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

Courts Commons

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

16,285 Full-Text Articles 12,416 Authors 13,387,904 Downloads 217 Institutions

All Articles in Courts

Faceted Search

16,285 full-text articles. Page 329 of 372.

Alternative Dispute Resolution And Court-Appointed Experts , Joseph R. Slights III, Mark G. Haug 2012 Pepperdine University

Alternative Dispute Resolution And Court-Appointed Experts , Joseph R. Slights Iii, Mark G. Haug

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This article shamelessly borrows its subtitles-the Court's Tale and the Expert's Tale-from Chaucer's tale-telling. The two tales examine the life cycle of a case utilizing a court-appointed expert. The Court's Tale begins with a presumption against the court-appointed expert. Certain characteristics of a dispute, however, may be sufficient to rebut this presumption. The Court's Tale tells of one such case. The case involved complex damage calculations and irreconcilable positions that invite an objective analysis. The article then turns toward the Expert's Tale which describes how an expert helped resolve the problem. Following the Expert's Tale, the court assesses the outcome …


Loud Rules, David Coale, Wendy Couture 2012 Pepperdine University

Loud Rules, David Coale, Wendy Couture

Pepperdine Law Review

This article defines a "loud rule" as a court's statement of substantive law accompanied by a warning that future litigants risk sanctions if they relitigate the issue. The authors examine the incidence of loud rules, noting patterns in their use. Then, the authors apply the substantive "necessity" test for distinguishing dicta and holdings, concluding that although the "loud" component of the rule is technically dictum, it does not raise the same policy concerns that underlie the dicta-holding distinction. Further, the authors apply the procedural "necessity" test for the appropriate exercise of a court's inherent power, concluding that many of the …


Does The First Amendment's "Right Of Access" Require Court Proceedings To Be Televised? A Constitutional And Practical Discussion, Audrey Maness 2012 Pepperdine University

Does The First Amendment's "Right Of Access" Require Court Proceedings To Be Televised? A Constitutional And Practical Discussion, Audrey Maness

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


Intermittent State Constitutionalism, Justin Long 2012 Pepperdine University

Intermittent State Constitutionalism, Justin Long

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


Benefits Of Courtroom Cameras Outweigh Costs, Jeremy Harris Lipschultz 2012 University of Nebraska at Omaha

Benefits Of Courtroom Cameras Outweigh Costs, Jeremy Harris Lipschultz

Communication Faculty Publications

The Illinois Supreme Court recently authorized the use of television cameras and "other recording devices" for "extended media coverage" of the courts in the state. For the first time, this extends access in that state to all trial courts following an appellate experiment that began in the 1980s. It took the efforts of Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Kilbride to "bring more transparency and accountability" to the sometimes troubled Illinois criminal justice system.


The Roberts Court & The Business Cases, Kenneth W. Starr 2012 Pepperdine University

The Roberts Court & The Business Cases, Kenneth W. Starr

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


Roundtable Discussion, Vikram Amar, Joan Biskupic, Douglas W. Kmiec, Jeffrey Rosen, Kenneth W. Starr, Kathleen M. Sullivan 2012 Pepperdine University

Roundtable Discussion, Vikram Amar, Joan Biskupic, Douglas W. Kmiec, Jeffrey Rosen, Kenneth W. Starr, Kathleen M. Sullivan

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


Free Speech, Kathleen M. Sullivan 2012 Pepperdine University

Free Speech, Kathleen M. Sullivan

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


Criminal Justice, Vikram Amar 2012 Pepperdine University

Criminal Justice, Vikram Amar

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Roberts Court & Executive Power, Jeffrey Rosen 2012 Pepperdine University

The Roberts Court & Executive Power, Jeffrey Rosen

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


Standing Still - Did The Roberts Court Narrow, But Not Overrule, Flast To Allow Time To Re-Think Establishment Clause Jurisprudence?, Douglas W. Kmiec 2012 Pepperdine University

Standing Still - Did The Roberts Court Narrow, But Not Overrule, Flast To Allow Time To Re-Think Establishment Clause Jurisprudence?, Douglas W. Kmiec

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Alito/O'Connor Switch, Joan Biskupic 2012 Pepperdine University

The Alito/O'Connor Switch, Joan Biskupic

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


Introduction To Symposium: An Enigmatic Court? Examining The Roberts Court As It Begins Year Three, Douglas W. Kmiec, Kenneth W. Starr 2012 Pepperdine University

Introduction To Symposium: An Enigmatic Court? Examining The Roberts Court As It Begins Year Three, Douglas W. Kmiec, Kenneth W. Starr

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Inaugural William French Smith Memorial Lecture: A Look At Supreme Court Advocacy With Justice Samuel Alito, Samuel A. Alito Jr, Douglas W. Kmiec, Carter G. Phillips, Kenneth W. Starr 2012 Pepperdine University

The Inaugural William French Smith Memorial Lecture: A Look At Supreme Court Advocacy With Justice Samuel Alito, Samuel A. Alito Jr, Douglas W. Kmiec, Carter G. Phillips, Kenneth W. Starr

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


How To Take Control Of The Runaway Litigation Train , Jeremy Fogel 2012 Pepperdine University

How To Take Control Of The Runaway Litigation Train , Jeremy Fogel

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

My subject today is how informed and appropriate use of alternative dispute resolution can benefit the parties in a business dispute, both by reducing costs and by producing qualitatively better results. As I will explain, although my colleagues on the bench and I do not mind presiding over your cases, litigating a commercial case rarely is the best means of advancing the interests of the companies involved.


The Gacaca Experiment: Rwanda's Restorative Dispute Resolution Response To The 1994 Genocide, Jessica Raper 2012 Pepperdine University

The Gacaca Experiment: Rwanda's Restorative Dispute Resolution Response To The 1994 Genocide, Jessica Raper

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

Since its rise to power in July of 1994, the Rwandan government has been committed to prosecuting all those accused of genocide. To prosecute the approximately 130,000 defendants, Rwanda has adopted a program called gacaca, based on Rwanda's traditional customary dispute resolution system. The gacaca law provides a reconciliation component that allows defendants to trade confessions of past genocide crimes for indemnification, as well as a prosecution component that holds the most serious offenders accountable in a Western style prosecution in a formal court of law. One of the main goals of gacaca is to end the so-called "culture …


Unraveling The Mystery Of Wilko V. Swan: American Arbitration Vacatur Law And The Accidental Demise Of Party Autonomy , James M. Gaitis 2012 Pepperdine University

Unraveling The Mystery Of Wilko V. Swan: American Arbitration Vacatur Law And The Accidental Demise Of Party Autonomy , James M. Gaitis

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This article begins with a brief description of what the Wilko Court said with respect to the vacatur of arbitral awards and how federal and state appellate courts have construed that language. Traditional American arbitration vacatur law, including but not limited to the cases relied upon by the Wilko Court, are then reviewed in depth such that the Wilko decision and the Wilko Court's choice of language may be placed in context and fully examined. The intent and proper operation of the FAA are then discussed based on both the legislative history of the FAA and other authorities that consistently …


What Federalism & Why? Science Versus Doctrine, Stephen E. Gottlieb 2012 Pepperdine University

What Federalism & Why? Science Versus Doctrine, Stephen E. Gottlieb

Pepperdine Law Review

The Constitution does not use the words federal or federalism. It gives Congress a set of powers and prohibits the national government, the states or both from doing some things. The Court has inferred principles of federalism from those provisions. The political science community has treated the advantages of federalism as contingent on whether federalism deepens or diffuses conflict or opens competition for power. The United States Supreme Court's approach does neither; it has been trying to clarify and police a very different boundary. Even on its own terms, however, the Court's justifications do not work - a problem made …


The T-Rex Without Teeth: Evolving Strickland V. Washington And The Test For Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel, Robert R. Rigg 2012 Pepperdine University

The T-Rex Without Teeth: Evolving Strickland V. Washington And The Test For Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel, Robert R. Rigg

Pepperdine Law Review

In Strickland v. Washington the United States Supreme Court formulated the test for determining whether counsel in a criminal case is ineffective. When the Court decided Strickland it created a doctrine of enormous proportions, but with little impact--a legal tyrannosaurus rex without teeth. In the last decade, by using American Bar Association (“ABA”) standards to evaluate counsel's performance, the Court has given the T-Rex some sizable incisors. The purposes of this article are to: (1) determine how frequently the United States Supreme Court uses ABA standards in its decisions and describe briefly for what purposes the Court uses those standards; …


On The Efficient Deployment Of Rules And Standards To Define Federal Jurisdiction, Jonathan R. Nash 2012 Vanderbilt University Law School

On The Efficient Deployment Of Rules And Standards To Define Federal Jurisdiction, Jonathan R. Nash

Vanderbilt Law Review

Congress and the federal courts have traditionally adopted rules, as opposed to standards, to establish the boundaries of federal district court jurisdiction. More recently, the Supreme Court has strayed from this path in two areas: federal question jurisdiction and admiralty jurisdiction. Commentators have generally supported the use of discretion in determining federal question jurisdiction, but they have not recognized the relationship to the rule-standard distinction, nor more importantly have they considered the importance of where discretion enters the jurisdictional calculus. This Article argues that predictability and efficiency make it normatively desirable to have rules predominate jurisdictional boundaries and thus to …


Digital Commons powered by bepress