A Call for an Overhaul of the U.S. Federal Court System

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huhnkie Lee
Keyword(s):  
Federal Court ◽  
Court System ◽  
The U.S

scholarly journals (Un)Changing Rates of Pro Se Litigation in Federal Court

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 567-589
Author(s):  
Mark D. Gough ◽  
Emily S. Taylor Poppe
Keyword(s):  
Federal District ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Court System ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Substantial Variation ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Dramatic Rise ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Federal District Courts ◽  
The U.S

There is widespread concern among scholars, court actors, and policy makers that the number of pro se litigants is increasing. However, we have little empirical evidence of the scope of pro se litigation, especially in the federal court system. Using data from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on all civil case filings since 1999, we investigate the prevalence and rate of pro se litigation in federal district courts. We find no evidence of a dramatic rise in pro se litigation, but we document substantial variation in rates of pro se litigation by type of case and circuit of filing. The results have implications for our understanding of self-representation and for the development of policies addressing access to civil justice.

scholarly journals The Forensic Engineer in State and Federal Court

2014 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard M. Ziernicki
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court System ◽  
Civil Lawsuits ◽  
Forensic Engineering ◽  
And Function

This paper outlines the legal system in the United States, the different types of courts, the differences between criminal and civil law, and the role of forensic engineering experts involved in civil lawsuits. After providing a summary of relevant procedures employed by civil and criminal courts, the paper describes the basic principles and requirements for the selection and work of a forensic engineering expert in both the state and federal court system. This paper outlines the role and function of forensic experts (specifically forensic engineers), in the United States court system. It is not a treatise on the legal system but on the role of experts. The paper presents the requirements typically used in today’s legal system to qualify a forensic engineer as an expert witness and to accept his or her work and opinions. Furthermore, this paper discusses who can be an expert witness, the expert’s report, applicable standards, conducted research, engineering opinions, and final testimony in court — and how those elements fit into the legal system. Lastly, the paper describes the concept of spoliation of evidence.

scholarly journals In the Beginning There Was None: Supreme Court Review of State Criminal Prosecutions

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin C. Walsh
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Structural Relationship ◽  
State Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Court System ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction ◽  
In The Beginning

This Article challenges the unquestioned assumption of all contemporary scholars of federal jurisdiction that section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized Supreme Court appellate review of state criminal prosecutions. Section 25 has long been thought to be one of the most important provisions of the most important jurisdictional statute enacted by Congress. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave concrete institutional shape to a federal judiciary only incompletely defined by Article III. And section 25 supplied a key piece of the structural relationship between the previously existing state court systems and the new federal court system that Congress constructed with the Act. It provided for Supreme Court appellate review of certain state court decisions denying the federal-law-based rights of certain litigants.

Court Rulings in Estate Tax Cases: Is Gender a Factor?

2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Jackson ◽  
Sonja Pippin ◽  
Jeffrey A. Wong
Keyword(s):  
Court System ◽  
Asset Valuation ◽  
Estate Tax ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT The U.S. court system plays an important role in resolving asset valuation disagreements between taxpayers and the taxing authority. A recent study examining the relation between court valuations of estates and case/judge attributes finds evidence suggesting that the number of appraisers used by the taxpayer, the type of asset being valued, and the age and complexity of the case are related to the decisions of the court. We extend this study by testing for the effect of judges' gender. We find evidence that male judges tend to favor the taxpayer in valuation disputes.

Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Donald W. Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Court Records ◽  
History Of ◽  
First Time ◽  
The U.S

This introduction reframes the history of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Hague v. CIO (1939) that guaranteed speech and assembly rights in public municipal forums under federal law for the first time. It lifts the story out of standard treatment as a product of police repression of labor organizers by city boss Frank Hague, exploring instead the case’s broader roots in multiple changes in city governance, policing, the labor movement, civil liberties law, and anticommunism and antifascism politics of the late New Deal era. It urges examination of all sides of the controversy, winners and losers, scrutinizing evidence beyond antiboss sources, including varied newspapers, municipal reports, trial transcripts, labor archives, and federal court records. It views the case as part of a constitutional watershed.

From The Hague to Arusha to Kansas Federal Court

2020 ◽  
pp. 171-177
Author(s):  
Paul J. Magnarella
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Wrongful Conviction ◽  
Court Records ◽  
Trial Transcript ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Constitutional Protections ◽  
The U.S

Paul Magnarella describes his legal work with the UN Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and his travel to Arusha, Tanzania, to work with the UN Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. He describes meeting the O’Neals and agreeing to become Pete O’Neal’s attorney. After examining Pete’s court records and trial transcript, Magnarella concludes that the presiding judge, Arthur J. Stanley, made a number of crucial errors that resulted in Pete’s wrongful conviction. Magnarella examines Judge Stanley’s previous famous case involving George John Gessner, a private first-class nuclear weapons specialist. Judge Stanley’s court found Gessner guilty of communicating restrictive data to a foreign nation. Federal appellate judges overturned the conviction, ruling that the U.S. military had coerced Gessner’s confession and the Stanley court had suspended Gessner’s constitutional protections to satisfy the needs of government.

Court on Camera: Television Coverage of Australian Legal Proceedings

2001 ◽  
Vol 100 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-127
Author(s):  
Jane Johnston
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Court System ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
The Past ◽  
Legal Perspective ◽  
International Environment ◽  
The Media ◽  
Television Coverage

Despite widespread legal analysis and critical review over the past 20 years, television access into the Australian court system has been slow and piecemeal, with Australia falling behind Canadian and New Zealand initiatives in this area. A recent major report into camera access in the Federal Court has refocused attention on this area, but analysis continues to be primarily from a legal perspective rather than a media one. This paper considers the televised court coverage in Australia to this point, analyses change in the international environment and suggests possible futures for the televising of Australian courts, while also attempting to lay some foundations for discussion beyond the legal, and into the media, domain.

Antitrust Standing after Apple v. Pepper: Application to the Sports Betting Data Market

2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 584-593
Author(s):  
Ryan M. Rodenberg
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Sports Betting ◽  
Sherman Act ◽  
Legal Standing ◽  
Data Market ◽  
Rule Set ◽  
The U.S

In Apple v. Pepper, the U.S. Supreme Court expressed a largely permissive view about whether certain potential plaintiffs have legal standing to pursue antitrust lawsuits in federal court. The Apple v. Pepper ruling provided important clarity about the scope of the so-called indirect purchaser rule set forth forty-plus years earlier in Illinois Brick. This paper first summarizes the key takeaways from the Apple v. Pepper decision released on May 13, 2019, positioning the ruling vis-à-vis other standing-related cases that have sometimes closed the courtroom doors to plaintiffs alleging anticompetitive conduct under the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. This paper then applies the lessons from Apple v. Pepper to sports betting data, an emerging tech-focused market. This paper concludes by outlining how—and why—this market will likely be subject to antitrust scrutiny soon.

Culpability Standards in Section 1983 Litigation Against Criminal Justice Officials: When and Why Mental State Matters

2001 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
John L. Worrall
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Mental State ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
State Law ◽  
The U.S

Title 42, Section 1983 of the U.S. Code provides a remedy in federal court for individuals who suffer constitutional rights violations at the hands of criminal justice officials. To succeed in a Section 1983 lawsuit, a plaintiff must demonstrate a constitutional violation by an official acting under color of state law. Recently, however, courts have begun to require that constitutional rights violations be committed with a certain level of culpability for a finding of liability, a development that has received little attention in the criminal justice literature. Accordingly, this article seeks to (1) sort out the important culpability issues associated with Section 1983 litigation, with particular reference to theories of liability, and (2) discuss the relevance of this inquiry for both academics and practitioners, calling attention to the problems the current multitude of culpability standards pose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document