DOCSLIB.ORG

2017 Printable Schedule

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2017 Printable Schedule AJEI 2017 Summit | November 2-5 FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2017 Long Beach, California Time Session Name Speaker(s) 7:00 a.m. - Breakfast, Optional CAL Roundtable Discussions- https://judicialstudies.duke.edu/ajei/2017-summit/ 8:00 a.m. Breakfast-Outside A/B-3rd Fl.; Roundtables-C/D-3rd Fl. Maximum Impact: How to Mary Beth Beazley 8:00 a.m. - Give (and Get) the Most Wendy McGuire Coats 9:00 a.m. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2017 Effective Edits-A/B-3rd Fl. *Cliffie Wesson 9:00 a.m. - Break Time Session Name Speaker(s) 9:10 a.m. 9:00 a.m. – Breakout I: Ethical Hon. Gina Benavides Check-in and registration (Outside A/B Ballroom-3rd Floor) 1:00 p.m. 9:10 a.m. - Editing in the Age of Joseph Lipner 1:00 p.m. – Robert Garcia, Mayor 10:10 a.m. Shrinking Word Counts Hon. Kim McLane Wardlaw Welcome – A/B Ballroom-3rd Floor rd 1:30 p.m. Long Beach, Calif. [ethics credit]-C/D-3 Fl. *Bennett Evan Cooper Breakout II: So Many Hon. Cheryl Chambers The Japanese-American Sam Mihara Appeals, So Little Time: John Doerner 1:30 p.m. – Internment: Yesterday, Today & Richard Reeves 9:10 a.m. - Ways in Which Hon. Randy Smith 2:30 p.m. Tomorrow [ethics credit] – Prof. Eric Yamamoto 10:10 a.m. Intermediate Appellate rd *Ric Schickele A/B Ballroom-3 Floor *Hon. Holly Fujie Courts Strive to Handle Ocean Ballroom – 1st Floor 2:30 p.m. – Growing Case Loads Break 2:45 p.m. 10:10 a.m. - Break Cyber Issues Over the Horizon - Monika Bickert 10:20 a.m. 2:45 p.m. - A Conversation About Hon. David Carter Public/Private Concerns - Rajesh De 10:20 a.m. - 3:45 p.m. rd Public Policy's Role in Hon. Stephen Markman A/B Ballroom-3 Floor *Harvey Rishikof 11:20 a.m. Judging-A/B – 3rd Floor *Mary Massaron 3:45 p.m. - 11:20 a.m. - Break Break 4:00 p.m. 11:30 a.m. Breakout I: Hot Topics in Criminal Breakout I: Oral Alan Charles "Chuck" Dell'Ario Law: Jury Misconduct, Crawford's Prof. Laurie Levenson 4:00 p.m. - 11:30 a.m. - Argument on a Budget Heather New Hearsay Legacy and New Prof. Rory Little 5:00 p.m. 12:30 p.m. [ethics credit] Hon. Rosalyn Richter Approaches to Fourth Amendment *Hon. Brian Hoffstadt C/D Ballroom-3rd Floor *Lisa Perrochet rd Privacy-A/B Ballroom-3 Floor Breakout II: Riding the Lisa Fitzgerald Breakout II: When My Emergency Hon. Joel Bolger 11:30 a.m. - Wave of Litigation Prof. Heidi Rummel Becomes Your Emergency: 4:00 p.m. - Hon. Catharina Haynes 12:30 p.m. Following a "Bombshell" *Prof. Leah Litman Interlocutory Appeals and st 5:00 p.m. Alicia Hickok Change in the Law Ocean Ballroom – 1 Floor Extraordinary Remedies- 12:30 p.m. - Free Time — Optional Tours rd *Rob Byer C/D Ballroom-3 Floor 5:00 p.m. See Information in your Summit packet or at the website. Opening Reception at the Aquarium of the Pacific – 5:00 p.m. - Council of Appellate Lawyers (CAL) Meet and Greet 100 Aquarium Way, Long Beach rd 7:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. Westin Hotel; 3 floor Terrace (All AJEI attendees invited) Coach Bus Available – Front of Westin Hotel CAL Dine-Around for Lawyers and Judges 8:30 p.m. 7:00 p.m. TO: 6:45 p.m.; 7:00 p.m. 7:15 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. (Optional/additional charge) See website for details. RETURN: 8:00 p.m.; 8:15 p.m.; 8:30 p.m. and 8:45 p.m. CASA Dinner, T-Shirt Exchange - Staff Attorneys & Judges * session moderator 7:30 p.m. (Optional/additional charge - $55.00) King’s Fish House-100 W. Broadway; Long Beach, CA * session moderator SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2017 SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2017 Time Session Name Speaker(s) 7:30 a.m. - Time Session Name Speaker(s) Continental Breakfast – Outside A/B Ballroom-3rd Floor 8:30 a.m. 7:15 a.m. - rd Legal Narratology: Continental Breakfast – Outside A/B Ballroom-3 Floor 8:30 a.m. - Jonathan Shapiro 8:15 a.m. Judicial Storytelling in the 9:30 a.m. A/B Ballroom-3rd Floor 21st Century 8:15 a.m. - Supreme Court Review — rd Dean Erwin Chemerinsky 9:30 a.m. - 9:15 a.m. Civil- A/B Ballroom-3 Fl. Break 9:45 a.m. 9:15 a.m. - Break 9:45 a.m. - Tips From Two Writing Bryan Garner 9:30 a.m. 10:45 a.m. Luminaries-A/B-3rd Floor Hon. Diane Wood Breakout I: Supreme Court 10:45 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. - Break Review — Criminal Dean Erwin Chemerinsky 11:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. A/B Ballroom-3rd Floor Adam Feldman Breakout I: Courts in the Breakout II: Wilkommen, 11:00 a.m. - Prof. Richard Hasen Age of "New Media" Bienvenue: Navigating 12:00 p.m. Prof. RonNell Andersen Jones 9:30 a.m. - Prof. Ralf Michaels C/D Ballroom-3rd Floor Foreign and International *Howard Bashman 11:00 a.m. *Kirsten Castañeda Law in U.S. Courts Breakout II: From Dean Marisa Cianciarulo Ocean Ballroom-1st Floor 11:00 a.m. - Supremacy to Sanctuary: Prof. Carrie Rosenbaum 11:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Current Issues in *Prof. Peter Margulies Break Immigration Law Ocean Ballroom-1st Floor 11:15 a.m. 12:00 p.m. - Break Past Progress, Current Prof. Christine Goodman 12:10 p.m. Challenges, Future Goals: Marcy Hogan Greer 11:15 a.m. - 12:10 p.m. - Lunch and CAL, CASA Business Meetings Diversity in the Appellate Hon. Luis Lavin rd rd st 12:15 p.m. 1:45 p.m. Lunch-A/B 3 Fl.; CAL-C/D 3 Fl.; CASA-Ocean-1 Fl. Sphere [ethics credit] Hon. Jacqueline Nguyen Hon. Patrick Higginbotham rd 2:00 p.m. - Supreme Court Preview A/B Ballroom-3 Floor *Pilar Ramos rd Prof. Pam Karlan 3:30 p.m. A/B Ballroom-3 Floor Conclusion and 2018 *Dean David Levi 12:15 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. - Summit Preview Hon. Christopher McFadden Break 12:30 p.m. rd 3:45 p.m. A/B Ballroom-3 Floor Breakout I: Pro Bono * session moderator Hon. Edward D. Carni Appellate Court Programs 3:45 p.m. - Susan Gelmis and Clinics: Doing Good 4:45 p.m. Prof. Eugene Volokh for Clients and the Courts *Hon. Samuel A. Thumma C/D Ballroom-3rd Floor Breakout II: To Concur or Prof. Elizabeth Francis 3:45 p.m. - Dissent: That Is the Prof. Harry Litman 4:45 p.m. Question Hon. Dennis Perluss Ocean Ballroom-1st Floor *Hon. Christopher McFadden Saturday Night Reception, Dinner and Just Desserts 6:15 p.m. - With: Gary Green, Esq. & His Big Band of Barristers 10:00 p.m. Atrium-3rd Floor and A/B Ballroom-3rd Floor .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chief Judges: the Limits of Attitudinal Theory and Possible Paradox of Managerial Judging
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 61 Issue 1 Issue 1 - January 2008 Article 1 1-2008 Chief Judges: The Limits of Attitudinal Theory and Possible Paradox of Managerial Judging Tracey E. George Albert H. Yoon Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Tracey E. George and Albert H. Yoon, Chief Judges: The Limits of Attitudinal Theory and Possible Paradox of Managerial Judging, 61 Vanderbilt Law Review 1 (2008) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol61/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 61 JANUARY 2008 NUMBER 1 Chief Judges: The Limits of Attitudinal Theory and Possible Paradox of Managerial Judging Tracey E. George* & Albert H. Yoon** I. INCENTIVES ON THE U.S. COURTS OF APPEALS .................... 9 A. The Attitudinal Model ............................................ 10 1. The Role of Policy Preferences in Votes on the Merits ...................... 11 2. The Role of Policy Preferences in Non-Merits Decisions .................................. 16 B. The Managerial Judging Model ............................. 19 II. LEADERSHIP ON THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS ................ 20 A. The Creation and Selection of Chief Judges ............. 23 B. The Real and PotentialPower of Chief Judges ......... 28 1. The Chief Judge on a Panel ........................ 28 2. Formal Authority ........................................ 29 3. Informal Powers ......................................... 33 Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University. Professor of Law, Northwestern University. We presented this paper at the 2006 Law & Society Association Annual Meeting, the Second Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, and at a Marquette University faculty workshop.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 115 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 115 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 163 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2017 No. 178 Senate The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was firming President Trump’s outstanding GARDNER. When he introduced his called to order by the President pro nominations to the Federal courts. Al- former professor before the Judiciary tempore (Mr. HATCH). ready this week, we have confirmed Committee, Senator GARDNER noted f two strong, smart, and talented women how much she cared about ‘‘robust de- to serve on our Nation’s circuit courts. bates and hearing the views of others.’’ PRAYER Today we will consider two more well- ‘‘Justice Eid,’’ he said, ‘‘was open to The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- qualified nominees: Allison Eid and their views, engaging with them, and fered the following prayer: Stephanos Bibas. [was] never biased against different Let us pray. First, we will confirm Allison Eid, perspectives.’’ Eternal King, You are great and mar- whom the President has nominated to Later, Justice Eid was appointed to velous. Without Your wondrous deeds, serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for serve as Colorado’s solicitor general our lawmakers, our Nation, and our the Tenth Circuit. Justice Eid has big and, in 2006, to the Colorado Supreme planet could not survive. Lord, let the shoes to fill in taking that seat—it be- Court. Two years later, 75 percent of nations You have made acknowledge came vacant when Neil Gorsuch as- Coloradans voted to retain her.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impoverished Idea of Circuit-Splitting, 48 Emory L.J
    University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Law Faculty Publications School of Law 1995 The mpI overished Idea of Circuit-Splitting Carl W. Tobias University of Richmond, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/law-faculty-publications Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Carl Tobias, The Impoverished Idea of Circuit-Splitting, 48 Emory L.J. 1357 (1995) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE IMPOVERISHED IDEA OF CffiCUIT-SPLITTING Carl Tobias* A half-decade ago, the United States Congress considered and rejected controversial measures that would have split the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit into two courts.1 The proposed Ninth Cir­ cuit would have included Arizona, California and Nevada, while the new Twelfth Circuit would have encompassed Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Mon­ tana, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Congress fully aired, particularly in hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, all of the issues that were salient to the Ninth Circuit's divi­ sion. Nevertheless, Congress ultimately refused to split the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Senators representing every state in the latest iteration of the projected Twelfth Circuit recently revived the idea by introducing Senate Bill 956, a proposal that closely resembles the measure debated by Congress in 1990.2 The new bill's sponsors contend that certain factors, principally the Ninth Circuit's substantial size and burgeoning docket, have now made division of the court imperative.
    [Show full text]
  • Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    Golden Gate University Law Review Volume 46 Article 4 Issue 1 Ninth Circuit Survey March 2016 Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev Part of the Judges Commons Recommended Citation , Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 46 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. xiii (2016). http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev/vol46/iss1/4 This Introduction is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Golden Gate University Law Review by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 37275-ggl_46-1 Sheet No. 7 Side A 01/13/2016 11:44:49 \\jciprod01\productn\G\GGL\46-1\bio461.txt unknown Seq: 1 13-JAN-16 9:24 et al.: Judges of the Ninth Circuit JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT1 CHIEF JUDGE SIDNEY R. THOMAS Judge Thomas is currently serving a seven-year term as chief judge. President Clinton nominated Judge Thomas to the Ninth Circuit on July 19, 1995, and the Senate confirmed him on January 2, 1996. He received his B.A. from Montana State University in 1975, and his J.D. from the University of Montana School of Law in 1978. Judge Thomas practiced law with the firm of Moulton, Bellingham, Longo & Mather from 1978 until his appointment to the Ninth Circuit. He served as an Adjunct Instructor at Rocky Mountain College from 1982 to 1995.
    [Show full text]
  • June 30, 2017 the Honorable Charles Grassley, Chairman Committee On
    June 30, 2017 The Honorable Charles Grassley, Chairman Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Re: Nomination of Stephanos Bibas to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: We write to express our strong support for the nomination of Professor Stephanos Bibas to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. We are a diverse group of law professors who represent a broad range of perspectives. We do not necessarily agree with the views or policies of the current administration. But we are united in our belief that Professor Bibas is superbly qualified to serve as a federal appellate judge, and we urge the Senate to confirm him. Professor Bibas’ credentials are impeccable. He was educated at Columbia University, Oxford University, and Yale Law School. He clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Patrick Higginbotham on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. After working as an associate at a law firm and as a federal prosecutor, Professor Bibas began teaching. He has distinguished himself as a professor at the University of Iowa College of Law and at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law. While at the University of Pennsylvania he has also served as the Director of the Law School’s Supreme Court Clinic, and he has litigated a wide range of cases in that role. Professor Bibas is widely respected in academia both as a scholar and as a person.
    [Show full text]
  • Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules
    ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL RULES November 2, 2020 AGENDA Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules November 2, 2020 1. Opening Business A. Chair’s Remarks and Administrative Announcements (Oral Report) B. ACTION: Review and Approval of Minutes • Draft Minutes of the May 5, 2020 Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules .......................................................23 C. Report of the Rules Committee Staff • Report on the June 2020 Meeting of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure • Draft Minutes of the June 23, 2020 Meeting of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure ...............49 • Report on the September 2020 Session of the Judicial Conference of the United States • September 2020 Report of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure to the Judicial Conference of the United States (appendices omitted) ............................79 • Rules and Projects Pending Before Congress, the Supreme Court, the Judicial Conference, and the Rules Committees • Chart Tracking Proposed Rules Amendments ...............103 • Legislative Update • Legislation That Directly or Effectively Amends the Federal Rules (116th Congress) ...............................109 2. Draft New Rule 62 (Rules Emergency) A. Reporters’ Memorandum (October 14, 2020) ............................................121 B. Supporting Materials • Draft New Rule 62 and Committee Note .....................................141 • Chart Comparing Draft New Rule 62 with the CARES Act .......153 • Memorandum from Kevin Crenny, Rules
    [Show full text]
  • 2020-2021 Supreme Court Preview: Biographies of 2020 Supreme Court Preview Panelists
    William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Supreme Court Preview Conferences, Events, and Lectures 9-11-2020 2020-2021 Supreme Court Preview: Biographies of 2020 Supreme Court Preview Panelists Institute of Bill of Rights Law at The College of William & Mary Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview Part of the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Repository Citation Institute of Bill of Rights Law at The College of William & Mary Law School, "2020-2021 Supreme Court Preview: Biographies of 2020 Supreme Court Preview Panelists" (2020). Supreme Court Preview. 295. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/295 Copyright c 2020 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview Biographies of 2020 Supreme Court Preview Panelists law.wm.edu/academics/intellectuallife/researchcenters/ibrl/scp/2020/notebook/bios/index.php ROBERT BARNES - Washington Post Robert Barnes has spent most of his career at The Washington Post, as a reporter and editor. He joined the paper to cover politics in 1987, and has covered campaigns at the presidential, congressional and gubernatorial level. He served in various editing positions, including metropolitan editor, deputy national editor in charge of domestic issues and the Supreme Court, and national political editor. He returned to reporting to cover the Supreme Court in November 2006, and has done so since then, with a brief break to cover the conclusion of the 2008 presidential campaign. He covered the Supreme Court nominations of Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
    [Show full text]
  • Double Agents: an Exploration of the Motivations of Court of Appeals Judges
    DOUBLE AGENTS: AN EXPLORATION OF THE MOTIVATIONS OF COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Kevin Matthew Scott, B.A., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2002 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Lawrence Baum, Advisor Professor Gregory Caldeira ____________________________ Professor Paul Allen Beck Professor Lawrence Baum, Advisor Department of Political Science UMI Number: 3081963 Copyright 2002 by Scott, Kevin Matthew All rights reserved. ________________________________________________________ UMI Microform 3081963 Copyright 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ____________________________________________________________ ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road PO Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 Copyright by Kevin Matthew Scott 2002 ABSTRACT Judges of the United States courts of appeals represent a unique class of American political actors. While their subordinate status to the Supreme Court might be expected to make them faithful agents of the Supreme Court, other components of their environment might be expected to counteract the pressure to execute the wishes of the Supreme Court. The broader question of the motivation of the court of appeals judges lies at the heart of this project. I argue that previous work on court of appeals judges has not devoted sufficient attention to the possible variety of goals of court of appeals judges and the means they use to accomplish those goals. Using reversal of court of appeals decisions by the Supreme Court, I subject to empirical test three competing explanations for the motivations of court of appeals judges.
    [Show full text]
  • Meet the Chief Judge of the Nation's Most Divisive, Controversial and Conservative Appeals Court
    Meet the chief judge of the nation’s most divisive, controversial and conservative appeals ... Page 1 of 9 Features Meet the chief judge of the nation’s most divisive, controversial and conservative appeals court Posted Feb 1, 2014 4:40 AM CST By Mark Curriden Photo of Carl Stewart by Kathy Anderson. NEW ORLEANS – Carl Stewart has every right to be angry. Growing up, he was forced to attend segregated schools, required to use “colored only” restrooms and water fountains, and made to sit at the back of the bus. At age 3, Stewart watched as white church leaders blocked his parents’ efforts to buy their first home because they didn’t want black people as neighbors. Retail stores refused to let him try on clothes. Customers at his first job in college routinely used the N-word in front of him. He quietly admits that he continues to experience racial profiling, even today. But in the eyes of many, those experiences make Stewart the perfect person to preside over the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—one of the most controversial, rancorous, dysfunctional, staunchly conservative and important appellate courts in the country. It is also a court with three current vacancies—President Barack Obama has announced one nomination to fill one of those slots—and there’s a strong possibility the president will have three more openings before he leaves office, leading many to predict a radical ideological change is in store. Stewart, 64, is the first African-American chief judge of the 5th Circuit. He serves on the powerful federal Judicial Conference, is vice president of the prestigious American Inns of Court and, until recently, chaired the Federal Rules Committee.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Will Write Your Rules?
    WHO WILL WRITE YOUR RULES? YOUR STATE COURT OR THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY? 24th Annual Forum for State Appellate Court Judges Forum Endowed by Habush Habush & Rottier S.C. WHO WILL WRITE YOUR RULES? YOUR STATE COURT OR THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY? 24th Annual Forum for State Appellate Court Judges Forum Endowed by Habush Habush & Rottier S.C. When quoting or reprinting any part of this report, credit should be given to the Pound Civil Justice Institute. Permission to reprint a paper should be requested from: Pound Civil Justice Institute 777 Sixth Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20001 www.poundinstitute.org [email protected] The Endower, Habush Habush & Rottier S.C., and the Forum underwriters have no control over the content of the Forum, the makeup of faculty or attendees, the placement of information in Forum materials, or the editorial content of the 2016 Forum Report. Library of Congress Control Number Pending ISBN: 978-0-933067-26-4 ©2017 Pound Civil Justice Institute We are all citizens, and should be equal under the law. So there should not be separate sets of rules for Walmart and for individuals. —A judge attending the 2016 Forum Predictability should not be espoused at the expense of fairness. —A judge attending the 2016 Forum I don’t think there is a counterrevolution against litigation. There is a counterrevolution against trials. —A judge attending the 2016 Forum TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ...........................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Trial As Error, Jurisdiction As Injury: Transforming the Meaning of Article Iii
    TRIAL AS ERROR, JURISDICTION AS INJURY: TRANSFORMING THE MEANING OF ARTICLE III Judith Resnik TABLE OF CONTENTS I. A "FAILURE OF THE SYSTEM"................................................................................................ 925 II. JUDICIAL TRANSFORMATIONS OF THE DAILY PRACTICES OF JUDGING ........................... 933 A. ProceduralAspirations and Sources ................................................................................. 935 B. A CorporateStructure, Large Scale Litigation,and M ore Cases .................................... 937 C. Teaching Judges.......................................................................................................... 943 I. AN INSTITUTIONAL VOICE ................................................................................................. 949 A. The Infrastructure.............................................................................................................. 949 B. Collective Concerns............................................................................................................ 957 i. Changing Attitudes About Authority .......................................................................... 958 2. Redefining the W ork Appropriate for Life-Tenured Judges ....................................... 967 (a) "Important" Cases .................................................................................................. 968 (b) Identity by Association ........................................................................................... 970
    [Show full text]
  • The Magazine of Ucla School of Law In-Depth Engagement
    THE MAGAZINE OF UCLA SCHOOL OF LAW IN-DEPTH ENGAGEMENT UCLA Law’s Centers and Programs Produce Path-breaking Research and Purposeful Reform NINTH CIRCUIT ALUMNI APPOINTMENTS Jacqueline Nguyen ’91 and Paul Watford ’94 217111_Cover_R4.indd 1 9/6/12 10:49 AM contents 38 47 48 ninth circuit student assists new global reach appointments orleans community of student work Alumni Jacqueline Nguyen May Thi Nguyen ’13 Students conduct field ’91 and Paul Watford ’94 returned to New Orleans research in the Democratic are appointed to the U.S. to assist in the wake of Republic of the Congo. Court of Appeals for the the 2010 oil spill and Ninth Circuit. Hurricane Katrina. IN-DEPTH ENGAGEMENT UCLA Law’s centers and programs produce path-breaking research and purposeful reform UCLA School of Law has always pursued a distinctive approach to achieving impact at the local, state, national and international level. At UCLA Law, the mastery of doctrine, skills and theory serves as the foundation for transformative influence through advocacy and service. These priorities are reinforced through the work of the law school’s more than 20 interdisciplinary centers of excellence, which are shaping law and policy and carving an extraordinary path toward lasting change. 217111_Cover_R2.inddU 2 9/5/12 8:11 AM FALL 2012 VOL. 35 NO. 1 51 also inside... 02 Message from the Dean 16 Faculty Scholarship 36th annual 50 Law School Hosts Inaugural NYU-UCLA ucla entertainment symposium Tax Policy Conference CBS Corporation President and Chief Executive Officer 53 UCLA Law Celebrates Law School “Legends” Leslie Moonves was the keynote speaker.
    [Show full text]