Judges Commons^™

Judges As Gatekeepers To Mediation: The Russian Case, Kathryn Hendley

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

In this Article, I investigate the role of judges in mediation in Russia. Using a mixed-methods approach that draws on my fieldwork in Russian courts as well as a 2013 survey of Russian judges, I explore their attitudes towards mediation and their willingness to recommend it to litigants. I use the survey data to inquire into the factors that tend to predict both their attitudes and behavior vis-avis mediation. The analysis reveals a remarkable division between judges' attitudes and their behavior. The surveyed judges are generally enthusiastic about the introduction of mediation, but this enthusiasm is not always reflected in …

Judicial Conflict Resolution (Jcr): A New Jurisprudence For An Emerging Judicial Practice, Michal Alberstein

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

In the past few decades, the role of judges has changed dramatically, yet its nature has remained largely unexplored. To date, most cases settle or reach plea-bargaining, and the greater part of judges' time is spent on managing cases and encouraging parties to reach consensual solutions. Adjudication based on formal rules is a rare phenomenon which judges mostly avoid. This Article argues that the various Conflict Resolution methods, which are used outside the courtroom, as alternatives to adjudication, could have a strong and positive influence, both theoretical and practical, on judicial activities inside the courts. Theoretically, the Article develops a …

Judicial Priorities, Bert I. Huang, Tejas N. Narechania

Faculty Scholarship

In an unprecedented move, the Illinois Supreme Court in the mid-1990s imposed hard caps on the state's appeals courts, drastically reducing the number of opinions they could publish, while also narrowing the formal criteria for opinions to qualify for publication. The high court explained that the amendment's purpose was to reduce the "avalanche of opinions emanating from [the] Appellate Court," which was causing legal research to become "unnecessarily burdensome, difficult and costly." This unusual and sudden policy shift offers the chance to observe the priorities of a common law court in its production of published opinions. The method we introduce …

The Constraint Of Legal Doctrine, Shyamkrishna Balganesh

Faculty Scholarship

As the dominant approach to legal analysis in the United States today, Legal Realism is firmly ensconced in the way scholars discuss and debate legal issues and problems. The phrase “we are all realists now” is treated as cliché precisely because it is in some ways taken to state an obvious reality about the mindset of American legal scholars. While Legal Realism came to represent a variety of different views, all of these views embodied a common theme, namely, the belief that legal doctrine is “more malleable, less determinate, and less causal of judicial outcomes” than is traditionally presumed. Judges …

Lawrence V. Texas: The Decision And Its Implications For The Future, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dicta And The Rule Of Law, Ryan S. Killian

Pepperdine Law Review

This Essay is about dicta. Like Olson, the Essay will not spend much time arguing about the definition of dicta. Rather, it analyzes rule of law issues as they pertain to dicta. Does the definition of dicta matter? Does reliance on dicta by subsequent courts raise rule of law concerns? The answer to both questions is yes.

Look Back At The Rehnquist Era And An Overview Of The 2004 Supreme Court Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is It Law Or Something Else?: A Divided Judiciary In The Application Of Fraudulent Transfer Law Under § 546(E) Of The Bankruptcy Code, Jaclyn Weissgerber

Pace Law Review

In Part I of this Note, I will provide a general overview of leveraged buyouts. The discussion of how and why LBOs are implemented is particularly relevant to the application of fraudulent transfer analysis. In Part II, I will discuss fraudulent transfer law as defined by the Bankruptcy Code. In Part III, I will discuss which transfers within the LBO should be attacked under fraudulent transfer law and why; this section will focus on the various stakes of the parties involved in the leveraged buyout transaction. I will provide an overview of the specific factors that bankruptcy and federal appellate …

Reflections On The Korean Jury Trial, Valerie P. Hans

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Korea's experience with its new jury system offers many lessons for those interested in juries and jury reform worldwide. Aiming for a unique jury system that was ideally suited to Korean citizens and their legal system, those who crafted Korea's jury incorporated elements of both classic jury systems and mixed tribunals. Initially, the jury deliberates on guilt independently of the judge, but the procedure includes optional as well as mandatory opportunities for the presiding judge to advise the jury during its deliberation. The Korean jury delivers an advisory rather than binding jury verdict. These and other features of the Korean …

A Tribute To Eva Hanks, Matthew Diller

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jury Voting Paradoxes, Jason Iuliano

Michigan Law Review

The special verdict is plagued by two philosophical paradoxes: the discursive dilemma and the lottery paradox. Although widely discussed in the philosophical literature, these paradoxes have never been applied to jury decision making. In this Essay, I use the paradoxes to show that the special verdict’s vote-reporting procedures can lead judges to render verdicts that the jurors themselves would reject. This outcome constitutes a systemic breakdown that should not be tolerated in a legal system that prides itself on the fairness of its jury decision-making process. Ultimately, I argue that, because the general verdict with answers to written questions does …

Judicial Review And Non-Enforcement At The Founding, Matthew J. Steilen

Journal Articles

This Article examines the relationship between judicial review and presidential non-enforcement of statutory law. Defenders of non-enforcement regularly argue that the justification for judicial review that prevailed at the time of the founding also justifies the president in declining to enforce unconstitutional laws. The argument is unsound. This Article shows that there is essentially no historical evidence, from ratification through the first decade under the Constitution, in support of a non-enforcement power. It also shows that the framers repeatedly made statements inconsistent with the supposition that the president could refuse to enforce laws he deemed unconstitutional. In contrast, during this …

Refusal To Extradite: An Examination Of Canada's Indictment Of The American Legal System, Jami Leeson

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Customary International Human Rights Law In Domestic Court Decisions, Gordon A. Christenson

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The "Blank Stare Phenomenon": Proving Customary International Law In U.S. Courts, Paul L. Hoffman

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Dimensions Of Judicial Impartiality, Charles Gardner Geyh

Florida Law Review

Scholars have traditionally analyzed judicial impartiality piecemeal, in disconnected debates on discrete topics. As a consequence, current understandings of judicial impartiality are balkanized and muddled. This Article seeks to reconceptualize judicial impartiality comprehensively, across contexts. In an era when “we are all legal realists now,” perfect impartiality—the complete absence of bias or prejudice—is at most an ideal; “impartial enough” has, of necessity, become the realistic goal. Understanding when imperfectly impartial is nonetheless impartial enough is aided by conceptualizing judicial impartiality in three distinct dimensions: a procedural dimension, in which impartiality affords parties a fair hearing; a political dimension, in which …

Judicial Logrolling, F. Andrew Hessick, Jathan P. Mclaughlin

Florida Law Review

In the federal judicial system, multiple judges hear cases on appeal. Although assigning cases to multiple judges provides a number of benefits, it also generates the potential for conflict. Because each judge has his own set of preferences and values, judges on appellate panels often disagree with each other. Judges currently resolve these disagreements by filing separate opinions or drafting compromise opinions. A different way to resolve these disagreements is to allow vote trading across cases. Scholars and judges have condemned this practice, however, and judges have insisted that it does not occur.

This Article argues that the blanket condemnation …

The Confusing Standards For Discretionary Review In Washington And A Proposed Framework For Clarity, Judge Stephen Dwyer

Seattle University Law Review

It has now been more than thirty-five years since the Washington Rules of Appellate Procedure (RAP) became effective in 1976 and replaced all prior rules governing appellate procedure. One significant change that those rules made was to clearly describe and delineate a procedural mechanism for seeking interlocutory review of trial court decisions. The ultimate effect on practitioners is both obvious and unavoidable. Many lawyers, rather than stake out a clear position regarding the applicability of the various considerations governing discretionary review, simply argue that any and every consideration that is even arguably applicable is satisfied by the trial court’s determination. …

Mining For Gold: The Constitutional Court Of South Africa's Experience With Comparative Constitutional Law, Ursula Bentele

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Introduction: Judicial Assistants Or Junior Judges: The Hiring, Utilization, And Influence Of Law Clerks, Chad Oldfather, Todd C. Peppers

Marquette Law Review

none