DOCSLIB.ORG

Examining the Power of Federal Courts to Certify Questions of State Law Jonathan Remy Nash

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Examining the Power of Federal Courts to Certify Questions of State Law Jonathan Remy Nash Cornell Law Review Volume 88 Article 2 Issue 6 September 2003 Examining the Power of Federal Courts to Certify Questions of State Law Jonathan Remy Nash Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jonathan Remy Nash, Examining the Power of Federal Courts to Certify Questions of State Law, 88 Cornell L. Rev. 1672 (2003) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol88/iss6/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EXAMINING THE POWER OF FEDERAL COURTS TO CERTIFY QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW Jonathan Remy Nash t Attracted by the perception that certification accords with norms offeder- alism and comity, federal courts have applied certification without serious examination of its jurisdictional validity. Close examination of certifica- tion's jurisdictionalunderpinnings reveals that they are contradictory and flawed. When a federal court certifies questions of law to a state court, the proceduralposture is either that of the ftderal court temporarily relinquishing jurisdiction over the case to the state high court-the "unitaryconception" of certification; or that of the federal court abstainingpending resolution of an independent, streamlined case by the state high court-the "binary concep- tion" of certfication. The unitary conception is problematic because it may require state courts to exercise the federal judicial power improperly. The binary conception is problematic because it is inconsistent with current Su- preme Court precedent. Moreover, although this precedential inconsistency can be mitigated, the binary conception of certification remains inconsistent with the fundamental purpose offederal diversity jurisdiction. INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1673 I. THE ROLE OF CERTIFICATION IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM .... 1678 A. Federalism and the Judiciary ........................ 1678 B. Evolution of Pullman Abstention and Certification .. 1681 1. History of Pullman Abstention .................... 1681 2. History of Certification ............................ 1686 C. Overview of the Certification Procedure ............ 1690 D. Costs and Benefits of Certification .................. 1696 II. THE UNITARY AND BINARY CONCEPTIONS ................. 1701 A. Contours of the Binary Conception ................. 1701 B. Contours of the Unitary Conception ................ 1703 t Associate Professor of Law, Tulane Law School. B.A., Columbia University; J.D., New York University School of Law; LL.M., Harvard Law School. I owe great thanks to Michael Collins for extensive suggestions, comments, and support. I am indebted to Jack Goldsmith, David Shapiro, Edward Sherman, and Adrian Vermeule for valuable comments on prior drafts. I am also grateful to Jeanne Louise Carriere, Eric Claeys, David Currie, Samuel Estreicher, the Honorable Nina Gershon, Ryan Goodman, Clifford Goodstein, Ray- mondJasen, Daryl Levinson, Daniel Meltzer, and Ann Woolhandler for helpful conversa- tions; to Dean Richard Revesz and the administration and staff at New York University School of Law for graciously hosting me for part of the time that I worked on this Article; and to the staffs of the University of Chicago and Tulane Law Libraries for research support. 1672 2003] FEDERAL COURT POWER TO CERTIFY 1673 C. Amenability of Certification to the Binary and Unitary Conceptions ................................ 1711 1. ProceduralAspects ................................ 1712 a. Unitary Conception ........................... 1712 b. Binary Conception ............................ 1712 2. Perspective of the Certifying Court .................. 1713 a. Unitary Conception ........................... 1713 b. Binary Conception ............................ 1715 3. Perspective of the Court Accepting Certification....... 1717 a. Unitary Conception ........................... 1717 b. Binary Conception ............................ 1717 4. Summary of the Three Factors...................... 1718 D. The Limited Reconcilability of the Binary and Unitary Conceptions ................................ 1718 III. EXAMINATION OF THE FEDERAL JURISDICTIONAL UNDERPINNINGS OF CERTIFICATION ....................... 1721 A. Does Certification Violate Article III of the U.S. Constitution? ....................................... 1721 1. Threshold Questions .............................. 1723 2. State Court Jurisdiction in Certification Cases ....... 1725 B. Is Certification Inconsistent with the Grant of Federal Diversity Jurisdiction? ....................... 1729 1. Attempting to Harmonize Meredith and Certification Under a Unitary Conception ....................... 1733 2. Attempting to Harmonize Meredith and Certification Under a Binary Conception ........................ 1734 a. Ramifications of the Binary Conception for CertificationJurisprudence ..................... 1738 b. Inconsistency Between the Binary Conception of Certification and the Fundamental Purpose of the Federal Diversity Jurisdiction................... 1740 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 1748 INTRODUCTION A federal court is frequently called upon to determine matters of state law. In such situations, the federal court must divine how the state's high court would decide the state law question at issue.' On their own, federal courts can at best make only educated guesses as to how a state high court would decide an issue of state law.2 Thus, fed- I See infra text accompanying notes 15-17. 2 For a discussion of the difficulties federal judges face in undertaking such inquir- ies, see Dolores K Sloviter, A Federal Judge Views Diversity Jurisdiction Through the Lens of Federalism, 78 VA. L. REV. 1671, 1675-77 (1992). 1674 CORNELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 88:1672 eral courts have often ruled on issues of state law only to be "cor- rected" subsequently by state high courts." Most state high courts now offer federal courts faced with ques- tions of state law, as well as similarly situated state courts, the opportu- nity to "certify" those questions to the state high court. The state high court returns to the certifying court answers to the certified questions. With the issues of state law resolved, the certifying federal court pre- sumably is then able to render judgment in the case in accordance with properly interpreted state law. Certification advances the interests of the states and their courts, as well as the interests of the federal courts.4 States are assured that state law will be applied uniformly and in accordance with the inter- pretations given by each state's high court. State courts enjoy the ben- efit of having the final say on matters of state law. 5 Federal courts are able to avoid the awkward, tenuous, and difficult chore of attempting to determine how a state high court would rule on a matter of state law.6 Indeed, from the viewpoint of federalism, certification's salutary effects are clear.7 For this reason, certification has become increas- ingly popular since its inception half a century ago.8 -1 Compare, e.g., Md. Cas. Co. v. Armco, Inc., 822 F.2d 1348 (4th Cir. 1987) (predicting that, tinder Maryland law, costs incurred by cleaning up a site contaminated with hazard- ous wastes to comply with governing environmental law were not "damages" under the language of a standard comprehensive general liability insurance policy), and Cont'l Ins. Cos. v. Northeastern Pharm. & Chem. Co., 842 F.2d 977, 985-87 (8th Cir. 1988) (en banc) [hereinafter NEPACCO], with Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 625 A.2d 1021 (Md. 1993) (holding that environmental cleanup costs did not constitute "damages," and finding that the Fourth Circuit misperceived Maryland law in stating that "'the term "dam- ages" imports a distinctively legal meaning in insurance matters"' (quoting Armco, 822 F.2d at 1352)), and Farmland Indus., Inc. v. Republic Ins. Co., 941 S.W.2d 505, 510 (Mo. 1997) (finding that the Eighth Circuit had misperceived Missouri law in NEPACCO, and holding instead that environmental cleanup costs were "damages"). Such correction will likely do little for the parties to the earlier federal proceeding once it becomes final. See, e.g., DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 38 F.3d 1266, 1272-75 (2d Cir. 1994) (holding that relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure from a previously entered judgment, which was based upon a federal court's prediction of state law, was not available even though an intervening decision by the state high court explicitly rejected the federal court's prediction of state law). 4 See infra notes 89-95 and accompanying text. 5 See infra notes 89-90 and accompanying text. 6 See infra note 91 and accompanying text. 7 See infra notes 89-95 and accompanying text. 8 Florida enacted the first statute that contemplated certification of questions to its supreme court in 1945. 17A CHARLES ALAN WRIcrr ET AL., FEDERAL PRAcrIcE AND PROCE- DURE § 4248, at 160 (2d ed. 1988). The device was not used, however, until 1960. See id. Today, most states, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, provide (whether through statute or court rule) authority for certification to their highest courts of questions of state law by federal courts. See id. § 4248, at 167 n.3; infra note 71 and accompanying text.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • New York State Constitution As Revised, Including Amendments Effective January 1, 2018
    New York State Constitution As revised, including amendments effective January 1, 2018 KATHY HOCHUL ROSSANA ROSADO Governor Secretary of State This edition of the New York State Constitution, available at: https://dos.ny.gov, is provided as a public service by the: Department of State Division of Administrative Rules One Commerce Plaza 99 Washington Avenue Albany, NY 12231-0001 Phone: (518) 474-6957 Fax: (518) 473-9055 E-mail: [email protected] For more information about New York State, please visit: https://ny.gov THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK As Revised, with Amendments adopted by the 5-a. Definition of inhabitants. Constitutional Convention of 1938 and Approved 5-b. Independent redistricting commission. by Vote of the People on November 8, 1938 6. Compensation, allowances and traveling expenses of members. and 7. Qualifications of members; prohibitions on certain civil appointments; Amendments subsequently adopted by the acceptance to vacate seat. Legislature and Approved by Vote of the People. 8. Time of elections of members. 9. Powers of each house. As Amended and in Force January 1, 2018 10. Journals; open sessions; adjournments. 11. Members not to be questioned for speeches. 12. Bills may originate in either house; may be amended by the other. ARTICLE I 13. Enacting clause of bills; no law to be enacted except by bill. BILL OF RIGHTS 14. Manner of passing bills; message of necessity for immediate vote. 15. Private or local bills to embrace only one subject, expressed in title. §1. Rights, privileges and franchise secured; power of legislature to 16. Existing law not to be made applicable by reference.
    [Show full text]
  • Mootness Is a Nondiscretionary Constitutional Limit on Federal Courts
    No. 18-280 In the Supreme Court of the United States NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ROMOLO COLANTONE, EFRAIN ALVAREZ, and JOSE ANTHONY IRIZARRY, Petitioners, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT-LICENSE DIVISION, Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit BRIEF FOR FEDERAL COURTS SCHOLARS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF VACATUR AND DISMISSAL OR REMAND JESSICA BULMAN-POZEN MICHAEL B. KIMBERLY Center for Constitu- Counsel of Record tional Governance PAUL W. HUGHES Columbia Law School McDermott Will & Emery LLP 435 West 116th Street 500 North Capitol Street NW New York, NY 10027 Washington, DC 20001 (212) 854-1028 (202) 756-8000 [email protected] ADAM M. SAMAHA N.Y.U. School of Law 40 Washington Square S. New York, NY 10012 (212) 998-2660 Counsel for Amici Curiae i TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities .................................................. ii Interest of Amici Curiae ........................................... ix Summary of Argument .............................................. 1 Statement ................................................................... 4 Argument .................................................................... 6 I. Petitioners’ claims are moot under Article III principles that limit federal court power ...... 6 A. Mootness is a nondiscretionary constitutional limit on federal courts ........... 6 B. Statutes that redress litigated claims make those claims moot as a general rule .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Opinion, Dean and Martha Lowe V. Joseph C. and Joyce Richards, Et Al., No. 13-0234
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 2014 Term FILED April 10, 2014 _____________ released at 3:00 p.m. RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK No. 13-0234 SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS _____________ OF WEST VIRGINIA DEAN LOWE AND MARTHA LOWE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE DEMAR REVOCABLE TRUST, Petitioners V. JOSEPH C. RICHARDS AND JOYCE A. RICHARDS, AND HUGH E. HEGYI, TRUSTEE OF THE HERMAN HEGYI TRUST, Respondents Appeal from the Circuit Court of Berkeley County Honorable John C. Yoder, Judge Civil Action No. 11-C-979 REVERSED AND REMANDED Submitted: March 25, 2014 Filed: April 10, 2014 Michael L. Scales, Esq. Charles F. Printz, Jr., Esq. Martinsburg, West Virginia Jonathan T. Mayhew, Esq. Attorney for Petitioners, Bowles Rice LLP Dean and Martha Lowe Martinsburg, West Virginia Attorney for the Respondents, Joseph C. and Joyce A. Richards CHIEF JUSTICE DAVIS delivered the Opinion of the Court. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. “Whenever it is determined that a court has no jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter of a civil action, the forum court must take no further action in the case other than to dismiss it from the docket.” Syllabus point 1, Hinkle v. Bauer Lumber & Home Bldg. Center, Inc., 158 W. Va. 492, 211 S.E.2d 705 (1975). 2. The circuit courts of West Virginia have subject matter jurisdiction to resolve an interstate boundary line dispute between private litigants involving the issue of whether real property is located within the State of West Virginia or another state. Under the decision in Durfee v.
    [Show full text]
  • Hedonic Damages: to Value a Life Or Not to Value a Life
    Volume 95 Issue 4 Article 8 June 1993 Hedonic Damages: To Value a Life or Not to Value a Life Douglas L. Price Andsandig, Levicoff, & McDyer, P.C. Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr Part of the Civil Law Commons Recommended Citation Douglas L. Price, Hedonic Damages: To Value a Life or Not to Value a Life, 95 W. Va. L. Rev. (1993). Available at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr/vol95/iss4/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the WVU College of Law at The Research Repository @ WVU. It has been accepted for inclusion in West Virginia Law Review by an authorized editor of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Price: Hedonic Damages: To Value a Life or Not to Value a Life HEDONIC DAMAGES: TO VALUE A LIFE OR NOT TO VALUE A LIFE? DOUGLAS L. PRICE* I. INTRODUCTION ........................... 1055 II. FLANNERY AND LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE ........ 1057 H. PROGRESSION OF Loss OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE ...... 1060 IV. ADMISSIBILITY OF HEDONIC DAMAGES .............. 1063 A. Personal Injury Claims ................... 1064 1. Opinion Evidence ................... 1067 2. Per Diem Argument .................... 1072 3. Province of the Jury and Speculation ....... 1075 4. Other Decisions ..................... 1079 B. Wrongful Death Actions .................. 1082 V. CONCLUSION ............ ................ 1088 I. INTRODUCTION A novel approach to the estimation of an element of a damage award has recently been proposed in the courts throughout this coun- try. "Hedonic damages" as confronted by the judicial system involves an attempt to place a monetary figure on the value of the loss of enjoyment of life.
    [Show full text]
  • Are You in Federal Court, Considering the Certification of State- Law Questions to the Ohio Supreme Court? Some Past and Present Points to Ponder
    White Paper September 2017 Appellate and Supreme Court Practice Are you in federal court, considering the certification of state- law questions to the Ohio Supreme Court? Some past and present points to ponder © 2017 Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP www.porterwright.com Table of contents Porter Wright Appellate & Supreme Court Practice Group ................................................................................3 Are you in federal court, considering the certification of state-law questions to the Ohio Supreme Court? Some past and present points to ponder ......................................................................4 Additional Resources ..............................................................................................................................................12 City of Norwood v. Horney – Much more than Eminent Domain: A forceful affirmation of the independent authority of the Ohio Constitution and the court’s power to enforce Law reviews: An undervalued resource Can you ‘DIG’ it? The dismissal of appeals as improvidently granted The importance of legislative history in Supreme Court decisions Strategies for overturning precedent © 2017 Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP www.porterwright.com 2 Porter Wright Appellate & Supreme Court Practice Group Brad Hughes ....................... Chair, Partner ...................... 614.227.2053 [email protected] Brodie Butland .....................Partner ................................. 216.443.2571 ............... [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • May 2016 Commencement Exercises ALMA MATER
    May 2016 Commencement Exercises ALMA MATER “Blue and Gold” Composed and sung by Robert Rosen, Class of 2016 Where minds are filled with wonder, and hearts are full of pride, There stands our Alma Mater, so radiant a shine. Nurturing thy scholars, like parents raise their young. Dear Hofstra, we are grateful, and thus we thank thee for ... Inspiring us, and guiding us through all the great unknown. Oh hail the blue and gold! Unrivaled motivation, invaluable and true. Selfless with thy knowledge, and vision to pursue. Through all the lands we journey, thou shall remain our home, Dear Hofstra, we are grateful, and thus we thank thee for ... Inspiring us, and guiding us through all the great unknown. Oh hail the blue and gold! ALMA MATER “Blue and Gold” Composed and sung by Robert Rosen, Class of 2016 Where minds are filled with wonder, and hearts are full of pride, There stands our Alma Mater, so radiant a shine. Nurturing thy scholars, like parents raise their young. Dear Hofstra, we are grateful, and thus we thank thee for ... Inspiring us, and guiding us through all the great unknown. Oh hail the blue and gold! Unrivaled motivation, invaluable and true. Selfless with thy knowledge, and vision to pursue. Through all the lands we journey, thou shall remain our home, Dear Hofstra, we are grateful, and thus we thank thee for ... Inspiring us, and guiding us through all the great unknown. Oh hail the blue and gold! May 2016 Commencement Exercises This is the unofficial program of the May 2016 commencement exercises.
    [Show full text]
  • The Delaware Supreme Court and Certified Questions of Corporation Law
    SMU Law Review Volume 63 Issue 4 Article 2 2010 Avoiding the Thickets of Guesswork: The Delaware Supreme Court and Certified Questions of Corporation Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Avoiding the Thickets of Guesswork: The Delaware Supreme Court and Certified Questions of Corporation Law, 63 SMU L. REV. 1127 (2010) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol63/iss4/2 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. AVOIDING THE THICKETS OF GUESSWORK: THE DELAWARE SUPREME COURT AND CERTIFIED QUESTIONS OF CORPORATION LAW The Honorable Henry duPont Ridgely, Justice, Supreme Court of Delaware* I. INTRODUCTION IT is indeed a pleasure for me to return to the SMU Corporate Coun- sel Symposium. I always enjoy returning to Texas. My nine-year-old granddaughter does as well, though she is not with me on this trip. My granddaughter also loves to read. She is a voracious reader and has already finished all seven J.K. Rowling Harry Potter books. More than four hundred million copies of J.K. Rowling's books have been sold in over two hundred countries.' One of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter novels includes a quotation that reminds me of the challenges judges and regula- tors face in determining novel issues of another state's law when that state's highest court has not yet addressed the issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Private and Public Benefit in an Era of Agglomeration
    Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 38 Number 4 Symposium - Taking New York: Opportunities, Challenges, & Dangers Posed By Article 3 the Use of Eminent Domain in New York 2011 Public Use in the Dirigiste Tradition: Private and Public Benefit in an Era of Agglomeration Steven J. Eagle George Mason University Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Steven J. Eagle, Public Use in the Dirigiste Tradition: Private and Public Benefit in an Era of Agglomeration, 38 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1023 (2011). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol38/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EAGLE_CHRISTENSEN 6/7/2011 7:01 PM PUBLIC USE IN THE DIRIGISTE TRADITION: PRIVATE AND PUBLIC BENEFIT IN AN ERA OF AGGLOMERATION Steven J. Eagle* ABSTRACT This Article analyzes the development of eminent domain law, focusing on the U.S. Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals’ approach to the requirement that takings be for “public use.” It asserts that the Su- preme Court’s public use doctrine is conceptually incomplete. In applying that doctrine and its own precedents, the Court of Appeals acts in the State’s tradition of dirigisme, and subordinates constitutional protections for private property to centralized development.
    [Show full text]
  • RULES Supreme Court of the United States
    RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States ADOPTED APRIL 18, 2019 EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 1 First Street, N. E. Washington, DC 20543 Clerk of the Court ............................... (202) 479-3011 Reporter of Decisions.......................... (202) 479-3390 Marshal of the Court........................... (202) 479-3333 Librarian................................................ (202) 479-3175 Telephone Operator ............................. (202) 479-3000 Visit the U.S. Supreme Court Website http://www.supremecourt.gov Mailing Address of the Solicitor General of the United States (see Rule 29.4) Room 5616 Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20530-0001 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I. THE COURT Page Rule 1. Clerk ................................................................................................ 1 Rule 2. Library ............................................................................................ 1 Rule 3. Term ................................................................................................ 1 Rule 4. Sessions and Quorum ................................................................... 2 PART II. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS Rule 5. Admission to the Bar.................................................................... 2 Rule 6. Argument Pro Hac Vice.............................................................. 3 Rule 7. Prohibition Against Practice ...................................................... 4 Rule 8. Disbarment and Disciplinary
    [Show full text]
  • Is Making State Constitutional Law Through Certified Questions a Good Idea Or a Bad Idea?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Valparaiso University Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 38 Number 2 Symposium on Tomorrow's Issues in pp.327-351 State Constitutional Law Symposium on Tomorrow's Issues in State Constitutional Law Is Making State Constitutional Law Through Certified Questions a Good Idea or a Bad Idea? Randall T. Shepard Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Randall T. Shepard, Is Making State Constitutional Law Through Certified Questions a Good Idea or a Bad Idea?, 38 Val. U. L. Rev. 327 (2004). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol38/iss2/2 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Valparaiso University Law School at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Shepard: Is Making State Constitutional Law Through Certified Questions a IS MAKING STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THROUGH CERTIFIED QUESTIONS A GOOD IDEA OR A BAD IDEA? Honorable Randall T. Shepard* I. INTRODUCTION Early in the current renaissance of state constitutional law, state court judges sometimes lamented the lack of opportunities to develop the jurisprudence and expressed eagerness for more chances to do so. Such invitations inevitably led litigants to plead the state constitution more frequently, both in cases initially filed in state court and in cases docketed in federal courts. Federal judges hearing cases that contained a state constitutional claim would necessarily regard themselves less well positioned to decide such issues than would be the case if they were, for example, construing a state statute.
    [Show full text]
  • Five Year Report of the New York Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts the Udicj Ial Committee on Women in the Courts
    Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 19 | Number 2 Article 4 1992 Five Year Report of the New York Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts The udicJ ial Committee on Women in the Courts Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Part of the Law and Gender Commons Recommended Citation The udJ icial Committee on Women in the Courts, Five Year Report of the New York Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts, 19 Fordham Urb. L.J. 313 (1992). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol19/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Five Year Report of the New York Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts Cover Page Footnote The eN w York Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts is chaired by Hon. Kathryn A. McDonald. Its members are Nicholas Capra, Michael Colodner, Hon. Betty Weinberg Ellerin, Hon. Zelda Jonas, Hon. May W. Newburger, Hon. Juanita Bing Newton, Peter J. Ryan, Fern Schair Sussman, Amy S. Vance and Adrienne White. Jill Laurie Goodman is counsel to the committee. This article is available in Fordham Urban Law Journal: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol19/iss2/4 FIVE YEAR REPORT OF THE NEW YORK JUDICIAL COMMITTEE ON WOMEN IN THE COURTS* Table of Contents I.
    [Show full text]
  • Certiorari Power of the Florida Supreme Court to Review Decisions of the District Courts of Appeal
    University of Miami Law Review Volume 15 Number 3 Article 4 5-1-1961 Certiorari Power of the Florida Supreme Court to Review Decisions of the District Courts of Appeal Daniel H. James Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Recommended Citation Daniel H. James, Certiorari Power of the Florida Supreme Court to Review Decisions of the District Courts of Appeal, 15 U. Miami L. Rev. 258 (1961) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol15/iss3/4 This Leading Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CERTIORARI POWER OF THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW DECISIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL DANIEL H. JAMES* Almost three years have elapsed since the effective date of the new constitutional amendment' which governs Florida's judicial system. Among the most profound changes brought about by the amendment are the limi- tations placed upon the certiorari jurisdiction of the supreme court, as opposed to its previously unlimited jurisdiction. 2 For most purposes, the newly created district courts of appeal are final appellate courts. In a number of opinions the supreme court has made a concerted effort to apprise the Bar of the limitations placed upon its power of review.3 It should be noted that even though it can be shown that the supreme court has jurisdiction to review by certiorari, the court, at its discretion may refuse to exercise this power.
    [Show full text]