{"title":"Privatization as Delegation","authors":"Gillian E. Metzger","doi":"10.2307/3593390","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3593390","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51408,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Law Review","volume":"103 1","pages":"1367"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2003-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3593390","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69172911","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Diversity, the University, and the World Outside","authors":"J. Greenberg","doi":"10.2307/3593395","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3593395","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51408,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Law Review","volume":"103 1","pages":"1610"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2003-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3593395","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69173040","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Meaning of Professional Independence","authors":"E. Davis","doi":"10.2307/1123837","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1123837","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51408,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Law Review","volume":"103 1","pages":"1281"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/1123837","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68286650","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Transforming Islamic Family Law: State Responsibility and the Role of Internal Initiative","authors":"Andra Nahal Behrouz","doi":"10.2307/1123833","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1123833","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51408,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Law Review","volume":"103 1","pages":"1136"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/1123833","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68286584","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Engaging Facts and Policy: A Multi-Institutional Approach to Patent System Reform","authors":"A. Rai","doi":"10.2307/1123832","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1123832","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51408,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Law Review","volume":"103 1","pages":"1035"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/1123832","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68285898","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The federal appellate courts promulgated selective publication and nocitation rules in the 1960’s as a means of alleviating the burden of an escalating caseload crisis. Selective publication rules permit courts to designate certain opinions as “unpublished,” while no-citation rules bar litigants from citing to, and simultaneously restrict the precedential value of, those opinions. Although these rules have arguably succeeded in their pursuit of judicial economy, courts and commentators have suggested myriad reasons why they may be constitutionally infirm. This Note focuses on the First Amendment implications of no-citation rules. Specifically, it maintains that these rules—which restrict attorneys from communicating certain information (the content of an unpublished opinion) in advance of the time that such communication is to occur (in a brief or at oral argument)—operate as an impermissible prior restraint on attorney speech.
{"title":"No-Citation Rules as a Prior Restraint on Attorney Speech","authors":"Marla Brooke Tusk","doi":"10.2307/1123835","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1123835","url":null,"abstract":"The federal appellate courts promulgated selective publication and nocitation rules in the 1960’s as a means of alleviating the burden of an escalating caseload crisis. Selective publication rules permit courts to designate certain opinions as “unpublished,” while no-citation rules bar litigants from citing to, and simultaneously restrict the precedential value of, those opinions. Although these rules have arguably succeeded in their pursuit of judicial economy, courts and commentators have suggested myriad reasons why they may be constitutionally infirm. This Note focuses on the First Amendment implications of no-citation rules. Specifically, it maintains that these rules—which restrict attorneys from communicating certain information (the content of an unpublished opinion) in advance of the time that such communication is to occur (in a brief or at oral argument)—operate as an impermissible prior restraint on attorney speech.","PeriodicalId":51408,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Law Review","volume":"103 1","pages":"1202"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/1123835","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68286640","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Square Pegs and round Holes: Substantive Due Process, Procedural Due Process, and the Bill of Rights","authors":"Peter J. Rubin","doi":"10.2307/1123779","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1123779","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51408,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Law Review","volume":"103 1","pages":"833"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2003-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/1123779","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68284537","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This is an effort to describe the dynamics of interaction between federal prosecutors and federal enforcement agents, and to suggest how these dynamics affect the exercise of enforcement discretion. It concludes by exploring ways in which the proposed normative model - which sees prosecutors and agents as members of a "working group," with each side monitoring the other - can be furthered or frustrated with various procedural and structural changes.
{"title":"Prosecutors and Their Agents - Agents and Their Prosecutors","authors":"D. Richman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.316144","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.316144","url":null,"abstract":"This is an effort to describe the dynamics of interaction between federal prosecutors and federal enforcement agents, and to suggest how these dynamics affect the exercise of enforcement discretion. It concludes by exploring ways in which the proposed normative model - which sees prosecutors and agents as members of a \"working group,\" with each side monitoring the other - can be furthered or frustrated with various procedural and structural changes.","PeriodicalId":51408,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Law Review","volume":"103 1","pages":"749"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2003-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68567982","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Business Judgment Rule: Should It Protect Nonprofit Directors?","authors":"Denise Lee","doi":"10.2307/1123781","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1123781","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51408,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Law Review","volume":"103 1","pages":"925"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2003-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/1123781","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68284592","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：