Judges Commons^™

Holmes, Cardozo, And The Legal Realists: Early Incarnations Of Legal Pragmatism And Enterprise Liability, Edmund Ursin

San Diego Law Review

The theory of enterprise liability is associated with the tort lawmaking of the liberal California Supreme Court of the 1960s and 1970s. Legal pragmatism, in turn, is associated with the conservative jurist Richard Posner. This Article explains that early incarnations of each can be found in the works of four giants in American law: Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Judge—later Justice—Benjamin Cardozo, and the Legal Realists Leon Green and Karl Llewellyn. As will be seen, these scholars and judges shared a common view of the lawmaking role of courts. Stated simply, this shared view was that judges are lawmakers and policy …

Lower Court Compliance With Supreme Court Remands, Elise Borochoff

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Louisiana Public Service Commission V. Cheathon: Error Of Alj In Not Citing A Party For Contempt For Failure To Appear At A Hearing, Kevin J. Riley

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Legal Rhetoric And Social Science: A Hypothesis For Why Doctrine Matters In Judicial Decisionmaking, Brett Waldron

Pace International Law Review Online Companion

In the realm of American jurisprudence, little draws more excitement or controversy than investigating the role of federal judges in our constitutional order. Yet, at the same time, the scholarly literature has not settled upon a singular descriptive device to explain how federal judges actually carry out this role. In broad strokes, current academic commentary appears to be divided on the issue of whether fidelity to the law or fidelity to political ideology largely determines how judges decide cases. This division, however interesting it may be, should not be afforded the luxury of being examined on a level playing field. …

Buying A Judicial Seat For Appeal: Caperton V. A.T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., Is Right Out Of A John Grisham Novel, Richard Gillespie

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court's Take On Immigration In Nken V. Holder: Reaffirming A Traditional Standard That Affords Courts More Time And Flexibility To Decide Immigration Appeals Before Deporting Aliens, Elizaveta Kabanova

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

The Asymmetry Of Ronald Dworkin's Rights Thesis In Criminal Cases: A Troublesome Exception, H. Scott Fairley

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justice Stevens And The Emerging Law Of Sex Discrimination , John P. Wagner

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Religion And First Amendment Prosecutions: An Analysis Of Justice Black's Constitutional Interpretation, Constance Mauney

Pepperdine Law Review

Justice Hugo L. Black served on the United States Supreme Court over a period of thirty-four years, encompassing Supreme Court terms from 1937 to 1971. During this period, the subject of the constitutional limitations of the freedom of religion was increasingly subjected to intense social pressures. Justice Black figured prominently in the development of constitutional law as the Supreme Court attempted to give meaning to the establishment and free exercise clause of the first amendment. He wrote the majority opinions which dealt with the establishment clause in the Everson, McCulloin, Engel and Torcaso cases. Yet, on later occasions, Justice Black …

Sanctions - Stepchild Or Natural Heir To Trial And Appellate Court Delay Reduction?, Fred Woods

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Introduction, Ronald F. Phillips

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Precedent: What It Is And What It Isn't; When Do We Kiss It And When Do We Kill It?, Ruggero J. Aldisert

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Politics Of Statutory Interpretation, Margaret H. Lemos

Faculty Scholarship

In a new book, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, Justice Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner describe and defend the textualist methodology for which Justice Scalia is famous. For Scalia and Garner, the normative appeal of textualism lies in its objectivity: by focusing on text, context, and canons of construction, textualism offers protection against ideological judging—a way to separate law from politics. Yet, as Scalia and Garner well know, textualism is widely regarded as a politically conservative methodology. The charge of conservative bias is more common than it is concrete, but it reflects the notion that textualism narrows the …

Suboptimal Social Science And Judicial Precedent, Ben Grunwald

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Panel I: Critical Legal Studies In Intellectual Property And Information Law Scholarship, Peter Goodrich, Sonia K. Katyal, Rebecca Tushnet

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Civil Rights For The Twenty-First Century: Lessons From Justice Thurgood Marshall's Race-Transcending Jurisprudence, Sheryll Cashin

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This Essay pays tribute to justice Thurgood Marshall's race-transcending vision of universal human dignity, and explores the importance of building cross-racial alliances to modern civil rights advocacy. justice Marshall's role as a "Race Man" is evident in much of his jurisprudence, where he fought for years to promote equal opportunity and equal justice. As an advocate for all marginalized people, justice Marshall viewed equal justice as transcending race, and this Essay suggests that the multi-racial coalition that supported President Obama aligns with Marshall's vision. The Essay evaluates the civil rights movement through the lens of Justice Marshall's equality analysis, and …

Standing To Sue A Carrier's Killers , Davis J. Howard

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ethics In Legal Education: An Augmentation Of Legal Realism, Gerald R. Ferrera

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Art Of Legal Reasoning And The Angst Of Judging: Of Balls, Strikes, And Moments Of Truth, Timothy P. Terrell

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

An essay of only five short paragraphs published several years ago by the noted Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould about a controversial call by baseball umpire Babe Pinelli provides all the foundation necessary for a thorough investigation of the phenomenon of legal reasoning. The present article contrasts Gould’s analysis of a “strike” with the comment by then-Judge John Roberts at his Supreme Court confirmation hearings that he just wanted to “call [the] balls and strikes,” and through this exchange develops a new approach toward identifying—and teaching—the basic elements of sophisticated legal thinking. This article divides legal reasoning into four interrelated …

Separation Of Powers Doctrine On The Modern Supreme Court And Four Doctrinal Approaches To Judicial Decision-Making, R. Randall Kelso

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

California Supreme Court Survey February 1993 - December 1993 , James J. Maloney

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

California Supreme Court Survey July 1992 - December 1993 , James J. Maloney

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

California Supreme Court Survey October 1992 - October 1993, James J. Maloney

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Statutory Interpretation Doctrine On The Modern Supreme Court And Four Doctrinal Approaches To Judicial Decision-Making , R. Randall Kelso

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Triangulating Judicial Responsiveness: Automated Content Analysis, Judicial Opinions, And The Methodology Of Legal Scholarship, Chad M. Oldfather, Joseph P. Bockhorst, Brian P. Dimmer

Florida Law Review

The increasing availability of digital versions of court documents, coupled with increases in the power and sophistication of computational methods of textual analysis, promises to enable both the creation of new avenues of scholarly inquiry and the refinement of old ones. This Article advances that project in three respects. First, it examines the potential for automated content analysis to mitigate one of the methodological problems that afflicts both content analysis and traditional legal scholarship—their acceptance on faith of the proposition that judicial opinions accurately report information about the cases they resolve and courts‘ decisional processes. Because automated methods can quickly …

Newman, J., Dissenting: Another Vision Of The Federal Circuit, Blake R. Hartz

IP Theory

No abstract provided.

Comparativist-Structural Approaches To Interpretation Of The Post-Obamacare Spending Power, Michelle Biddulph, Dwight G. Newman

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has significant implications for the federal spending power, a topic that has received limited scholarly attention. The article argues that understanding this aspect of the ACA ruling is crucial for comprehending its impact on future federal programs and legislative approaches. By examining the spending power frameworks in Canada and Australia, the article highlights how different federal systems balance central authority with regional autonomy, offering valuable lessons for the U.S. legal framework.

Stare Decisis And The Rule Of Law: A Layered Approach, Jeremy Waldron

Michigan Law Review

Stare decisis remains a controversial feature of the legal systems that recognize it. Some jurists argue that the doctrine is at odds with the rule of law; others argue that there are good rule-of-law arguments in favor of stare decisis. This Article considers one possible good rule-of-law argument. It suggests that we should approach stare decisis in a layered way, looking at what the rule of law requires of the various judges involved in the development of a precedent. One rule-of-law principle, the principle of constancy, counsels against lightly overturning such precedents as there are. But that is not in …

The Praise Of Silly: Critical Legal Studies And The Roberts Court, James F. Lucarello

Touro Law Review

This Comment demonstrates that the Supreme Court is lying to you in its opinions. Why is it lying? The short answer to this question is quite simple: It is being silly.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being silly. In fact, some praise silliness, as a heightened and healthy understanding of the indeterminate world that incorporates our reality. Silliness, how ever, is only praise-worthy when it is understood and utilized purposefully. The silliness of most of the Justices on the Supreme Court, on the other hand, is a product of self-delusion and fundamentalism, which makes their silliness not silly at …

Employment Discrimination Decisions From The October 2008 Term, Drew S. Days Iii

Touro Law Review

Several employment discrimination decisions were handed down this Term. They were Ricci v.DeStefano (Title VII); Gross v.FBL Financial Services, Inc. (Age Discrimination in Employment Act); AT & T Corp. v. Hulteen (Pregnancy Discrimination Act); and 14 Penn Plaza L.L. C. v. Pyett, which concerned the impact of arbitration agreements upon the reach of federal employment discrimination laws.