Caperton\u27s Next Generation: Beyond the Bank (original) (raw)
Related papers
2012
This is the Law Professors’ Brief on Behalf of Respondents in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, by James R. May and Stuart Banner. American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut (“AEP”), is an important decision in the field of environmental law. It stands astride several junctures: public and private law; environmental, constitutional, and international law; injunctive and legal relief; state and federal action; and judicially, legislatively, and administratively fashioned responses. With its cornucopian issues extraordinaire — separation of powers, federalism, standing, displacement, political question, tort, and prudence — it has something for nearly all legal tastes, temperaments, and talents. AEP will continue to have profound and uncertain impacts on GHG related litigation and regulation, especially concerning jurisprudential notions of displacement, constitutional and prudential standing, the political question doctrine, and the role of common and statutory law. The brief argues that the Court has never held, or even suggested, that constitutional doctrine forecloses judicial review of common law claims like the one in this case. And even if the political question doctrine limited judicial consideration of common law claims, we conclude that the public nuisance claims in AEP are not non-justiciable political questions.
Page 1. WASHINGTON AND LEE LAW REVIEW THE LEWIS F. POWELL, JR. DISTINGUISHED LECTURE From Plyer v. Doe to Trayvon Martin: Toward Closing the Open Society Lyle Denniston ARTICLES Contingent Capital in Executive Compensation Wulf A. Kaal Illuminating Innovation: From Patent Racing to Patent War Lea Shaver The Law School Critique in Historical Perspective A. Benjamin Spencer NOTES The Power of a Suggestion: The Use of Forum Selection Clauses by Delaware Corporations Thomas T.
Caperton, Due Process, and Judicial Duty: Recusal Oversight in Patrons’ Cases
2011
In celebration of the life of Judge William E. Enfield, this article discusses the necessity of granting all litigants the right to fair trials with impartial judges. Judges should recuse themselves from cases that involve conflicts of interest, which may result in partiality from the bench. However, judges do not always opt for recusal, even when their impartiality is in question. In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), the Court evaluated West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin’s decision not to disqualify himself from a case involving a litigant who made large contributions to his election campaign. The Court’s ruling requires federal oversight over state judges who refuse to recuse themselves from cases involving patron litigants. Although the majority opinion in Caperton has drawn notable criticism from Professor Ronald Rotunda, there are at least two good reasons to support the Court’s majority. First, for most judges, Caperton does little to incre...
2004
King (March 31, 2004). King complimented his wife for typing the manuscript. Chancellor Murray praised King for all of his hard work in getting the first volume completed. Both said that King was not appointed Editor-in-Chief to begin with but ended up with the designation. Vol. 42 Volumes 1-40: A History view has always been aimed more to the practitioner with its emphasis on state law. Third, although I have emphasized articles in the Law Review, there are many more comments and recent decisions or case notes published in almost every issue. These comments and recent decisions are usually practitioner oriented and keep people up to date on legal developments. Fourth, the various dedications and tributes to deans and faculty of the Law School provide information on how the school itself has developed and grown over the years and the contributions made by its professors. This information has been included in the paper as well. The first year's issue was an annual issue. The first pages contained a short paragraph dedication (along with a picture) to Prof. William H. Lacey who had taught 52 years at the school since its inception. 4 The first issue of the Review had five articles, two of which written by prominent law professors, Walter Jaeger and Fleming James, Jr. 6 The articles were: Privity of Warranty: Has the Tocsin Sounded?, 7 Remedies for Excessiveness or Inadequacy of Verdicts: New Trials on Some or All Issues, Remittur and Additur, Appellate Review in England and the United States-Who Bears the Ultimate Burden?, 9 The "Travel Act": A New Statutory Approach to Organized Crime in the United States," and The Self Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act of 1962.1" One comment and six recent decisions followed, ending with a book review of the Walter Jaeger's third edition of Samuel Williston's A Treatise on 4. 1 DUQ. L. REV. ii (1963); Volume 4 (1965-66) dedicated its volume to Lacy upon his death. 4 DUQ. L. REV. xxv (1965-66). 5. Prof. Jaeger was Professor of Law and formerly Director of Graduate Research, Georgetown University Law Center. At the time, he was the author of the third edition of the multivolume edition of Williston on Contracts (3d ed. 1957). Both Murray and King remember that at the time it was submitted, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that resulted in major changes to the article after it had been typeset and had to be revised throughout as a result of the decision. A law review editor's nightmare....
Law and History Review, 2010
There is an interesting section on the transition to the job-the heavy learning curve, the problems of getting an office running, and the remarkable variety of cases federal judges confront. The chapter on the nature of the job holds few surprises. Most judges like the job with its broad range of subjects and conflicts, although there are complaints about the isolation. It is, though, disturbing to see such distinguished judges and ex-judges as Abner Mikva, Robert Bork, and James Buckley agreeing, at least on their notable Court of Appeals (D.C. Cir.), that after the conference on a case, the judge will go back and likely never speak again in person with his colleagues about it. When coupled with the "revelation" in another chapter that the law clerks are chiefly responsible for opinions (183), one cannot help wondering what creative, thoughtful, and analytical work federal judges are actually doing. A chapter partially named "Getting Along with Others" encompasses Alfred Goodwin's (9th Cir.) discussion of political trials. There is an interesting, though troubling, discussion of past tensions on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and two pages allotted to Andrew Hauk's (C.D. Cal.) oral history demonstrating his "outrageous rudeness." Finally, Joyce Hens Green sums up what makes a good judge: "A judge has to have courage and express the way it is in her opinions, whether oral or written, not just to ride with the waves of the time, economically, politically, emotionally" (212). Both specialists and nonspecialists will learn from Domnarski's book. Nonspecialists will receive a painless introduction to the lives of federal judges and the conditions under which they work. The scholar will pick up a variety of interesting tidbits with a reminder of what a valuable resource for research on the courts oral histories can be.
Natural law in American jurisprudence: Calder vs. Bull and Corfield v. Coryell and their progeny
2017
This work is dedicated to the memory of my father, Donald Mock (1936-2009), who would be more excited than I am that his son got a Ph.D. I want to thank my advisor Professor Judith Swanson of the Boston University Political Science Department. She skillfully guided me through this process, and her comments on my drafts were always insightful. My thoughts were much more precisely and clearly stated because of her feedback. I definitely made the right choice in selecting her. Professor James Fleming of the Boston University School of Law made tremendous improvements in my work. I benefited from his deep learning in the fields of natural and constitutional law and he shaped much of this project. Dr. David Glick of the Boston University Political Science Department introduced several important perspectives that hadn't occurred to me. I would also like to thank Professor Shep Melnick from Boston College and Professor Patrick McGhee from the University of Bolton (UK) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Professor McGhee was a big help to me on the day of my oral defense. Over a lengthy academic career as a postgraduate student, there have been several scholars who have shaped and inspired me and improved my analytical abilities.
Making Sense of Juristic Reasons: Unjust Enrichment after Garland v. Consumers' Gas"(2004)
Alta. L. Rev.
This article considers the effect of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada In Garland v. Consumers' Gas. The author suggests that Iacobucci J. 's judgment replaces the traditional common law approach, which relies on the presence of unjust factors, with a unique version of the traditional civil law approach, which relies on the absence of juristic reasons. That decision is criticized as being contrary to precedent and principle. The author then suggests how, with slight modifications. the new test of restitullonary liability may be made more workable a11d coherent. Cet article examine /es effets de la recente decision de la Cour supreme du Canada dans /'a.flaire Garl1111d c. Consumers' Gas. l 'a11te11r lalsse entendre que le jugement de Jacobucci J. ,emplace la demarche traditionnelle de droit commun reposant sur la presence defacteurs inj11s1es par une version unique de la demarche tradlllonnel/e de droll commun reposant sur I "absence de raisons judlciel/es. la decision a fail /'objet de critiques comme etant contra ire aux precedents et principes. L 'auteur laisse ensuile entendre de quel/e maniere, grdce a de legeres modifications, le nouveau test de la responsabiltte par restitution peut s 'averer plus raisonnable et plus coherent.