This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
A recent Law360 guest article rightly questions the pretextual pseudo-originalism that permits ideology to masquerade as judicial philosophy, but the cure would kill the patient because directness, simplicity and humanness are achievable without renouncing form or sacrificing staredecisis, says Vanessa Kubota at the Arizona Court of Appeals.
Gore (2000), and Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015). Even where not done so directly, the Court has repeatedly repudiated the underpinnings of the theory in cases like Smiley v. Holm (1932), Bush v.
” As to waiver based upon the “not binding” statement from Motorola, the Federal Circuit concluded that the intent of that statement was with reference to staredecisis and binding precedent rather than binding as a matter of preclusion. California , 530 U.S. ” That appears to create waiver. .”
Arizona , the court denied a petition filed by a California man charged with blackmailing the married Arizona woman with whom he had been having an affair. Today, six states, including Arizona, continue to use criminal juries as small as six or eight members. Khorrami v. In Khorrami v. Over 50 years ago, in Williams v.
Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, and Bruce Babbitt of Arizona, then the secretary of the interior, before nominating Breyer – releasing the decision so quickly that Breyer did not have time to travel to Washington for the announcement.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content