Judges Commons^™

Naim V. Naim, Richard Delgado

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Terrace V. Thompson And The Legacy Of Manifest Destiny, Jean Stefancic

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. V. Shute: The Titanic Of Worst Decisions, Linda S. Mullenix

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Contract Law Walks The Plank: Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. V. Shute, Charles L. Knapp

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Ashcroft V. Iqbal: Contempt For Rules, Statutes, The Constitution, And Elemental Fairness, Steve Subrin

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Hustler V. Falwell: Worst Case In The History Of The World, Maybe The Universe, John M. Kang

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Lassiter V. Department Of Social Services: Why Is It Such A Lousy Case?, Brooke D. Coleman

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

On Teaching Conflicts And Why I Dislike Allstate Insurance Co. V. Hague, Thomas O. Main

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Setting Us Up For Disaster: The Supreme Court's Decision In Terry V. Ohio, Thomas B. Mcaffee

Nevada Law Journal

The controversies spawned by the Supreme Court’s decision in Terry v. Ohio are just about as expansive as the decision’s implications for the development of Fourth Amendment doctrine. And it was recently observed that it is perhaps the most criticized Fourth Amendment decision since the modern Supreme Court belatedly incorporated the amendment, and eventually the exclusionary rule.3 Fortunately, there is neither time nor space to address and fully resolve all of these controversies, or even to determine whether the case was just wrongly decided; the somewhat narrower thesis of this Article is that the long-term impact of Terry on the …

Ricci V. Destefano: Diluting Disparate Impact And Redefining Disparate Treatment, Ann C. Mcginley

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Lynch And The Lunacy Of Secularized Religion, Frederick Mark Gedicks

Nevada Law Journal

Any “worst opinion ever” essay must start with criteria of badness. I propose three: (i) failure to explain why existing doctrine dictated the result, (ii) failure to articulate a rule that judges can consistently apply in subsequent cases, and (iii) failure to protect the interests of the prevailing party. Few opinions win this trifecta, but Lynch v. Donnelly is one of them.1 Chief Justice Burger and the Lynch majority would have left the world of church and state immeasurably enriched—or at least immeasurably less screwed up—if they had not written an opinion at all.

This is, to be sure, a …

Nigro V. United States: The Most Disingenuous Supreme Court Opinion, Ever, A. Christopher Bryant

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Globe Refining Co. V. Landa Cotton Oil Co. And The Dark Side Of Reputation, Larry T. Garvin

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Blackmun (And Scalia) At The Bat: The Court's Separation-Of-Powers Strike Out In Freytag, Tuan Samahon

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Tending To Potted Plants: The Professional Identity Vacuum In Garcetti V. Ceballos, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Circumstance And Strategy: Jointly Authored Supreme Court Opinions, Laura Krugman Ray

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Constitutionality Of Federal Jurisdiction-Stripping Legislation And The History Of State Judicial Selection And Tenure, Brian T. Fitzpatrick

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Few questions in the field of Federal Courts have captivated scholars like the question of whether Congress can simultaneously divest both lower federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear federal constitutional claims and thereby leave those claims to be litigated in state courts alone. Such a divestiture is known today as “jurisdiction stripping,” and, despite literally decades of scholarship on the subject, scholars have largely been unable to reconcile two widely held views: jurisdiction stripping should be unconstitutional because it deprives constitutional rights of adjudication by independent judges and jurisdiction stripping is nonetheless perfectly consistent with …

Hiding Behind The Cloak Of Invisibility: The Supreme Court And Per Curiam Opinions, Ira Robbins

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Per curiam--literally translated from Latin to "by the court"-is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "[a]n opinion handed down by an appellate court without identifying the individual judge who wrote the opinion." Accordingly the author of a per curiam opinion is meant to be institutional rather than individual, attributable to the court as an entity rather than to a single judge The United States Supreme Court issues a significant number of per curiam dispositions each Term. In the first six years of Chief Justice John Roberts’ tenure, almost nine percent of the Court full opinions were per curiams. The prevalence …

Supreme Court Institute Annual Report, 2011-2012, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute

SCI Papers & Reports

During the 2011-2012 academic year--corresponding to the U.S. Supreme Court’s October Term (OT) 2011--the Supreme Court Institute (SCI) provided moot courts for advocates in over 94% of the cases heard by the Court this Term and offered over a dozen programs related to the Supreme Court. All SCI moot courts held in OT 2011, listed by sitting and date of moot, and including the name and affiliation of each advocate and the number of student observers, follows the narrative portion of this report.

Swing Votes On The Current Supreme Court: The Joint Opinion In Casey And Its Progeny, R. Randall Kelso, Charles D. Kelso

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.