scholarly journals Deference to Federal Circuit Court Interpretations of Unsettled State Law: Factors, Etc., Inc. v. Pro Arts, Inc.

1982 ◽  
Vol 1982 (4) ◽  
pp. 704
Author(s):  
Craig A. Hoover
Keyword(s):  
State Law ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Federal Circuit

The Intergroup Foundations of Policy Influence

2018 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 729-742 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachael K. Hinkle ◽  
Michael J. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Search And Seizure ◽  
Preference Aggregation ◽  
Policy Influence ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Professional Characteristics ◽  
Original Dataset ◽  
Federal Circuit ◽  
Group Memberships ◽  
Circuit Courts ◽  
Ingroup Favoritism

Most decisions about policy adoption require preference aggregation, which makes it difficult to determine how and when an individual can influence policy change. Examining how frequently a judge is cited offers insight into this question. Drawing upon the psychological concept of social identity, we suggest that shared group memberships can account for differences in policy influence. We investigate this possibility using the demographic and professional group memberships of federal circuit court judges and an original dataset of citations among all published search and seizure cases from federal circuit courts from 1990 to 2010. The results indicate that shared professional characteristics do tend to lead to ingroup favoritism in citation decisions while only partial evidence of such a pattern emerges for demographic group memberships. There is evidence of ingroup favoritism among female and minority judges but none for male or white judges. Overall, judges appear to generally have greater influence on judges with shared characteristics. The findings have vital implications for our understanding of the diversification of policy-making institutions.

Public Mood, Previous Electoral Experience, and Responsiveness Among Federal Circuit Court Judges

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 1003-1031 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan J. Owens ◽  
Patrick C. Wohlfarth
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Political Experience ◽  
Democratic Control ◽  
Federal Circuit ◽  
Federal Judges

Whether public opinion influences federal judges is a question that has long motivated—but often eluded—scholars. In this article, we examine two related questions: First, whether federal circuit court judges respond to circuit-level public opinion and, second, whether judges with extensive past elected political experience are even more responsive. The data show that circuit judges indeed respond to public opinion. The results also suggest that judges with greater past elected political experience may be more responsive. The results have implications for democratic control of the unelected judiciary, and suggest that appointing judges with electoral experience could, for better or worse, lead to a more majoritarian judiciary.

scholarly journals “When I Can Read My Title Clear”: Harriet Beecher Stowe and the Stowe v. Thomas Copyright Infringement Case

Prospects ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 201-245
Author(s):  
Melissa J. Homestead
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Harriet Beecher Stowe ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
German Translation ◽  
Uncle Tom's Cabin ◽  
Fugitive Slave Law ◽  
Fugitive Slave ◽  
Federal Circuit

In 1853, Harriet Beecher Stowe filed a copyright suit against F. W. Thomas, a Philadelphia printer who had published an unauthorized German translation of Uncle Tom's Cabin in his newspaper, Die Freie Presse. Stowe brought suit in the federal circuit court in Philadelphia, thus ironically placing her claim in the hands of Justice Robert Grier, a notable enforcer of slaver-owners' interests under the Fugitive Slave Law. Grier found that Stowe's property rights in her novelistic plea for resistance to the Fugitive Slave Law were very narrow and that she could not prevent Thomas from publishing a translation without her authorization. In the conclusion to the court's opinion, Grier wrote,

Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk

1988 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 816-820
Author(s):  
Carlos M. Vázquez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cook County ◽  
Appellate Court ◽  
State Law ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The U.S

In this first decision by the United States Supreme Court on the scope and application of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, better known as the Hague Service Convention, petitioner, a West German company, challenged the respondent’s attempt to serve process on petitioner by serving its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary in accordance with the state’s rules rather than pursuant to the procedures of the Convention. The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, found that the relationship between the German parent and the U.S. subsidiary was such that, under state-law rules of agency, the U.S. subsidiary was the parent’s involuntary agent for service of process. Because service could thus be perfected entirely within the United States, the court held that it was not necessary to follow the procedures of the Hague Service Convention. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed, and the Illinois Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court (per O’Connor, J.) affirmed and held: (1) the Hague Service Convention is “mandatory” and preempts inconsistent state-law methods of service in all cases to which it applies; (2) the Convention applies where there is occasion to transmit a document abroad to charge persons with formal notice of a pending action; and (3) whether it is necessary to transmit a document abroad for such purposes is determined by the forum state’s internal law.

Biosimilars and federal preemption in the USA

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 138-144
Author(s):  
Jeffrey R Bousquet
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
Price Competition ◽  
Exchange Process ◽  
State Law ◽  
License Application ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Manufacturing Information ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Federal Circuit

Summary This article reports on the recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) in Amgen v. Sandoz on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a biosimilar applicant cannot be compelled under federal law to provide a copy of its abbreviated biologics license application (“aBLA”) and manufacturing information to the reference product sponsor (“RPS”) as required by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”). The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Federal Circuit to determine whether there was any remedy under California state law available to Amgen, and if so, whether such remedy is preempted by the BPCIA. The Federal Circuit held that the BPCIA preempts state law remedies for a biosimilar applicant’s failure to comply with the BPCIA. This article also briefly discusses three other recent cases involving situations where the biosimilar applicant initiates the BPCIA information exchange process but provides only partial or no manufacturing information to the RPS or fails to complete the process by opting out at some later stage of the process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document