Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Jurisprudence Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

2007

Discipline
Institution
Keyword
Publication
Publication Type

Articles 31 - 60 of 236

Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence

Jesus’ Legal Theory—A Rabbinic Interpretation, Chaim Saiman Aug 2007

Jesus’ Legal Theory—A Rabbinic Interpretation, Chaim Saiman

Working Paper Series

This article locates the ancient debates between Jesus and the Talmudic rabbis within the discourse of contemporary legal theory. By engaging in a comparative reading of both Gospel and rabbinic texts, I show how Jesus and his rabbinic interlocutors sparred over questions we now conceptualize as the central concerns of jurisprudence. Whereas the rabbis approach theological, ethical and moral issues through an analytical, lawyerly interpretation of a dense network of legal rules, Jesus openly questions whether law is the appropriate medium to structure social relationships and resolve interpersonal conflicts. Through an examination of Talmudic sources, this paper argues the controversies …


Reparations: A Comparative Perspective, Fernanda G. Nicola Aug 2007

Reparations: A Comparative Perspective, Fernanda G. Nicola

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

This article focuses on the treatment of reparations in recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In the so-called “prisoner cases,” Assanidze v. Georgia and Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia, the ECHR moved beyond its previously limited approach to reparations by finding that continued detention of the lawsuit applicants would entail a prolonged violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and then asking the States to immediately release the prisoners. The author then turns to ECJ immigration cases Zhu v. Sec’y of …


"Sociological Legitimacy" In Supreme Court Opinions, Michael Wells Jul 2007

"Sociological Legitimacy" In Supreme Court Opinions, Michael Wells

Scholarly Works

Analysis of a Supreme Court opinion ordinarily begins from the premise that the opinion is a transparent window into the Court's thinking, such that the reasons offered by the Court are, or ought to be, the reasons that account for the holding. Scholars debate the strength of the Court's reasoning, question or defend the Court's candor, and propose alternative ways of justifying the ruling. This Article takes issue with the transparency premise, on both descriptive and normative grounds. Especially in controversial cases, the Court is at least as much concerned with presenting its holding in a way that will win …


Recent Criminal Decisions Of The United States Supreme Court: The 2005-2006 Term, Charles Whitebread Jun 2007

Recent Criminal Decisions Of The United States Supreme Court: The 2005-2006 Term, Charles Whitebread

Court Review: Journal of the American Judges Association

In this term, as in the previous one, the United States Supreme Court reasserted the rule of law in the context of the detainees in the war on terror. At the same time, however, the addition of two new justices shifted the Court’s ideological balance to the right. In terms of criminal cases, the Court handed down a mixed bag of decisions. It was a bad term for Fourth Amendment claimants with the government prevailing in four of five search-and-seizure cases. Outside the context of the Fourth Amendment, however, criminal defendants fared a little better.
In this article, I review …


Court Review: Volume 43, Issue 1 - Cover Jun 2007

Court Review: Volume 43, Issue 1 - Cover

Court Review: Journal of the American Judges Association

No abstract provided.


Court Review: Volume 43, Issue 1 - Complete Issue Jun 2007

Court Review: Volume 43, Issue 1 - Complete Issue

Court Review: Journal of the American Judges Association

No abstract provided.


Court Review: Volume 43, Issue 1 - Table Of Contents Jun 2007

Court Review: Volume 43, Issue 1 - Table Of Contents

Court Review: Journal of the American Judges Association

No abstract provided.


Court Review: Volume 43, Issue - Editor's Note Jun 2007

Court Review: Volume 43, Issue - Editor's Note

Court Review: Journal of the American Judges Association

I’m pleased to announce some long-term changes that I believe will greatly improve Court Review. Alan Tomkins, a law and psychology professor with experience in editing a similar journal, has agreed to join me as coeditor. As you’ll see from a greater description of his background, he brings a great number of valuable contacts throughout both the academic world and the judiciary.


Court Review: Volume 43, Issue 1 - President's Column, Steve Leben Jun 2007

Court Review: Volume 43, Issue 1 - President's Column, Steve Leben

Court Review: Journal of the American Judges Association

The American Judges Association is the Voice of the Judiciary.® So says the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which accepted the AJA’s registration of this service mark on the principal register for patents and trademarks on March 27, 2007. This column will seek to answer two questions: What does this mean? And how did it come about?


Grounding Frequent Filers: The Trend Of Revoking The Special Status Of Overly Litigious Pro Se Litigants, Michael G. Langan Jun 2007

Grounding Frequent Filers: The Trend Of Revoking The Special Status Of Overly Litigious Pro Se Litigants, Michael G. Langan

Court Review: Journal of the American Judges Association

Since the early 1990s, federal courts in the Second and Third Circuits have, with increasing frequency, revoked the special status of pro se civil litigants who have been overly litigious. This article discusses the reasons for this trend’s appearance in the Second and Third Circuits, the rationales for the trend, the fairness of the trend, and some practical advice for courts and practitioners wrestling with the issue of whether or not the special status of a particularly litigious pro se litigant should be revoked.


Evaluating Court Processes For Determining Indigency, Elizabeth Neeley, Alan J. Tomkins Jun 2007

Evaluating Court Processes For Determining Indigency, Elizabeth Neeley, Alan J. Tomkins

Court Review: Journal of the American Judges Association

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees all people accused of a crime the right to legal counsel. In the landmark 1963 decision Gideon v. Wainright, 1 the United States Supreme Court affirmed the right of indigent defendants to have counsel provided. But Gideon did not end the Supreme Court’s discussion of the circumstances in which the state is required to provide defendants with an attorney when they claim not to have the means to pay for one. 2 Nor did it end the states’ examination of the requirement of any legal assistance paid for by taxpayers. 3 Moreover, …


Court Review: Volume 43, Issue 1 - The Resource Page Jun 2007

Court Review: Volume 43, Issue 1 - The Resource Page

Court Review: Journal of the American Judges Association

No abstract provided.


The Social Construction Of Sarbanes-Oxley, Donald C. Langevoort Jun 2007

The Social Construction Of Sarbanes-Oxley, Donald C. Langevoort

Michigan Law Review

Part I will take a close look at the legitimacy of SOX by examining the two plausible stories of SOX's origins and considering the early post-SOX evidence on its costs and benefits. There is no clear-cut answer to the question of how much SOX benefits investors; both positive and critical positions are plausible. Costs have been far greater than expected, but more from SOX's implementation than from the legislative text. Before turning to how and why implementation has occurred that way-which to me is the central question of interpretation-Part II considers whether there is an alternative interpretation of SOX that …


"Sociological Legitimacy" In Supreme Court Opinions, Michael L. Wells Jun 2007

"Sociological Legitimacy" In Supreme Court Opinions, Michael L. Wells

Washington and Lee Law Review

Analysis of a Supreme Court opinion ordinarily begins from the premise that the opinion is a transparent window into the Court's thinking, such that the reasons offered by the Court are, or ought to be, the reasons that account for the holding. Scholars debate the strength of the Court's reasoning, question or defend the Court's candor, and propose alternative ways of justifying the ruling. This Article takes issue with the transparency premise, on both descriptive and normative grounds. Especially in controversial cases, the Court is at least as much concerned with presenting its holding in a way that will win …


The Race Question In Latcrit Theory And Asian American Jurisprudence, Robert S. Chang, Neil Gotanda Jun 2007

The Race Question In Latcrit Theory And Asian American Jurisprudence, Robert S. Chang, Neil Gotanda

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.


The Constitution Of Terror: Big Lies, Backlash Jurisprudence, And The Rule Of Law In The United States Today, Francisco Valdes Jun 2007

The Constitution Of Terror: Big Lies, Backlash Jurisprudence, And The Rule Of Law In The United States Today, Francisco Valdes

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.


The Wait Is Over: Chevron As The Stealth Vermont Yankee Ii, Paul R. Verkuil Jun 2007

The Wait Is Over: Chevron As The Stealth Vermont Yankee Ii, Paul R. Verkuil

Articles

The article argues that the Chevron doctrine has effectively served as a means to moderate the hard-look review of agency rulemaking, rendering the anticipated Vermont Yankee II case unnecessary. It posits that Chevron's deference to agency interpretations of statutes has softened the impact of State Farm's stringent arbitrary-and-capricious review standard, aligning more closely with the judicial restraint envisioned by Vermont Yankee.


Introduction, Kyron Huigens May 2007

Introduction, Kyron Huigens

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.


Thinking Criminal Law, Meir Dan-Cohen May 2007

Thinking Criminal Law, Meir Dan-Cohen

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Act Requirement As A Basic Concept Of Criminal Law, Francisco Muñoz-Conde, Luis Ernesto Chiesa May 2007

The Act Requirement As A Basic Concept Of Criminal Law, Francisco Muñoz-Conde, Luis Ernesto Chiesa

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.


Rights, Wrongs, And Comparative Justifications, Vera Bergelson May 2007

Rights, Wrongs, And Comparative Justifications, Vera Bergelson

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.


Why Only The State May Inflict Criminal Sanctions: The Argument From Moral Burdens, Alon Harel May 2007

Why Only The State May Inflict Criminal Sanctions: The Argument From Moral Burdens, Alon Harel

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.


Furman'S Mythical Mandate, Scott W. Howe May 2007

Furman'S Mythical Mandate, Scott W. Howe

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article argues for the rescue and reform of Supreme Court doctrine regulating capital sentencing trials under the Eighth Amendment. Many legal commentators, both liberal and conservative, including several members of the Supreme Court, have concluded that the Court's regulation of capital sentencing trials is a disaster. The repeated criticisms rest on a commonly accepted view about a principal goal of capital sentencing regulation. The prevailing account, fueled by the rhetoric of the Justices, stems from the notion that Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 208 (1972), revealed a mandate of consistency in the use of the death penalty that …


God Vs. The Gavel: A Brief Rejoinder, Douglas Laycock May 2007

God Vs. The Gavel: A Brief Rejoinder, Douglas Laycock

Michigan Law Review

I recently reviewed God vs. the Gavel by Professor Marci Hamilton, and she published a brief response. My review briefly summarized the book and then made three principal points, addressing Hamilton's institutional competence thesis, her "no-harm" principle, and the remarkable number of legal and factual errors in the book. In this reply, I will review each of these points in turn.


Criminal Responsibility And The Disappearing Person, Stephen J. Morse May 2007

Criminal Responsibility And The Disappearing Person, Stephen J. Morse

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Conundrum Of Mental States: Substantive Rules And Evidence Combined, Keren Shapira-Ettinger May 2007

The Conundrum Of Mental States: Substantive Rules And Evidence Combined, Keren Shapira-Ettinger

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.


'Less' Is 'More'? Textualism, Intentionalism, And A Better Solution To The Class Action Fairness Act's Appellate Deadline Riddle, Adam N. Steinman May 2007

'Less' Is 'More'? Textualism, Intentionalism, And A Better Solution To The Class Action Fairness Act's Appellate Deadline Riddle, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

In recent months, federal appellate judges have grappled with an interpretive puzzle that opens a new frontier in the long-running judicial and scholarly debate about statutory interpretation. The landmark but controversial Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) authorizes immediate appeals from certain jurisdictional decisions by district courts, provided that litigants appeal "not less than 7 days after entry of the order." Although the goal of this provision was to set a seven-day deadline for CAFA appeals, the statutory text does precisely the opposite -- it imposes a seven-day waiting period and sets no outer deadline. Federal appellate judges have …


A Quandary In Law? A (Qualified) Catholic Denial, Patrick Mckinley Brennan Apr 2007

A Quandary In Law? A (Qualified) Catholic Denial, Patrick Mckinley Brennan

Working Paper Series

A contribution to the second law review symposium dedicated to Steven Smith’s Law’s Quandary (Harvard 2004), this paper asks whether the “quandary” in which Smith finds modern law and jurisprudence is not, at least in part, the consequence of misunderstanding the classical natural law jurisprudence. The paper advances an interpretation of natural law according to which the natural law is the human person’s “participation” in the eternal law itself, with literally cosmic consequences for how we understand the ends and measures of human lawmaking. Mounting an argument against Justice Scalia’s thesis that “God applies the natural law,” the paper goes …


The Jurisprudence Of Colliding First Amendment Interests: From The Dead End Of Neutrality To The Open Road Of Participation Enhancing Review, Gregory P. Magarian Apr 2007

The Jurisprudence Of Colliding First Amendment Interests: From The Dead End Of Neutrality To The Open Road Of Participation Enhancing Review, Gregory P. Magarian

Working Paper Series

No abstract provided.


Interpreting Immunity, Chaim Saiman Apr 2007

Interpreting Immunity, Chaim Saiman

Working Paper Series

This paper offers an examination and critique of the Supreme Court’s doctrine of qualified immunity—the immunity from constitutional tort liability granted to government officials in cases in which the tort was not “clearly established” by prior case law. Currently, courts must engage in a two-pronged inquiry: first, whether the official’s conduct was unconstitutional, and second, whether the unconstitutionality was clearly established. This paper argues that while the first question presents a standard case of common law interpretation and analysis, the second inquiry forces courts to approach the body of constitutional tort law as if it were a legislated code. However, …