Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons^™

Valuation Averaging: A New Procedure For Resolving Valuation Disputes, Keith Sharfman

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

In this Article, Professor Sharfman addresses the problem of "discretionary valuation": that courts resolve valuation disputes arbitrarily and unpredictably, thus harming litigants and society. As a solution, he proposes the enactment of "valuation averaging," a new procedure for resolving valuation disputes modeled on the algorithmic valuation processes often agreed to by sophisticated private firms in advance of any dispute. He argues that by replacing the discretion of judges and juries with a mechanical valuation process, valuation averaging would cause litigants to introduce more plausible and conciliatory valuations into evidence and thereby reduce the cost of valuation litigation and increase the …

Marshall V Madison: The Supreme Court And Original Intent, 1803-1835, Gordon Lloyd

School of Public Policy Working Papers

Should the justices of the Supreme Court rely on “original intent” as the foundation for constitutional interpretation? Or should they be free to interpret the Constitution in light of hermeneutical approaches created by current philosophies of law? This essay examines the Marshall Court to determine whether its opinions take their bearings from the American Founding or instead rely on a philosophy of jurisprudence that can be separated from the Founding. The purposes of this essay are fourfold: 1) to provide a comprehensive account of the use of the Framers by the Marshall Court, 2) address the normative question of the …

Delaney Amendment, Eric S. Yellin

History Faculty Publications

In 1958, U.S. Representative James Delaney of New York added a proviso to the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act declaring that the Food and Drug Administration cannot approve any food additive found to induce cancer in a person or animal.

Operation Rescue, Eric S. Yellin

History Faculty Publications

Operation Rescue, founded in 1986, became known as one of the most militant groups opposing a woman’s right to abortion as established in the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe vs. Wade.

Getting Off The Dole: Why The Court Should Abandon Its Spending Doctrine And How A Too-Clever Congress Could Provoke It To Do So, Mitchell N. Berman

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Trust Me, I’M A Judge: Why Binding Judicial Notice Of Jurisdictional Facts Violates The Right To Jury Trial, William M. Carter Jr.

Articles

The conventional model of criminal trials holds that the prosecution is required to prove every element of the offense beyond the jury's reasonable doubt. The American criminal justice system is premised on the right of the accused to have all facts relevant to his guilt or innocence decided by a jury of his peers. The role of the judge is seen as limited to deciding issues of law and facilitating the jury's fact-finding. Despite these principles,judges are reluctant to submit to the jury elements of the offense that the judge perceives to be . routine, uncontroversial or uncontested.

One such …

Preventive Detention: Prisoners, Suspected Terrorists And Permanent Emergency, Jules Lobel

Articles

Central to the United States government’s strategy after the September 11th attacks has been a shift from punishing unlawful conduct to pre-empting possible or potential dangers. This strategy threatens to undermine fundamental principles of both constitutional law and international law which prohibit certain government action based on mere suspicion or perceived threat. The law normally requires that the government wait until a person or nation has committed or is attempting to commit a criminal act before it may employ force in response. The dangers of a policy of preventive detention have been analyzed from a number of perspectives. Historians have …

The Implications Of Transition Theory For Stare Decisis, Jill E. Fisch

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Rise And Demise Of The Technology-Specific Approach To The First Amendment, Christopher S. Yoo

All Faculty Scholarship

This article examines how analytical, technological, and doctrinal developments are forcing the courts to reconsider their media-specific approach to assessing the constitutionality of media regulation. In particular, it offers a comprehensive reevaluation of the continuing validity of the Broadcast Model of regulation, which contains features, such as licensing and direct content regulation, that normally would be considered paradigmatic violations of the First Amendment. Specifically, the analysis assesses the theoretical coherence of the traditional justification for extending a lesser degree of First Amendment protection to broadcasting than to other media (i.e., the physical scarcity of the electromagnetic spectrum) as well as …

Apprendi In The States: The Virtues Of Federalism As A Structural Limit On Errors, Stephanos Bibas

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Access To Networks: Economic And Constitutional Connections, Daniel F. Spulber, Christopher S. Yoo

All Faculty Scholarship

A fundamental transformation is taking place in the basic approach to regulating network industries. Policy makers are in the process of abandoning their century-old commitment to rate regulation in favor of a new regulatory approach known as access regulation. Rather than controlling the price of outputs, the new approach focuses on compelling access to and mandating the price of inputs. Unfortunately, this shift in regulatory policy has not been met with an accompanying shift in the manner in which regulatory authorities regulate prices. Specifically, policy makers have continued to base rates on either historical or replacement cost. We argue that …

Racial Identity, Electoral Structures, And The First Amendment Right Of Association, Guy-Uriel Charles

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.