"Great cases like hard cases make bad law" declared Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in his dissenting opinion in the Northern Securities antitrust case of 1904. His maxim argues that those cases which ascend to the Supreme Court of the United States by virtue of their national importance, interest, or other extreme circumstance, make for poor bases upon which to construct a general law. Frequently, such cases catch the public's attention because they raise important legal issues, and they become landmark decisions from a doctrinal standpoint. Yet from a practical perspective, great cases could create laws poorly suited for far less publicly tantalizing but far more common situations. In Do Great Cases Make Bad Law?, Lackland H. Bloom, Jr. tests Justice Holmes' dictum by analyzing in detail the history of the Supreme Court's great cases, from Marbury v. Madison in 1803, to National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act case, in 2012. He treats each case with its own chapter, and explains why the Court found a case compelling, how the background and historical context affected the decision and its place in constitutional law and history, how academic scholarship has treated the case, and how the case integrates with and reflects off of Justice Holmes' famous statement. In doing so, Professor Bloom draws on the whole of the Supreme Court's decisional history to form an intricate scholarly understanding of the holistic significance of the Court's reasoning in American constitutional law.
Perhaps no kind of regulation is more common or less useful than mandated disclosure--requiring one party to a transaction to give the other information. It is the iTunes terms you assent to, the doctor's consent form you sign, the pile of papers you get with your mortgage. Reading the terms, the form, and the papers is supposed to equip you to choose your purchase, your treatment, and your loan well. More Than You Wanted to Know surveys the evidence and finds that mandated disclosure rarely works. But how could it? Who reads these disclosures? Who understands them? Who uses them to make better choices? Omri Ben-Shahar and Carl Schneider put the regulatory problem in human terms. Most people find disclosures complex, obscure, and dull. Most people make choices by stripping information away, not layering it on. Most people find they can safely ignore most disclosures and that they lack the literacy to analyze them anyway. And so many disclosures are mandated that nobody could heed them all. Nor can all this be changed by simpler forms in plainer English, since complex things cannot be made simple by better writing. Furthermore, disclosure is a lawmakers' panacea, so they keep issuing new mandates and expanding old ones, often instead of taking on the hard work of writing regulations with bite. Timely and provocative, More Than You Wanted to Know takes on the form of regulation we encounter daily and asks why we must encounter it at all.
In this follow up to I Was Wrong: The Meanings of Apologies, Nick Smith expands his ambitious theories of categorical apologies to civil and criminal law. After rejecting court-ordered apologies as unjustifiable humiliation, this book explains that penitentiaries were originally designed to bring about penance - something like apology - and that this tradition has been lost in the assembly line of mass incarceration. Smith argues that the state should modernize these principles and techniques to reduce punishments for offenders who demonstrate moral transformation through apologizing. Smith also explains the counterintuitive situation whereby apologies come to have considerable financial worth in civil cases because victims associate them with priceless matters of the soul. Such confusions allow powerful wrongdoers to manipulate perceptions to disastrous effect, such as when corporations or governments assert that apologies do not equate to accepting blame or require reform or redress.
The Language of Murder Cases describes fifteen court cases for which Roger W. Shuy served as an expert language witness. Investigations and trials in murder cases are guided by the important legal terms describing the mental states of defendants: intentionality, predisposition, and voluntariness. Unfortunately, statutes and dictionaries can provide only loose definitions, largely because mental states are virtually impossible to define. The meaning of these terms, therefore, must be adduced either by inferences and assumptions, or by any available language evidence-often the best window into a speaker's mind. Fortunately, this window of evidence exists primarily in electronically recorded undercover conversations, police interviews, and legal hearings and trials, all of which are subject to linguistic analysis before and during trial. In this book, Shuy explains how vague legal terminology can be clarified by analysis of the language used by suspects, defendants, law enforcement officers, and attorneys. He examines speech events, schemas, agendas, speech acts, conversational strategies, as well as smaller language units such as syntax, lexicon, and phonology, and discusses how these can play a major role in deciding murder cases. In his analysis, Shuy draws on his personal experience testifying at fifteen fascinating murder trials, focusing on the role that language played in each. He concludes with a summary of how his analyses were regarded by the juries as they struggled with the equally vague concept of reasonable doubt.
For years, robots were solely a matter of science fiction. Today, artificial intelligence technologies serve to accelerate our already fast-paced lives even further. From Apple's Siri to the Google Car to GPS, machines and technologies that make decisions and take action without direct human supervision have become commonplace in our daily lives. As a result, laws must be amended to protect companies that produce robots and the people that buy and use them. This book provides an extensive examination of how numerous legal areas--including liability, traffic, zoning, and international and constitutional law--must adapt to the widespread use of artificial intelligence in nearly every area of our society. The author scrutinizes the laws governing such fields as transportation, medicine, law enforcement, childcare, and real estate development.
For more than two centuries, Kentucky women have fought for the right to vote, own property, control their wages, and be safe at home and in the workplace. Tragically, many of these women's voices have been silenced by abuse and violence. In Violence against Women in Kentucky: A History of U.S. and State Legislative Reform, Carol E. Jordan chronicles the stories of those who have led the legislative fight for the last four decades to protect women from domestic violence, rape, stalking, and related crimes. The story of Kentucky's legislative reforms is a history of substantial toil, optimism, advocacy, and personal sacrifice by those who proposed the change. This compelling narrative illustrates, through their own points of view, the stories of survivors who serve as inspiration for change. Jordan analyzes national legislative reforms as well as the strategies that have been used to enact and enforce legislation addressing rape and domestic violence at a local level. Violence against Women in Kentucky is the first book to look at the history of domestic violence and rape in a state that consistently falls at the bottom of women's rights rankings, as told by the activists and survivors who fought for change. Detailing the successes and failures of reforms and outlining the work that is still to be done, this volume reflects on the future of women's rights legislation in Kentucky.
Economics and Law
The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which struck down a federal prohibition on independent corporate campaign expenditures, is one of the most controversial opinions in recent memory. Defenders of the First Amendment greeted the ruling with enthusiasm, while advocates of electoral reform recoiled in disbelief. Robert Post offers a new constitutional theory that seeks to reconcile these sharply divided camps. Post interprets constitutional conflict over campaign finance reform as an argument between those who believe self-government requires democratic participation in the formation of public opinion and those who believe that self-government requires a functioning system of representation. The former emphasize the value of free speech, while the latter emphasize the integrity of the electoral process. Each position has deep roots in American constitutional history. Post argues that both positions aim to nurture self-government, which in contemporary life can flourish only if elections are structured to create public confidence that elected officials are attentive to public opinion. Post spells out the many implications of this simple but profound insight. Critiquing the First Amendment reasoning of the Court in Citizens United, he also shows that the Court did not clearly grasp the constitutional dimensions of corporate speech. Blending history, constitutional law, and political theory, Citizens Divided explains how a Supreme Court case of far-reaching consequence might have been decided differently, in a manner that would have preserved both First Amendment rights and electoral integrity.
Entertainment & Sports Law
The horse racing crowd is comprised of colorful, passionate people: where else can you find a mixture of farmhands, jockeys, old money, and gamblers? And when you force such an unruly world of disparate and singular people into the structure and formality of the legal system, you get a fascinating array of events and decisions. In twenty-one chapters covering everything from drugs to syndicates to cloning, The Little Book of Horse-Racing Law thoroughly covers the intersection of law and racing.
Constitutions and the Commons looks at a critical but little examined issue of the degree to which the federal constitution of a nation contributes toward or limits the ability of the national government to manage its domestic natural resources. Furthermore it considers how far the constitution facilitates the binding of constituent states, provinces or subnational units to honor the conditions of international environmental treaties. While the main focus is on the US, there is also detailed coverage of other nations such as Australia, Brazil, India, and Russia. After introducing the role of constitutions in establishing the legal framework for environmental management in federal systems, the author presents a continuum of constitutionally driven natural resource management scenarios, from local to national, and then to global governance. These sections describe how subnational governance in federal systems may take on the characteristics of a commons - with all the attendant tragedies - in the absence of sufficient national constitutional authority. In turn, sufficient national constitutional authority over natural resources also allows these nations to more effectively engage in efforts to manage the global commons, as these nations would be unconstrained by subnational units of government during international negotiations. It is thus shown that national governments in federal systems are at the center of a constitutional 'nested governance commons,' with lower levels of government potentially acting as rational herders on the national commons and national governments potentially acting as rational herders on the global commons. National governments in federal systems are therefore crucial to establishing sustainable management of resources across scales. The book concludes by discussing how federal systems without sufficient national constitutional authority over resources may be strengthened by adopting the approach of federal constitutions that facilitate more robust national level inputs into natural resources management, facilitating national minimum standards as a form of "Fail-safe Federalism" that subnational governments may supplement with discretion to preserve important values of federalism.
One of the law's most important and far-reaching roles is to govern family life and family members. Family law decides who counts as kin, how family relationships are created and dissolved, and what legal rights and responsibilities come with marriage, parenthood, sibling ties, and other family bonds. Yet despite its significance, the field remains remarkably understudied and poorly understood both within and outside the legal community. Family Law Reimagined is the first book to evaluate the canonical narratives, examples, and ideas that legal decisionmakers repeatedly invoke to explain family law and its governing principles. These stories contend that family law is exclusively local, that it repudiates market principles, that it has eradicated the imprint of common law doctrines which subordinated married women, that it is dominated by contract rules permitting individuals to structure their relationships as they choose, and that it consistently prioritizes children's interests over parents' rights. In this book, Jill Elaine Hasday reveals how family law's canon misdescribes the reality of family law, misdirects attention away from the actual problems that family law confronts, and misshapes the policies that legal authorities pursue. She demonstrates how much of the "common sense" that decisionmakers expound about family law actually makes little sense. Family Law Reimagined uncovers and critiques the family law canon and outlines a path to reform. Challenging conventional answers and asking questions that judges and lawmakers routinely overlook, it calls on us to reimagine family law.
In this bold and timely work, law professor Jeffrey Shulman argues that the United States Constitution does not protect a fundamental right to parent. Based on a rigorous reconsideration of the historical record, Shulman challenges the notion, held by academics and the general public alike, that parental rights have a long-standing legal pedigree. What is deeply rooted in our legal tradition and social conscience, Shulman demonstrates, is the idea that the state entrusts parents with custody of the child, and it does so only as long as parents meet their fiduciary duty to serve the developmental needs of the child. nbsp; Shulman’s illuminating account of American legal history is of more than academic interest.nbsp; If once again we treat parenting as a delegated responsibility#151;as a sacred trust, not a sacred right#151;we will not all reach the same legal prescriptions, but we might be more willing to consider how time-honored principles of family law can effectively accommodate the evolving interests of parent, child, and state.
This book deals with the central question in statutory interpretation -- the role of the judge. It argues that it is both legitimate and desirable for the interpreter to take into account policy considerations when determining the meaning of a statute. The author calls this pragmatic judicial partnering. The pragmatic approach rejects two traditional views of the judicial role -- textualism and intentionalism -- which assume that the interpreter is nothing but a legislative agent.
Part I of the book makes the case for pragmatic judicial partnering. My claim is that pragmatic interpretation is constitutional, that it provides the best description of statutory interpretation, and that it is the best normative conception of how judges should interpret legislation. It also argues that judicial opinions should reveal the indeterminacy that is inherent in determining the meaning of legislation and the creative role that judges play in shaping that meaning. Part II is a critique of the leading advocates of the view that judge should be legislative agents -- Justice Scalia and Professor Manning (both textualists); Professor Elhauge (an intentionalist); and Professor Vermeule (an institutional literalist).
An Epilogue indentifies the fundamental issue as one of legal culture. It suggests that we may be entering a period where mistrust of judging leads to rejection of pragmatic judicial partnering in favor of the judge-as-legislative-agent.
An authoritative, deeply researched biography of the most controversial and outspoken Supreme Court justice of our time and how he chose to be "right" rather than influential. Antonin Scalia knew only success in the first fifty years of his life. His sterling academic and legal credentials led to his nomination by President Ronald Reagan to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in 1982. In four short years there, he successfully outmaneuvered the more senior Robert Bork to be appointed to the Supreme Court in 1986. Scalia's evident legal brilliance and personal magnetism led everyone to predict he would unite a new conservative majority under Chief Justice William Rehnquist and change American law in the process. Instead he became a Court of One. Rather than bringing the conservatives together, Scalia drove them apart. He attacked and alienated his more moderate colleagues Sandra Day O'Connor, then David Souter, and finally Anthony Kennedy. Scalia prevented the conservative majority from coalescing for nearly two decades. Scalia: A Court of One is the compelling story of one of the most polarizing figures ever to serve on the nation's highest court. It provides an insightful analysis of Scalia's role on a Court that, like him, has moved well to the political right, losing public support and ignoring public criticism. To the delight of his substantial conservative following, Scalia's "originalism" theory has become the litmus test for analyzing, if not always deciding, cases. But Bruce Allen Murphy shows that Scalia's judicial conservatism is informed as much by his highly traditional Catholicism, mixed with his political partisanship, as by his reading of the Constitution. Murphy also brilliantly analyzes Scalia's role in major court decisions since the mid-1980s and scrutinizes the ethical controversies that have dogged Scalia in recent years. A Court of One is a fascinating examination of one outspoken justice's decision not to play internal Court politics, leaving him frequently in dissent, but instead to play for history, seeking to etch his originalism philosophy into American law.
With the Supreme Court more influential than ever, this eye-opening book tells the story of how the Roberts Court is shaking the foundation of our nation’s laws From Citizens United to its momentous rulings regarding Obamacare and gay marriage, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has profoundly affected American life. Yet the court remains a mysterious institution, and the motivations of the nine men and women who serve for life are often obscure. Now, in Uncertain Justice, Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz show the surprising extent to which the Roberts Court is revising the meaning of our Constitution. This essential book arrives at a make-or-break moment for the nation and the court. Political gridlock, cultural change, and technological progress mean that the court’s decisions on key topics—including free speech, privacy, voting rights, and presidential power—could be uniquely durable. Acutely aware of their opportunity, the justices are rewriting critical aspects of constitutional law and redrawing the ground rules of American government. Tribe—one of the country’s leading constitutional lawyers—and Matz dig deeply into the court’s recent rulings, stepping beyond tired debates over judicial “activism” to draw out hidden meanings and silent battles. The undercurrents they reveal suggest a strikingly different vision for the future of our country, one that is sure to be hotly debated. Filled with original insights and compelling human stories, Uncertain Justice illuminates the most colorful story of all—how the Supreme Court and the Constitution frame the way we live.
Land Use Planning
This book (a) synthesizes and distills the research, anecdotal evidence, and key concepts on leadership techniques and success that help working women, in any field, develop in their careers; (b) tailors these principles for women practicing law, regardless of practice area, and creates practical actions that lawyers can implement in their lives and workplaces; and (c) puts the learning into practice by hearing from women who are leading in legal fields and by transforming themselves with a total leadership makeover. Learning to Lead provides a concise road map of the latest collective wisdom on leadership and applies those principles to women lawyers. It features interviews with 11 women legal leaders who share their lessons learned and tips for success. Women lawyers will read this book, take action, and chart their courses to leadership and success.
Written by a blogger for bloggers, The Legal Side of Blogging for Lawyers addresses the full scope of legal issues that accompany blogging, including intellectual property, criminal law, employment law, professional conduct, and much more. In this book, experienced attorney Ruth Carter explains your rights as a blogger, discusses real-life examples of what can go wrong, and offers advice about how to avoid the common legal pitfalls of blogging.
One of the most important work-life balance books in the history of the legal profession, this ground-breaking title is now a special 20th anniversary edition, featuring an all-new epilogue from the author. This eye-opening book examines
the mentality that tears down lawyers and offers ideas for bringing balance back into daily lives, society, and the law. You'll find answers to questions like: * What's happened to truth, justice and the American ideal? * What's gone wrong, why, and what can
be done about it? Explore the realities of undeniable professional dysfunctions, how they impact the American justice system and those who practice in it. By living the advice in this book you can lead a quiet, normal, happy life in spite of the world around
you. It's a must read for anyone who contemplates the law or being a lawyer, and is essential reading for those already in the field.
Available to the public for the first time, "The Solicitor General's Style Guide" consists of three manuals used by the United States Office of the Solicitor General in preparing briefs to be filed in the Supreme Court of the United States: Office of the Solicitor General Citation Manual, Office of the Solicitor General Supplement to the Supreme Court Rules, and Office of the Solicitor General Writing Preferences. Supreme Court Justice Scalia and legal writing guru Bryan Garner have extolled the Solicitor General's briefs as models for other lawyers to follow. Now the citation and style secrets behind those briefs are available to lawyers and fans of the Solicitor General and the Supreme Court. In "The Solicitor General's Style Guide" you will learn gems like: What term did Solicitor General Charles Fried consider a "barbarism," ordering its "total extirpation" from the Solicitor General's briefs? What punctuation does the Office consider "ugly"? How does the Solicitor General decide whether to form the possessive of a word ending in "s" by adding just an apostrophe or an apostrophe "s"? When does the Solicitor General use ibid. instead of id.' And much more "The Solicitor General's Style Guide "cannot help you write like the Solicitor General, but now you can cite like the Solicitor General Praise for The Solicitor General's Style Guide: "As U2 might say, Jack Metzler's version of the Solicitor General's Style Guide is even better than the real thing. It is, in essence, a Bluebook for Supreme Court practitioners, touching all things style and citation as they relate to briefs filed at the Court - tremendously useful for the lawyers who practice there." - Tom Goldstein, Supreme Court expert and publisher of SCOTUSblog. "No wonder the writing standards of the Solicitor General's office are held in such high regard The Solicitor General is the only Justice Department official required by statute to be "learned in the law." This style manual shows how seriously the holders of that office take that responsibility. Forget the Bluebook - the Solicitor General's common-sense rules of punctuation, citation, capitalization, and italicization are now public, and all lawyers need to pay heed." - Tony Mauro, Supreme Court correspondent of The National Law Journal, has covered the Supreme Court for 33 years.
From healthcare to workplace conduct, the federal government is taking on ever more responsibility for managing our lives. At the same time, Americans have never been more disaffected with Washington, seeing it as an intrusive, incompetent, wasteful giant. The most alarming consequence of ineffective policies, in addition to unrealized social goals, is the growing threat to the government's democratic legitimacy. Understanding why government fails so often--and how it might become more effective--is an urgent responsibility of citizenship. In this book, lawyer and political scientist Peter Schuck provides a wide range of examples and an enormous body of evidence to explain why so many domestic policies go awry--and how to right the foundering ship of state. Schuck argues that Washington's failures are due not to episodic problems or partisan bickering, but rather to deep structural flaws that undermine every administration, Democratic and Republican. These recurrent weaknesses include unrealistic goals, perverse incentives, poor and distorted information, systemic irrationality, rigidity and lack of credibility, a mediocre bureaucracy, powerful and inescapable markets, and the inherent limits of law. To counteract each of these problems, Schuck proposes numerous achievable reforms, from avoiding moral hazard in student loan, mortgage, and other subsidy programs, to empowering consumers of public services, simplifying programs and testing them for cost-effectiveness, and increasing the use of "big data." The book also examines successful policies--including the G.I. Bill, the Voting Rights Act, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and airline deregulation--to highlight the factors that made them work. An urgent call for reform, Why Government Fails So Often is essential reading for anyone curious about why government is in such disrepute and how it can do better.
Trusts & Estates
It was the largest one-time amount—$35 million—anyone had ever donated to benefit a university. The Robertsons were specific about the way the money was to be used. It was intended to help Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs focus on sending its graduates into those areas of the federal government concerned with international relations. “But the university,” the son says, “was ignoring my parents’ intentions.” Furthermore, Princeton’s administrators were “harming the country.” That’s not, as you might imagine, the way Princeton saw it—or sees it today.How much control over a gift does a donor have after the gift is given? How accountable is a non-profit recipient for the use of the gift?“Robertson v. Princeton may be the most important case higher education has faced over the question of honoring the wishes of the donor.” Wall Street Journal“Doug White’s careful and fair study of the seminal Robertson Foundation endowment litigation against Princeton University should be read by all donors and donees. As a former head of the New York State Law Department’s Charities Bureau, I know donors have to have both courage and resources to enforce their rights, especially against iconic donees. Fortunately, the Robertsons had both.” Bill Josephson, Former head of the Charities Bureau, New York State Attorney General’s officeThis book is based on extensive research and interviews with leading attorneys Victoria Bjorklund and Douglas Eakeley (Princeton) and Ron Malone and Seth Lapidow (Robertson family), experts for both sides, representatives of other major nonprofits, philanthropists, and high-profile public figures including George H.W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft, Chuck Robb, and Paul Volcker.
Reaching New Heights in Cross-Examination – Lisa Wayne
Exposing the "Eyewitness" Who is Really a Snitch – Pamela Mackey & David Kaplan
Cross-Examining Police Officers in Confession Cases – Deja Vishny
Cross of Experts – Andrea Lyon
Crossing Crime Scene Investigators – David Rudolf
Searching CODIS & AFIS Databases and Crossing Print Experts – Barry Scheck
Cross-Examining Kids – Colette Tvedt
DWI Cross-Examination – Abe Hutt
On the Edge of the Ethical Cliff: When Prosecutors Go Too Far – Virginia Grady and Evan Jenness
Revealing True Character Through Cross – Keith Belzer
Towering Above: Impeachment – Hugo Rodriguez