不引用规则对律师言论的先行约束

IF 3.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Columbia Law Review Pub Date : 2003-06-01 DOI:10.2307/1123835
Marla Brooke Tusk
{"title":"不引用规则对律师言论的先行约束","authors":"Marla Brooke Tusk","doi":"10.2307/1123835","DOIUrl":null,"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 Selective publication rules permit courts to designate certain opinions as “unpublished,” while no-citation rules bar litigants from citing to, and simultaneously restrict the precedential value of, those opinions.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it maintains that these rules—which restrict attorneys from communicating certain information (the content of an unpublished opinion) in advance of the time that such communication is to occur (in a brief or at oral argument)—operate as an impermissible prior restraint on attorney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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/1123835","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No-Citation Rules as a Prior Restraint on Attorney Speech\",\"authors\":\"Marla Brooke Tusk\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/1123835\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"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 Selective publication rules permit courts to designate certain opinions as “unpublished,” while no-citation rules bar litigants from citing to, and simultaneously restrict the precedential value of, those opinions.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it maintains that these rules—which restrict attorneys from communicating certain information (the content of an unpublished opinion) in advance of the time that such communication is to occur (in a brief or at oral argument)—operate as an impermissible prior restraint on attorney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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/1123835\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Columbia Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/1123835\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1123835","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

20世纪60年代,联邦上诉法院颁布了选择性公布和通知规则,作为减轻日益增加的案件危机负担的一种手段。选择性发表规则允许法院将某些意见指定为“未发表”,而不引用规则禁止诉讼当事人引用这些意见,同时也限制了这些意见的判例价值。尽管这些规则在追求司法经济方面可以说是成功的,但法院和评论家们提出了无数理由,说明它们在宪法上可能是脆弱的。本注侧重于第一修正案对不引用规则的影响。具体来说,法院坚持认为,这些规则——限制律师在沟通发生之前(以简短或口头辩论的形式)传达某些信息(未发表意见的内容)——作为一种不允许的对律师言论的事先限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
No-Citation Rules as a Prior Restraint on Attorney Speech
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Columbia Law Review is one of the world"s leading publications of legal scholarship. Founded in 1901, the Review is an independent nonprofit corporation that produces a law journal edited and published entirely by students at Columbia Law School. It is one of a handful of student-edited law journals in the nation that publish eight issues a year. The Review is the third most widely distributed and cited law review in the country. It receives about 2,000 submissions per year and selects approximately 20-25 manuscripts for publication annually, in addition to student Notes. In 2008, the Review expanded its audience with the launch of Sidebar, an online supplement to the Review.
期刊最新文献
Legal Access to the Global Cloud Criminal Justice, Inc. Separation of Powers Metatheory The Restoration Remedy in Private Law Economic Crises and the Integration of Law and Finance: The Impact of Volatility Spikes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1