Jurisprudence Commons^™

The Place Of Policy In International Law, D. H. N. Johnson

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Place Of Policy In International Law, Oscar Schachter

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Introductory Statement, Rosalyn Higgins

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

War, Violence, And Punishment: A Media-Centric Approach Of Sharia And American Legal Doctrines, Yazen Abdin

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.

Breaking Bad In The Eleventh Circuit: Assessing The Total Weight Of Methamphetamine For Sentencing Purposes, Richard Pallas Jr.

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.

Who Are You Calling Irrational?, Aneil Kovvali

Northwestern University Law Review

Nudges are interventions that encourage people to make particular choices by shaping the context in which the choices are made. These interventions can have major impacts because of quirks in the way that human beings process information. Cass Sunstein places nudges at the core of a regulatory philosophy of “libertarian paternalism,” which suggests that while the government should generally preserve the freedom of citizens to make their own choices, it should also intervene to improve on the choices it deems self-destructive. In Why Nudge?, Sunstein defends libertarian paternalism against John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle, which holds that the government …

Pepperdine University School Of Law: Legal Summaries, Blair Castellanos

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Circuit Splits And Empiricism In The Supreme Court, Karen M. Gebbia

Pace Law Review

This Article demonstrates, empirically rather than merely in theory, how a failure to do so leads to unreliable conclusions concerning the relationship between the Supreme Court and the circuit courts of appeal. Specifically, commentators routinely misapply facially accurate raw data regarding the rate at which the Court reverses circuit court decisions to support unreliable conclusions regarding the comparative degree of accord between the Court and individual circuits. Commentators and the popular press then employ these unreliable conclusions to draw unsupported inferences regarding the reasons for supposed discord between the Court and the circuits, and to urge fundamental institutional reforms ranging …

The Territorial Principle In Penal Law: An Attempted Justification, Patrick J. Fitzgerald

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Children Seek Refuge From Gang-Forced Recruitment: How Asylum Law Can Protect The Defenseless, Frank Paz

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Preventing Shelterization: Alleviating The Struggles Of Homeless Individuals And Families In New York City, Salley Kim

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Yes To Infill, No To Nuisance, Michael Lewyn

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

To Call Or Not To Call: Compelling Witnesses To Appear Before Congress, Daniel Curbelo Zeidman

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Voting Rights Act And The "New And Improved" Intent Test: Old Wine In New Bottles, Randolph M. Scott-Mclaughlin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Misconduct - A Plaintiff's Point Of View, Part Ii, John Williams

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Misconduct - A Plaintiff's Point Of View, Fred Brewington

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Prosecution And Section 1983, Barry C. Scheck

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Qualified Immunity When Facts Are In Dispute, Leon Friedman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Alice In Wonderland V. Cls Bank: The Supreme Court's Fantastic Adventure Into Section 101 Abstract Idea Jurisprudence, Annal D. Vyas

Akron Intellectual Property Journal

This Article proposes a solution to the current problems surrounding section 101 and patent-eligibility. Specifically, it advocates for an amendment to section 101 of the Patent Act that eliminates the abstract idea exception when conducting a patent eligibility analysis. This approach has several advantages, including the fact that judges no longer need to provide logically contortioned explanations as to why one idea is "abstract" and another is not. Nor will judges have to decide whether an abstract idea can still be patent eligible by virtue of being an "inventive concept of an abstract idea."

Part II of this Article reviews …

Extending Graham's Interpretive Theory Into Common Law: A Multiple-Case Study, Chris Hayes

Master of Studies in Law Research Papers Repository

What determines the outcome of judicial decisions? A traditional answer to this question is that it involves a complex application of rules derived from the reasons for judgment of analogous common law decisions and applicable statutes under the doctrine of stare decisis. This answer is problematic. One significant problem of this answer is its inability to explain the outcome of cases where the judgment does not appear to be based on these traditionally recognized sources. An alternative answer, provided by a particular field of legal scholarship, Legal Realism, posits that “other” factors make a significant impact on the outcome …

Constitutional Law-Aliens-Civil Service Commission Regulation Demanding Citizenship As A Prerequisite To Employment Deprives Resident Aliens Of Liberty Without Due Process Of Law, Sheryl A. Newberry

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The New Swiss Uniform Arbitration Act And International Commercial Arbitration, Claude Reymond

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Unconscionable War On Moral Conscience, Michael Stokes Paulsen

Notre Dame Law Review

My thesis in this review builds on and is inspired in part by George’s book: Where, or to the extent that, a conflict between conscience and authority reduces to a pure stand on principle by each side—sincere conscience for its sake versus authority for its—in a free society conscience should almost always win. The only time that claims of government authority should triumph over genuine claims of religious conscience is when religiously motivated conduct would produce essentially intolerable harm to others—harm of a kind and degree that would lead one to conclude (in effect, not literally) that it is inconceivable …

"Should" Or "Must"?: Distinguishing Mandates From Guidlines In Tort Claims Contexts, A. G. Harmon

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Litigating From The Prison Of The Mind: A Cognitive Right To Post-Conviction Counsel, Ken Strutin

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

No abstract provided.

Standing For (And Up To) Separation Of Powers, Kent H. Barnett

Indiana Law Journal

The U.S. Constitution requires federal agencies to comply with separation-of-powers (or structural) safeguards, such as by obtaining valid appointments, exercising certain limited powers, and being sufficiently subject to the President’s control. Who can best protect these safeguards? A growing number of scholars would allow only the political branches—Congress and the President—to defend them. These scholars would limit or end judicial review because private judicial challenges are aberrant to justiciability doctrine and lead courts to meddle in minor matters that rarely affect regulatory outcomes.

This Article defends the right of private parties to assert justiciable structural causes of action, arguing that …

Res Judicata As Requisite For Justice, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

From historical, jurisprudential, and comparative perspectives, this Article tries to synthesize res judicata while integrating it with the rest of law. From near their beginnings, all systems of justice have delivered a core of res judicata comprising the substance of bar and defense preclusion. This core is universal not because it represents a universal value, but rather because it responds to a universal institutional need. Any justice system must have adjudicators; to be effective, their judgments must mean something with bindingness; and the minimal bindingness is that, except in specified circumstances, the disgruntled cannot undo a judgment in an effort …

Sua Sponte Actions In The Appellate Courts: The "Gorilla Rule" Revisited, Ronald J. Offenkrantz, Aaron S. Lichter

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Ttab Decisions No Longer The “Red-Headed Stepchild” Of Precedential Authority, Rebecca Knight

The University of Cincinnati Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Impact Of The United Nations On National Abortion Laws, Kelsey Zorzi

Catholic University Law Review

Reviewing UN initiatives in concert with changes in State abortion laws, this Essay argues that through consensus resolutions that emerge from UN conferences, the recommendations of the Treaty Monitoring Bodies, and the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review, the UN has influenced State to adopt permissive domestic abortion laws. The essay discusses and provides examples of how the UN does this. The Essay also discusses the impact of pro-abortion interpretations of international treaties and the actions taken by signatory nations to require legalized abortions in their wake.