaser testified that a firearm was visible during two of these drug sales.⁵ Police seized another gun from Angelos' home five months later pursuant to a warrant.⁶ At no time was …

Courts, Congress, And Public Policy, Part Ii: The Impact Of The Reapportionment Revolution On Congress And State Legislatures, Jeffrey R. Lax, Mathew D. Mccubbins

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Judging Expertise In Copyright Law, 14 J. Intell. Prop. L. 1 (2006), William K. Ford

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Phantom Philosophy? An Empirical Investigation Of Legal Interpretation, 65 Md. L. Rev. 841 (2006), Jason J. Czarnezki, William K. Ford

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

This Article tests a model of judicial decision making that incorporates elements of both the attitudinal model and the legal model, along with measures of institutional and judicial background characteristics such as collegiality and trial court experience. We develop a measure of interpretive philosophy relying primarily on judicial opinions, which we code for certain indicators of traditional interpretive approaches (i.e., the use of interpretive tools). The critical question is whether judges with similar interpretive philosophies are more likely to agree with one another when deciding cases. Our general finding is that ideology and interpretive philosophy are not significant predictors of …

The Color Of Perspective: Affirmative Action And The Constitutional Rhetoric Of White Innocence, Cecil J. Hunt Ii

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

This Article discusses the Supreme Court's use of the rhetoric of White innocence in deciding racially-inflected claims of constitutional shelter. It argues that the Court's use of this rhetoric reveals its adoption of a distinctly White-centered perspective, representing a one-sided view of racial reality that distorts the Court's ability to accurately appreciate the true nature of racial reality in contemporary America. This Article examines the Court's habit of using a White-centered perspective in constitutional race cases. Specifically, it looks at the Court's use of the rhetoric of White innocence in the context of the Court's concern with protecting "innocent" Whites …

The Phantom Philosophy? An Empirical Investigation Of Legal Interpretation, Jason J. Czarnezki

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This Article tests a model of judicial decisionmaking that incorporates elements of both the attitudinal model and the legal model, along with measures of institutional and judicial background characteristics such as collegiality and trial court experience. We develop a measure of interpretive philosophy relying primarily on judicial opinions, which we code for certain indicators of traditional interpretive approaches (i.e., the use of interpretive tools). The critical question is whether judges with similar interpretive philosophies are more likely to agree with one another when deciding cases. Our general finding is that ideology and interpretive philosophy are not significant predictors of agreement. …

The Dubitante Opinion, Jason J. Czarnezki

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

A dubitante (pronounced d[y]oo-bi-tan-tee) opinion indicates that “the judge doubted a legal point but was unwilling to state that it was wrong.” Judges rarely write dubitante opinions or use the term, and informal polling suggests not many legal scholars are aware of the practice. This short essay endeavors to shed some light on the use of the term dubitante in judicial opinions and spark discussion as to the merits of the dubitante opinion--What is a dubitante opinion? When was the term first used, and how often is the term used? Who uses it and how? What are the consequences of …