DOCSLIB.ORG

Who Will Write Your Rules?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 MORNING PAPER, ORAL REMARKS, AND COMMENTS .............................................................................................. 5 “Rulemaking and the Counterrevolution Against Federal Litigation: Discovery” ................................................................. 5 Professor Stephen B. Burbank, University of Pennsylvania Law School Professor Sean Farhang, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law Oral Remarks by Professor Farhang ........................................................................................................................................... 25 Comments by Panelists, Response by Professor Farhang, Questions and Comments from the Floor .............................. 31 LUNCHEON ADDRESS ....................................................................................................................................................... 47 “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Where Have They Gone?” Professor Arthur Miller, New York University School of Law AFTERNOON PAPER, ORAL REMARKS, AND COMMENTS ....................................................................................... 53 “Should State Courts Follow the Federal System in Court Rulemaking and Procedural Practice?” .................................. 53 Professor Stephen N. Subrin, Northeastern University School of Law Professor Thomas O. Main, William S. Boyd College of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Oral Remarks by Professor Subrin ............................................................................................................................................... 81 Comments by Panelists, Response by Professor Main .............................................................................................................. 84 CLOSING PLENARY ............................................................................................................................................................ 99 THE JUDGES’ COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................................. 101 POINTS OF CONVERGENCE .......................................................................................................................................... 125 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................................................... 131 Faculty Biographies ...................................................................................................................................................................... 131 Judicial Participants ..................................................................................................................................................................... 139 2016 Forum Underwriters .......................................................................................................................................................... 142 About the Pound Civil Justice Institute ..................................................................................................................................... 143 Pound Civil Justice Institute Officers and Trustees, 2015-16 ................................................................................................. 145 Papers of the Pound Civil Justice Institute ................................................................................................................................ 146 WHO WILL WRITE YOUR RULES—YOUR STATE COURT OR THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY? i FOREWORD The Pound Civil Justice Institute’s twenty-fourth Forum for State Appellate Court Judges was held on July 23, 2016, in Los Angeles, California. As with all of our past forums, it was both enjoyable and thought provoking. In the Forum setting, judges, practicing attorneys, and legal scholars were able to consider the crucial issue of transparency in judicial proceedings, and the impact on the rule of law of the increasing instances of non-public dispute resolution. The Pound Civil Justice Institute recognizes that the state courts have the principal role in the administration of justice in the United States, and that they carry by far the heaviest of our judicial workloads. We try to support them in their work by offering our annual Forums as a venue in which judges, academics, and practitioners can have a brief, pertinent dialogue in a single day. These discussions sometimes lead to consensus, but even when they do not, the exercise is always fruitful. Our attendees always bring with them different points of view, and we make additional efforts to include panelists with outlooks that differ from those of most of the Institute’s Fellows. That diversity of viewpoints always emerges in our Forum reports. Our Forums for State Appellate Court Judges have been devoted to many cutting-edge topics, ranging from the court funding crisis, to the decline of jury trial, to separation of powers, forced arbitration, and judicial transparency. We are proud of our Forums, and are gratified by the increasing attendance we have experienced since their inception, as well as by the very positive comments we have received from judges who have attended in the past. A full listing of the prior Forums and their content is provided in an appendix to this report, and their reports and papers—along with most of our other publications—are available for free download at our website: www.poundinstitute.org. The Pound Institute is indebted to many people for the success of the 2016 Forum for State Appellate Court Judges: • Professors Steve Burbank, Sean Farhang, Steve Subrin, and Thom Main, who wrote the papers that started our discussions; • our lunch speaker, Professor Arthur R. Miller of New York University School of Law, for a fascinating discussion of federal rulemaking over the years; • our panelists—Jennie Lee Anderson, Hon. Elizabeth Gleicher, Hon. Henry Kantor, John Kuppens, Donna Melby, Professor Patricia W. Hatamyar Moore, Elizabeth Stein, and Dean Michael Wolfe; • the moderators of our small-group discussions—Linda Atkinson, Leslie Brueckner, Mark Chalos, Kathryn Clarke, Annika Martin, Shawn McCann, Andre Mura, Valerie Nannery, Wayne Parsons, Gale Pearson, Jim Rooks, and John Vail; • and the Pound Civil Justice Institute’s dedicated and talented staff—Mary Collishaw, our executive director, and Jim Rooks, our consultant and Forum reporter—for their diligence and professionalism in organizing and administering the 2016 Judges Forum. WHO WILL WRITE YOUR RULES—YOUR STATE COURT OR THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY? 1 It goes without saying that we appreciated the attendance of the distinguished group of judges who took time from their busy schedules so that we might all learn from each other. We hope you enjoy reviewing this report of the Forum, and that you will find it useful to you in your consideration of matters relating to court rulemaking, the rule of law, and trial by jury. Kathleen Flynn Peterson President, Pound Civil Justice Institute, 2015-16 2 WHO WILL WRITE YOUR RULES—YOUR STATE COURT OR THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY? INTRODUCTION On July 23, 2016 in Los Angeles, California, 105 judges, representing 38 states and the District of Columbia, took part in the Pound Civil Justice Institute’s twenty-fourth annual Forum for State Appellate Court Judges. The judges examined the topic, “Who Will Write Your Rules—Your State Court or the Federal Judiciary?” The inquiry was prompted by the U.S. federal courts’ 2015 amendment to Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which changed the previous description of what is discoverable in civil litigation: Rule 26. Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery * * * (b)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • OWLS Honors Judge Darleen Ortega and Secretary of State Kate Brown
    Published Quarterly by Oregon Women Lawyers Volume 22, No. 2 Spring 2011 22 years of breaking barriers OWLS Honors Judge Darleen Ortega 1989 -2011 and Secretary of State Kate Brown By Rose Alappat and the 2010 recipient of the Justice Betty Rob- President erts Award. The second auction item, a trip to Concetta Schwesinger Ashland, went to Julia Markley, also a partner Vice President, at Perkins Coie. President-Elect Heather L. Weigler During dessert, OWLS President Concetta Secretary Schwesinger thanked the dinner sponsors, in- Cashauna Hill cluding title sponsor Miller Nash, and recognized Treasurer the distinguished judges, political leaders, and Megan Livermore guests in attendance. A thoughtful slide show Historian presented views on women in the legal profession Kathleen J. Hansa Rastetter and highlighted the accomplishments of Justice Board Members Betty Roberts and Judge Mercedes Deiz. Sally Anderson-Hansell The Justice Betty Roberts Award was then Hon. Frances Burge Photo by Jodee Jackson Megan Burgess presented to Oregon Secretary of State Kate Bonnie Cafferky Carter Judge Darleen Ortega (left) and Alec Esquivel Brown. The award recognizes an individual Dana Forman Gina Hagedorn our hundred fifty people gathered on Heather Hepburn March 11 at the Governor Hotel in Port- Kendra Matthews land to celebrate the OWLS community Linda Meng F Elizabeth Tedesco Milesnick and honor two people who have supported Hon. Julia Philbrook and inspired women and minorities in the legal Cassandra SkinnerLopata Hon. Katherine Tennyson profession. The Roberts-Deiz Awards Dinner Shannon Terry sold out especially quickly this year, perhaps in Heather Walloch recognition of the influence and achievements Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol
    . A Short History of Hearsay Reform, with Particular Reference to Hoffman v. Palmer, Eddie Morgan and Jerry Frank Michael Ariens* "Few historians, however, hold themselves out as fictionists." Jerome Frank, The Place ofthe Expert in a Democratic Society 1 True, no man can be wholly apart from his fellows. But, if each of us is a promontory, yet the promontory reaches out beyond the social mainland to a point where others cannot intrude. ... It is a no-other-man's land, for others can't penetrate it, can't communicate with it. Jerome Frank, Judge Learned Hand1 Introduction On my summer vacation, I chanced upon the novel Foe by the South African writer 3 J.M. Coetzee. Foe is a modern reworking of Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe. In this modern retelling, Coetzee presents the story of the relation of author and subject, not the story of the adventures of a shipwrecked Englishman. In Foe, the authorial voice is that of Susan Barton, a castaway who ended up on the same island as Cruso and Friday. She, Cruso and Friday are "rescued" and taken by ship to England. En route, Cruso dies. Once in London, Susan Barton takes her story of Cruso and Friday to Daniel Foe, and finds that his interest is more in the story of her life and less in the story of Cruso 's adventures. Foe, chased by creditors, flees his house, into which Barton and Friday move. Barton later leaves, searching for Foe, whom she finally tracks down. Confronting Foe, 4 she says, "I am not a story, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Why Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(B) Is Unconstitutional
    SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE TWOMBLY IN CONTEXT: WHY FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 4(B) IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL E. Donald Elliott Abstract Rule 4(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure delegates to private parties state authority to compel a person to appear and answer civil charges in court without any preliminary state review or screening for reasonableness. This is argued to be unconstitutional as a unreasonable seizure of the person, a deprivation of private property without due process, and a standardless delegation of state power to a private party with a financial interest. The history of the writ of summons is reviewed. From the Founding until 1938, federal courts reviewed the grounds proposed for suit prior to service of a summons ordering someone to come to court to answer charges. It is argued that unless courts routinely award full economic costs after the fact to make someone whole who has been sued wrongfully, they must satisfy themselves in advance that there is a reasonable basis for suit before ordering the persons sued to appear and answer. Rule 4(b) is argued to be unconstitutional as (1) a seizure of the person and property of the defendant without any attempt by the state to verify that it is reasonable to do so; (2) an unconstitutional deprivation of property without due process of law; (3) an unconstitutional delegation of state power to issue a court order to a private party with a financial interest, and (4) an unconstitutional repeal of a statute providing for judicial control over process without following constitutionally required procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • Yale Law School 2019–2020
    BULLETIN OF YALE UNIVERSITY BULLETIN OF YALE BULLETIN OF YALE UNIVERSITY Periodicals postage paid New Haven ct 06520-8227 New Haven, Connecticut Yale Law School 2019–2020 Yale Law School Yale 2019–2020 BULLETIN OF YALE UNIVERSITY Series 115 Number 11 August 10, 2019 BULLETIN OF YALE UNIVERSITY Series 115 Number 11 August 10, 2019 (USPS 078-500) The University is committed to basing judgments concerning the admission, education, is published seventeen times a year (one time in May and October; three times in June and employment of individuals upon their qualifications and abilities and a∞rmatively and September; four times in July; five times in August) by Yale University, 2 Whitney seeks to attract to its faculty, sta≠, and student body qualified persons of diverse Avenue, New Haven CT 06510. Periodicals postage paid at New Haven, Connecticut. backgrounds. In accordance with this policy and as delineated by federal and Connecticut law, Yale does not discriminate in admissions, educational programs, or employment Postmaster: Send address changes to Bulletin of Yale University, against any individual on account of that individual’s sex, race, color, religion, age, PO Box 208227, New Haven CT 06520-8227 disability, status as a protected veteran, or national or ethnic origin; nor does Yale discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. Managing Editor: Kimberly M. Go≠-Crews University policy is committed to a∞rmative action under law in employment of Editor: Lesley K. Baier women, minority group members, individuals with disabilities, and protected veterans. PO Box 208230, New Haven CT 06520-8230 Inquiries concerning these policies may be referred to Valarie Stanley, Director of the O∞ce for Equal Opportunity Programs, 221 Whitney Avenue, 4th Floor, 203.432.0849.
    [Show full text]
  • MBACLE to Register for a CLE, Please See the Inserts in This Issue Or Go to County Justice Facility
    MuLTNoMAH LAwYER Lawyers associated for justice, service, professionalism, education and leadership for our members and our community. November 2005 Volume 51, Number 10 Urging Your Support for East MBACLE To register for a CLE, please see the inserts in this issue or go to County Justice Facility www.mbabar.org. By Kelly Hagan, Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt and MBA President. RESOLUTION (Directing Funds Unfortunately the backdrop to this political farce is human tragedy, which November from the Sale of the Hansen has become real to me only recently. You see, my daughter is a high school Building and Multnomah County freshman who plays volleyball in the Mt. Hood conference. As a result, I Wednesday, November 2 MBA/LexisNexis Update: Correctional Facility (MCCF) to have spent more time in East County over the last six weeks than I have Proposed Amendments to Help Fund a Possible New East in my entire life. Being a west-sider for 25-years, I fear the Banfield and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure County Justice Facility) Adopted so tend to travel to my daughter’s matches at east side high schools on Aideen Gaffney * * * with Commissioners Naito, Roberts, Rojo and Linn voting surface streets like Powell and Division. It has been an education. Lois Rosenbaum aye, and Commissioner Cruz voting no. Tom Hutchinson - Minutes of the Multnomah County Commission, e neighborhoods and storefronts along the major thoroughfares Katherine Heekin November 4, 2004 between Mt. Tabor and Gresham are in serious economic and civic Thursday, November 3 decline. I know, I know: I must be the last button-downed, middle-aged Child Abuse Reporting and RESOLUTION (Accepting the Preliminary Planning Proposal white guy in the county to get the memo, but I was genuinely surprised Other Ethical Issues for the East County Justice Facility).
    [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]
  • Yale Law School 2018–2019
    BULLETIN OF YALE UNIVERSITY BULLETIN OF YALE BULLETIN OF YALE UNIVERSITY Periodicals postage paid New Haven ct 06520-8227 New Haven, Connecticut Yale Law School 2018–2019 Yale Law School Yale 2018–2019 BULLETIN OF YALE UNIVERSITY Series 114 Number 10 August 10, 2018 BULLETIN OF YALE UNIVERSITY Series 114 Number 10 August 10, 2018 (USPS 078-500) The University is committed to basing judgments concerning the admission, education, is published seventeen times a year (one time in May and October; three times in June and employment of individuals upon their qualifications and abilities and a∞rmatively and September; four times in July; five times in August) by Yale University, 2 Whitney seeks to attract to its faculty, sta≠, and student body qualified persons of diverse back- Avenue, New Haven CT 06510. Periodicals postage paid at New Haven, Connecticut. grounds. In accordance with this policy and as delineated by federal and Connecticut law, Yale does not discriminate in admissions, educational programs, or employment against Postmaster: Send address changes to Bulletin of Yale University, any individual on account of that individual’s sex, race, color, religion, age, disability, PO Box 208227, New Haven CT 06520-8227 status as a protected veteran, or national or ethnic origin; nor does Yale discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. Managing Editor: Kimberly M. Go≠-Crews University policy is committed to a∞rmative action under law in employment of Editor: Lesley K. Baier women, minority group members, individuals with disabilities, and protected veterans. PO Box 208230, New Haven CT 06520-8230 Inquiries concerning these policies may be referred to Valarie Stanley, Director of the O∞ce for Equal Opportunity Programs, 221 Whitney Avenue, 4th Floor, 203.432.0849.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Twelve Letters from Arthur L. Corbin to Robert Braucher Annotated Joseph Perillo Fordham University School of Law
    Fordham Law School FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History Faculty Scholarship 1993 Twelve Letters from Arthur L. Corbin to Robert Braucher Annotated Joseph Perillo Fordham University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Joseph Perillo, Twelve Letters from Arthur L. Corbin to Robert Braucher Annotated, 50 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 755 (1993) Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/785 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 Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TWELVE LETTERS FROM ARTHUR L. CORBIN TO ROBERT BRAUCHER ANNOTATED JOSEPH M. PERILLO* In 1964 the Yale Law Journal published a bibliography of Professor Arthur Corbin's publications.' The bibliography quotes a letter from Arthur Corbin to a Yale Law Journal editor2 in which Corbin states that he had written a "'one man revision' of the first Restatement of Contracts, which he sent in hand-written form to Judge Herbert Goodrich, then Director of the American Law Institute. Corbin said that Judge Goodrich "had each such installment typewritten and multigraphed for the use by the revision reporter and his committee and perhaps by others." 3 Diligent search by law librarians has failed to locate a copy of this revision of the Restatement by Corbin in any law library.
    [Show full text]