Jurisprudence Commons^™

The Jurisprudence Of The Hughes Court: The Recent Literature, Barry Cushman

Journal Articles

The balance of this Article is devoted, after a fashion, to an exploration of the extent to which the recent literature on the Hughes Court seeks to incorporate the internal point of view. In Part I, I seek to identify the historiographical premises undergirding each author’s treatment of the subject. In Part II, I explore how those historiographical premises are reflected in each author’s treatment of the substantive development of constitutional doctrine during the period. In Part III, I examine the ways in which those historiographical premises inform each author’s analysis of the causal forces driving that doctrinal development. Part …

Procedural Due Process In Modern Problem-Solving Courts: An Application Of The Asymmetric Immune Knowledge Hypothesis, Leah C. Georges

Department of Psychology: Dissertations, Theses, and Student Research

Problem-solving courts, such as drug and mental health courts, function under the model of therapeutic jurisprudence—the idea that legal policies and procedures should help and not harm clients, within the confines of the law (Winick & Wexler, 2002). Although it would seem that the lack of procedural due process in most problem-solving courts is in direct opposition to the best interests of a client, it is possible that observers find this more of a problem than do the court clients themselves. This two-experiment study applied Igou’s (2008) AIK hypothesis to problem-solving courts’ practice of sanctioning in the absence of due …

The Special Tribunal For Lebanon: A Defense Perspective, Charles Chernor Jalloh

Articles

This Article analyzes the absence of organs tasked with guaranteeing the rights of the defense in international criminal law. It explains the historical origins of the problem, tracing it back to the genesis of modern prosecutions at the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal. It then explains how the organizational charts of the UN courts for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone omitted the defense and essentially treated it as a second class citizen before the eyes of the law. This sets the stage for the author to show why the creation of the first full-fledged defense organ in international criminal …

Making Or Breaking Your Billion Dollar Case: U.S. Judicial Assistance To Private International Arbitration Under 28 U.S.C. 1732(A), Laura E. Malament

Vanderbilt Law Review

With the increasingly globalized economy, arbitration is becoming a popular mechanism for resolving disputes. The total value of international arbitration claims grew over one hundred percent in 2012, from $96 billion in 2011 to $206 billion in 2012. The principal users of international arbitration are corporations. In fact, for the shipping, energy, oil and gas, and insurance industries, international arbitration of multi-billion dollar disputes is the "default resolution mechanism." Across all industries, approximately ninety percent of international contracts include an arbitration clause. Importantly, seventy-four percent of international arbitration proceedings involve exclusively private parties-no state entities are parties to the dispute.

Constitutional Venue, Peter L. Markowitz, Lindsay C. Nash

Articles

A foundational concept of American jurisprudence is the principle that it is unfair to allow litigants to be haled into far away tribunals when the litigants and the litigation have little or nothing to do with the location of such courts. Historically, both personal jurisdiction and venue each served this purpose in related, but distinct ways. Personal jurisdiction is, at base, a limit on the authority of the sovereign. Venue, in contrast, aims to protect parties from being forced to litigate in a location where they would be unfairly disadvantaged. The constitutional boundaries of these early principles came to be …

Preserving Home Rule: The Text, Purpose, And Political Theory Of California’S Municipal Affairs Clause, Brett A. Stroud

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

When A U.S. Domestic Court Can Enjoin A Foreign Court Proceeding, Samantha Koeninger, Richard Bales

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

A federal court, at its discretion, may enjoin a parallel proceeding in a foreign court. Currently, there is a split among the federal courts of appeals as to the circumstances under which an anti-suit injunction should be granted. The Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have adopted the "liberal approach." These courts have found that a court may enjoin a foreign proceeding if the parallel litigation is vexatious and duplicative. In contrast, the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Eighth, and D.C. Circuits have adopted the "restrictive approach." These courts require a higher standard, and have found that if the parallel litigation is …

Natural Law And Legal Positivism In The Nuremberg Trials, Judah B. Murray

Senior Honors Theses

Abstract

The purpose of this thesis is to explore how a natural law based jurisprudential philosophy would have proved superior to the Austinian legal positivist prepositions that the Allies worked from in the Nuremberg Trials. This is achieved through defining natural law as it was classically understood by its historical advocates such as Thomas Aquinas and Sir William Blackstone. Natural law’s applicability to the Trials builds off the principles articulated by those writers. In the process of making this determination, as to why natural law represents a viable jurisprudential idea, this paper addresses the fundamental conflict between natural law and …

The Infringement Continuum, Bernard Chao

Cardozo Law Review

For many years, patent law has struggled with the issue of permissible claim scope. A patent's specification and its claims often suffer from a surprising disconnect. The specification generally describes an invention in terms of one or more specific implementations, suggesting a relatively narrow invention. But claims are drafted far more broadly. They frequently encompass unforeseen variations and even cover after-arising technology.

Although there are numerous existing doctrines that try to prevent claims from straying too far from their specification, these doctrines offer binary outcomes ill suited for patent law. Under these doctrines, as a claim encompasses subject matter further …

Remaking Mexico: Law Reform As Foreign Policy, Deborah M. Weissman

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Pitfalls Of The Pittman-Robertson Act: Threats To An American Wildlife Act That Ensnare Hunters And Hikers Alike, Greg Huffaker

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

No abstract provided.

Analogical Legal Reasoning: Theory And Evidence, Joshua C. Teitelbaum

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The paper offers a formal model of analogical legal reasoning and takes the model to data. Under the model, the outcome of a new case is a weighted average of the outcomes of prior cases. The weights capture precedential influence and depend on fact similarity (distance in fact space) and precedential authority (position in the judicial hierarchy). The empirical analysis suggests that the model is a plausible model for the time series of U.S. maritime salvage cases. Moreover, the results evince that prior cases decided by inferior courts have less influence than prior cases decided by superior courts.

Asymmetric Empirical Similarity, Joshua C. Teitelbaum

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The paper offers a formal model of analogical legal reasoning and takes the model to data. Under the model, the outcome of a new case is a weighted average of the outcomes of prior cases. The weights capture precedential influence and depend on fact similarity (distance in fact space) and precedential authority (position in the judicial hierarchy). The empirical analysis suggests that the model is a plausible model for the time series of U.S. maritime salvage cases. Moreover, the results evince that prior cases decided by inferior courts have less influence than prior cases decided by superior courts.

The Puzzling Presumption Of Reviewability, Nicholas Bagley

Articles

The presumption in favor of judicial review of agency action is a cornerstone of administrative law, accepted by courts and commentators alike as both legally appropriate and obviously desirable. Yet the presumption is puzzling. As with any canon of statutory construction that serves a substantive end, it should find a source in history, positive law, the Constitution, or sound policy considerations. None of these, however, offers a plausible justification for the presumption. As for history, the sort of judicial review that the presumption favors - appellate-style arbitrariness review - was not only unheard of prior to the twentieth century, but …

Communicative Content And Legal Content, Lawrence B. Solum

Notre Dame Law Review

This Essay investigates a familiar set of questions about the relationship between legal texts (e.g., constitutions, statutes, opinions, orders, and contracts) and the content of the law (e.g., norms, rules, standards, doctrines, and mandates). Is the original meaning of the constitutional text binding on the Supreme Court when it develops doctrines of constitutional law? Should statutes be given their plain meaning or should judges devise statutory constructions that depart from the text to serve a purpose? What role should default rules play in the interpretation and construction of contracts? This Essay makes two moves that can help lawyers and legal …

Hierarchically Variable Deference To Agency Interpretations, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Notre Dame Law Review

When courts review agency action, they typically accord agency decisions a degree of deference. As many courts and commentators have recognized, the law in this area is complicated because it features numerous standards of review, including several distinct regimes for evaluating agencies’ legal interpretations. There is, however, at least one important respect in which uniformity rather than variety prevails: the applicable standards of review do not vary depending on which court is reviewing the agency. Whichever standard governs a particular case—Chevron, Skidmore, or something else—all courts in the judicial hierarchy are supposed to apply that same standard.

This Article proposes …

The Politics Of Statutory Interpretation, Margaret H. Lemos

Notre Dame Law Review

In a new book, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, Justice Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner describe and defend the textualist methodology for which Justice Scalia is famous. For Scalia and Garner, the normative appeal of textualism lies in its objectivity: by focusing on text, context, and canons of construction, textualism offers protection against ideological judging—a way to separate law from politics. Yet, as Scalia and Garner well know, textualism is widely regarded as a politically conservative methodology. The charge of conservative bias is more common than it is concrete, but it reflects the notion that textualism narrows the …

An Empirical Study Of The Use Of Legal Scholarship In Supreme Court Trademark Jurisprudence, Derek Simpson, Lee Petherbridge

Cardozo Law Review

Although the usefulness of law review and law journal articles to the decisional lawmaking process is a topic that has captured the imagination of jurists, reporters, and legal academics like few others, very little is actually known about how and why courts use such legal scholarship. This Article addresses that lack of knowledge. It reports an empirical study of the Supreme Court's use of legal scholarship in its trademark jurisprudence that spans the years 1949-2011. Among its contributions are: (1) the identification of Supreme Court trademark cases using and not using legal scholarship, including the identification of the pieces of …

Reconciling Originalism With The Father Of Conservatism: How Edmund Burke Answers The Disruption Dilemma In N.L.R.B. V. Noel Canning, Brad Masters

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Means Principle, Larry Alexander

Faculty Scholarship

Michael Moore believes there are deontological constraints on actors’ pursuit of good consequences. He believes these constraints are best conceived of as agent-relative prohibitions such as “you must not intentionally kill, batter, rape, steal, etc.” I, joined in recent years by Kimberly Ferzan, believe that the best interpretation of deontological constraints — the interpretation that best accounts for our intuitions about certain stock cases — is that they are constraints on the causal means by which good consequences may be achieved. We believe those constraints can be unified under a single deontological principle, what we call the “means principle.” It …