State Pleading Rule Defeats Federal Right: Courts. State Courts. State Court Trying FELA Suit Cannot Defeat Federal Right by Applying Local Rule of Pleading

1950 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 594 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
State Courts ◽  
State Court ◽  
Local Rule

An Update to the Squire State Court of Last Resort Professionalization Index

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Peverill Squire ◽  
Jordan Butcher
Keyword(s):  
Relative Stability ◽  
State Courts ◽  
State Court ◽  
Reform Movements ◽  
Current Version ◽  
The Future ◽  
Relative Standing

Abstract The current version of the Squire state court of last resort professionalization index is regularly used in studies of state courts. We have updated the index for 2019, producing a second and more recent index. Given the relative stability between this index and its predecessor, it is unlikely that many findings will change. During the 15 years that lapsed between the first index and the more recent one, little changed in most states, while reforms in a few places substantially shifted the relative standing of their court of last resort. It seems unlikely that the nation will experience any sweeping reform movements impacting state courts of last resort across the board. The more likely scenario is the sort of idiosyncratic changes impacting a few courts that were witnessed over the last decade and a half. Thus, looking to the future, it may be prudent to update the index every 5–10 years to capture any notable alterations.

An Experimental Investigation of How Judicial Elections Affect Public Faith in the Judicial System

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (01) ◽  
pp. 37-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony J. Nownes ◽  
Colin Glennon
Keyword(s):  
Selection Method ◽  
Public Perceptions ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
State Courts ◽  
State Court ◽  
Selection Methods ◽  
Institutional Legitimacy ◽  
Judicial Elections ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
The Impact

Judicial scholars have often speculated about the impact of elections on the administration of justice in the state courts. Yet relatively little research has concerned itself with public perceptions of state court selection methods. Of particular interest is the concept of legitimacy. Do elections negatively affect public perceptions of judicial legitimacy? Bonneau and Hall (2009) and Gibson (2012) answer this question with an emphatic “No.” Judicial elections, these studies show, are not uniquely troublesome for perceptions of institutional legitimacy. This article aims to extend the findings of Bonneau and Hall and Gibson via a laboratory experiment on the effects of elections on public perceptions of judicial legitimacy. In the end, we find that because elections preempt the use of the other main selection method—appointment—they actually enhance perceptions of judicial legitimacy rather than diminish them.

Gender Equality and Sentencing Outcomes: An Examination of State Courts

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 673-695
Author(s):  
Jeffrey S. Nowacki
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Gender Equality ◽  
State Courts ◽  
State Court ◽  
Multilevel Logistic Regression ◽  
County Level ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Court Processing ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Sentencing Outcomes

The current study examined whether measures of structural gender equality conditioned the effects of defendant gender on incarceration decisions. Using data from the State Court Processing Statistics (SCPS) database, multilevel logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between both case- and county-level variables on incarceration decisions on a sample of defendants sentenced in state courts. Results indicated that women were less likely to be sentenced to prison than men, but there was no gender difference for jail and noncustodial sentences; however, the structural gender equality measures exerted only slight influences over sentencing outcomes.

scholarly journals State Criminal Appeals Revealed

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Heise ◽  
Nancy J. King ◽  
Nicole A. Heise
Keyword(s):  
State Courts ◽  
State Court ◽  
Publicly Funded ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Legal Representation ◽  
Justice Statistics ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
High Courts ◽  
Crime Types ◽  
Better Than

70 Vanderbilt Law Review 1939 (2017)Every state provides appellate review of criminal judgments, yet little research examines which factors correlate with favorable outcomes for defendants who seek appellate relief. To address this scholarly gap, this paper exploits the Survey of Criminal Appeals in State Courts (2010) dataset, recently released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for State Courts (hereinafter, “NCSC Study”). The NCSC Study is the first and only publicly available national dataset on state criminal appeals and includes unprecedented information from every state court in the nation with jurisdiction to review criminal judgments. We focus on two subpools of state criminal appeals: a defendant’s first appeal of right, and defense appeals to courts of last resort with the discretion to grant or deny review. Error correction, of course, is paramount in the first context, for typically an appeal of right is a defendant’s only chance at review. By contrast, courts of last resort with discretionary jurisdiction emphasize law development, selecting cases to clarify or alter legal rules, resolve conflicts, and remedy the most egregious mistakes. Our findings imply that defense appellate success rates may have declined in recent decades. In appeals of right, defendants who challenge a sentence enjoy a greater likelihood of success, as do those who have legal representation, file a reply brief or secure oral argument, and appellants from Florida. In high courts of last resort, appeals from sex offenses, raising certain trial issues, and appellants represented by publicly funded attorneys appear to fare better than others. Also notable is the absence of a relationship between defense success and factors including most crime types and claims raised, the court’s workload, and, for all but one model, whether the appellate judges were selected by election.

The Proportionality Principle and the Kable Doctrine: A New Test of Constitutional Invalidity?

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-193
Author(s):  
Roshan Chaile
Keyword(s):  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
State Level ◽  
State Legislature ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
State Courts ◽  
State Court ◽  
Institutional Integrity ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
High Court Of Australia ◽  
State Legislative

In Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) the High Court of Australia declared that the requirements of Chapter III of the Australian Constitution prohibited a State legislature from conferring powers on a State court that were repugnant or incompatible with their status as repositories of federal judicial power. This was a significant constitutional watershed; it had never previously been suggested that the protections contained in Chapter III applied to State courts. Recent applications of Kable, however, have given rise to concerns that the principles to be derived from that case are unclear. This is a serious deficiency given that State legislatures, not bound by a separation of powers doctrine at a State level, may choose to confer important decision-making functions on non-judicial bodies. This article explores whether a bipartite inquiry, such as that employed in the rights jurisprudence in both England and Strasbourg, may clarify the meaning and scope of the principle enunciated in Kable. It commences by formulating a mode of inquiry which is intended to assist courts in determining whether a legislative act impairs the institutional integrity of a State court. It then argues that the principle of proportionality should be employed to determine whether a prima facie impairment may nonetheless be excusable. Such a conclusion would be reached where it can established that the legislative act is necessary in a democratic society, in the sense that it addresses a pressing social need. The introduction of this limited ground of justification promotes greater clarity and ensures that an appropriate balance is maintained between State legislative autonomy and the institutional integrity of State courts.

A Self-Executing Amendment

2020 ◽  
pp. 69-88
Author(s):  
Paula A. Monopoli
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
The Self ◽  
State Courts ◽  
State Court ◽  
Constitutional Interpretation ◽  
State Law ◽  
State Laws ◽  
Nineteenth Amendment ◽  
Actual Impact ◽  
Constitutional Construction

Chapter 4 examines the state cases that were brought, after ratification, around the validity of voter petitions and elections in which women voted and around preconditions to voting, like poll taxes. Those cases gave state courts a forum to discuss the self-executing nature of the Nineteenth Amendment, in terms of its impact on existing state law. The general conclusion was that the Nineteenth Amendment was self-executing as to voting itself. But state differences in statutory and constitutional construction yielded mixed results, in terms of its actual impact on state laws around voter eligibility, including the requirement that women pay poll taxes. These cases demonstrate the broad discretion in state court judges regarding what was encompassed within “voting” as a matter of constitutional interpretation and statutory construction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document