Courts Commons^™

Sonderkommando In Canada: Canada's First World War Ii War Crimes Trial, 1951-56, Joseph Kary

Cardozo International & Comparative Law Review

The article examines the 1950 trial of David Zimet, a Jewish policeman in the Tarnów ghetto, held in Montreal by the Canadian Jewish Congress, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of community tribunals in addressing war crimes. It explores the moral and legal complexities of collaboration during the Holocaust, the challenges of survivor testimony, and the broader implications for postwar justice and communal accountability.

The Move Toward An Indigenous Virgin Islands Jurisprudence: Banks In Its Second Decade, Kristen David Adams

Fordham Law Review

In 2011, the Supreme Court of the U.S. Virgin Islands decided Banks v. International Rental & Leasing Corp. and, with that decision, introduced a new era in Virgin Islands jurisprudence that embraced a much more active role for Virgin Islands courts and a correspondingly diminished role for the American Law Institute’s restatements. This Essay examines what I will call “second-generation” decisions referencing Banks with the goal of determining whether Banks and its progeny have met, or are at least in the process of meeting, “the goal of establishing ‘an indigenous Virgin Islands jurisprudence’” set by the Banks court. Ultimately, this …

Presumptive Use Of Pretrial Risk Assessment Instruments, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

One proposed reform of the pretrial detention system is the adoption of risk assessment instruments to assist courts in determining who is at risk of reoffending or a flight risk. This Response to Professor Melissa Hamilton's Article, Modelling Pretrial Detention, proposes that under most circumstances the results of well-validated instruments should not only inform pretrial outcomes but should dictate them, on the ground that such results are more likely to be accurate than judicial decision-making. The Response also provides evidence that this reform would significantly reduce pretrial detention rates and, consistent with Professor Hamilton's findings, avoid producing racially disparate results.

The Article Iii "Party" And The Originalist Case Against Corporate Diversity Jurisdiction, Mark Moller, Lawrence B. Solum

William & Mary Law Review

Federal courts control an outsize share of big-ticket corporate litigation. And that control rests, to a significant degree, on the Supreme Court’s extension of Article III’s Diversity of Citizenship Clause to corporations. Yet, critics have questioned the constitutionality of corporate diversity jurisdiction from the beginning.

In this Article and a previous one, we develop the first sustained critique of corporate diversity jurisdiction.

Our previous article demonstrated that corporations are not “citizens” given the original meaning of that word. But we noted this finding alone doesn’t sink general corporate diversity jurisdiction. The ranks of corporate shareholders include many undoubted “citizens.” And …

Aesthetics Of Slavery & Slave Trade Crimes, Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum

Articles

In his insightful new book, Invisible Atrocities, Randle DeFalco examines the aesthetic biases of international criminal law (ICL). DeFalco astutely argues that ICL prioritizes punishing "horrific spectacles" of violence while ignoring less visible, attritive forms of violence that cause similar levels of harm and suffering, generally over longer periods of time. While ICL is selective in its preference for "horrific spectacles," even the spectacular violence has been rendered invisible in ICL when inconvenient factual evidence counters dominant narratives in international law.

One such dominant narrative is the successful abolition of slavery and the slave trade of the nineteenth and twentieth …

Differentiating Strict Products Liability’S Cost-Benefit Analysis From Negligence, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Dangerous products may give rise to colossal liability for commercial actors. Indeed, in 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Johnson & Johnson v. Ingham, permitting a more than two billion dollar products liability damages award to stand. In his dissenting opinion in another recent products liability case, Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries, Justice Gorsuch declared that “[t]ort law is supposed to be about aligning liability with responsibility.” However, in the products liability context, there have been ongoing debates concerning how best to set legal rules and standards on tort liability. Are general principles of …

The Constitution As A Source Of Remedial Law, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Equity’s Constitutional Source, Owen W. Gallogly argues that Article III is the source of a constitutional default rule for equitable remedies—specifically, that Article III’s vesting of the “judicial Power” “in Equity” empowers federal courts to afford the remedies traditionally afforded by the English Court of Chancery at the time of the Founding, and to develop such remedies in an incremental fashion. This Response questions the current plausibility of locating such a default rule in Article III, since remedies having their source in Article III would be available in federal but not state courts and would apply to state-law …

Efektivitas Pelaksanaan Pemberian Pendidikan Formal Bagi Anak-Anak Pengungsi Luar Negeri Di Kota Batam, Rina Shahriyani Shahrullah, Heru Susetyo, Lu Sudirman, Rendi Sahputra

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

The entire responsibility for all children in Indonesia lies with the government, and it extends to all children in Indonesia, not only those who are Indonesian nationals but also includes children who are refugees from foreign countries. One of the fundamental rights regulated by the laws and the Convention on the Rights of the Child ratified by Indonesia is the right to receive appropriate education (formal, non-formal, and informal education). This research aims to analyze the implementation of formal education fulfillment for refugee children in Batam City, especially those accommodated at Hotel Kolekta. Therefore, the research questions are as follows: …

Brief Of Federal Courts Professor Derek T. Muller As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Christopher G. Michel, Rachel G. Frank, Isabel R. Peraza, Katherine Schroeder, Derek T. Muller

Court Briefs

No. 22-824
The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia v. Alexander Belya

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

From the Introduction and Summary of Argument

This case presents an exceptionally important question at the intersection of civil procedure and constitutional law. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction over appeals from “final decisions of the district courts.” That provision, which “descends from the Judiciary Act of 1789,” has long been understood to confer appellate jurisdiction over more than just …

Kekuatan Mengikat Akta Perdamaian (Acte Van Dading) Yang Dibuat Diluar Pengadilan Yang Isinya Berbeda Dengan Putusan Yang Sudah Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap (In Kracht Van Gewijsde), Dhimas Haris Anggara Mukti

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

This article discusses the legal force of peace deeds (acte van dading) made outside of court which contents are different from a legally binding decision (in kracht van gewijsde). The research used as writing material is research using philosophical approaches, normative juridical methods and literature review, which is carried out by examining library materials or secondary data. The results of the research conclude that a peace agreement is valid according to law if it meets the requirements set out in statutory regulations, either in the form of a private agreement or an authentic deed, which will have power for the …

A Modern-Day 3/5 Compromise: The Case For Finding Prison Gerrymandering Unconstitutional Under The Thirteenth Amendment, Shana Iden

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

Vestiges of slavery and systemic disenfranchisement of people of color persist in the United States. One of these remnants is the practice of prison gerrymandering, which occurs when government officials count incarcerated individuals as part of the population of the prison’s location rather than the individual’s home district. This Article argues that prison gerrymandering functions as a badge of slavery that should be prohibited under the Thirteenth Amendment.

First, this Article provides background on prison gerrymandering and charts its impact through history, particularly on Black communities. Moreover, this Article analyzes how litigation under the Fourteenth Amendment has not yielded meaningful …

A Constitutional Right To Early Voting, David Schultz

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

Voting is a cost-benefit decision. Individuals are more likely to vote if the benefits of doing so outweigh the disadvantages. With early voting laws eased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 election demonstrated that turnout increases when elected officials reduce voting costs. Despite all the benefits of early voting, there is no constitutional right, and it remains a privilege that state legislatures can revoke at will.

Since the 2020 election, state legislatures have proposed—and enacted—hundreds of bills to change voting rules. But with the intense partisan disagreement over voting, coupled with political polarization reaching an apex, these acts restricting …

Moore V. Harper And The Consequential Effects Of The Independent State Legislature Theory, Chase Cooper

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

In December 2022, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Moore v. Harper. The case addresses whether the North Carolina Supreme Court possesses the authority to strike down a redistricting map drawn by the state legislature. Petitioners contend that the state legislature has no such authority under the United States Constitution, citing a novel interpretation of the Elections Clause known as the “independent state legislature” (“ISL”) theory. The ISL theory is not a unified theory, but rather a constellation of related doctrinal positions that revolve around a core precept: ordinary governing principles by which state courts review …

Rucho In The States: Districting Cases And The Nature Of State Judicial Power, Chad M. Oldfather

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

No abstract provided.

Overview Of Missouri Appellate Briefing Rules And The Case Of Hicks V. Northland-Smithville, Steve Lockwood

SLU Law Journal Online

Starting with the Missouri Supreme Court's 2022 opinion in Lexow v. Boeing Co., appellate courts have put renewed emphasis on the requirements of Rule 84.04. The recent opinion by the Western District Court of Appeals, Hicks v. Northland-Smithville, and several predecessor opinions to Hicks, are a lesson and reminder to practitioners to strictly adhere to the Missouri Rules of Appellate Procedure, specifically Rule 84.04. In this article, Steve Lockwood will discuss Hicks and the implications of the opinion.

Warren Circuit Court - Warren County, Kentucky (Sc 3682), Manuscripts & Folklife Archives

Manuscript Collection Finding Aids

Finding aid and scans (Click on "Additional Files" below) for Manuscripts Small Collection 3682. Images of two seals of the Warren County (Kentucky) Circuit Court, one affixed to documents dated 1825 and 1839, and the other to a document dated 1860, together with a letter from the Court Administrator with historical background. Also includes a paper by an unknown author describing the Warren County Court of Quarter Sessions and a few early indictments.

Core And Periphery In Constitutional Law, R. George Wright

William & Mary Law Review Online

This paper embarks on an excursion through a number of the most vital constitutional rights cases, and other contexts as well, and seeks to show that the recurring judicial attempts to distinguish between core and peripheral areas within any given broad constitutional right are unnecessary and distracting. Intriguingly, the case for this conclusion varies significantly depending upon the nature of the general constitutional right in question. But the overall lesson is that courts should abandon their attempts to distinguish between core and peripheral areas of any given broad constitutional right. Courts should instead focus—directly or indirectly—on their best assessment of …

Brief Of Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Clinic As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, John A. Meiser, Meredith Holland Kessler

Court Briefs

No. 22-741
Faith Bible Chapel International v. Gregory Tucker

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

The First Amendment demands that courts refrain from intruding into disputes over a religious organization’s selection of important leaders. The ministerial exception enforces that demand. And thus, nearly every court to consider the issue has agreed: the ministerial exception promises something akin to an immunity from suit, which must be resolved early in litigation to be effective.

Home Court Advantage? An Empirical Analysis Of Local Bias In U.S. District Court Diversity Jurisdiction Cases, Kyle C. Kopko, Christopher J. Devine

West Virginia Law Review

In granting diversity of citizenship jurisdiction to the federal courts, there is an underlying assumption that federal courts will be less biased toward out-of-state litigants as compared with state courts. While this may be true, the assumption fails to consider an important empirical question: to what extent do federal courts favor home state litigants or disfavor out-of-state litigants when deciding diversity jurisdiction cases? Relying on the Integrated Database (IDB) compiled by the Federal Judicial Center and the Administrative Offices of the U.S. Courts, we present an original, empirical analysis of diversity jurisdiction case outcomes in the U.S. districts courts from …

What's Originalism After Transunion?: Picking An Originalist Approach That Gets Standing Back On Track, Julian Gregorio

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

This Note argues that not only is standing fascinating and contested, but it is so important that the Court should reconsider standing doctrine in appropriate future cases. While the TransUnion case came and went without much kerfuffle outside of legal circles, standing does not find itself sailing smoothly. As noted, perhaps the Court’s most reliable originalist just dissented from a case that largely restates the current law on standing. And Justice Kagan, perhaps the Court’s most influential liberal, wrote that after TransUnion, standing jurisprudence “needs a rewrite.” Given the current makeup of the Court, any reconsideration of standing doctrine …