This influential opinion by famed jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes [5], Jr. was copied by courts throughout the United States. For over sixty years, courts refused to recognize a cause of action on behalf of a child who died before or after birth as a result of injuries suffered in the womb [6] because the fetus [7] was considered legally a part of its mother and thus did not possess personhood [8]...

II. JUDICIAL SPECIALIZATION: A BACKGROUND .............................. 397 A. The Theoretical Context for Judicial Specialization ............... 397 B. Typologies of Judicial Specialization ...................................... 399 C. Arguments for and Against Specialized Courts ....................... 400 1. Development of Judicial Human Capital .............................. 401 2. Creati...

Traditionally, courts interpreting written contracts focused primarily on the contract's language. Consideration of factors beyond the "four corners" of the document was discouraged. Modern courts construing standard form insurance contracts have deviated from this course and begun aiding the insured against the insurer. One of the methods used to tilt insurance disputes in favor of the insured...

Consumer protection is everywhere in retreat. Congress has rejected the Food and Drug Administration's proposed ban on saccharin,' and several courts and state legislatures have attempted to block the FDA's attack on Laetrile.2 The Consumer Product Safety Commission's recent ruling that swimming pool slides must carry danger warnings 3 has elicited widespread ridicule, brought a reversal in the...

This article reviews the legal basis for the psychiatrist's duty to protect third parties who are foreseeably endangered by their patients. Cases illustrating how courts decide whether the duty exists and whether it was violated are presented. Courts are impressed by, and clinicians should know about, threats to particular individuals, existence of a credible motive for violence, and a past his...

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426 I. A Very Brief Overview of Judicial Federalism in the Context of Criminal Process.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428 II. Retroactivity Doctrine as Applied to Federal Constitutional New Rules.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

Courts have struggled to strike a balance between the interests of individuals and cities with the application of intermediate scrutiny to content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions, and several variations have emerged. This Comment will examine the breadth of those approaches as they affect the determination of what expression triggers First Amendment protection. Ultimately, the Note...

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been offered as a basis for criminal defenses, including insanity, unconsciousness, self-defense, diminished capacity, and sentencing mitigation. Examination of case law (e.g., appellate decisions) involving PTSD reveals that when offered as a criminal defense, PTSD has received mixed treatment in the judicial system. Courts have often recognized testimo...

Appellate courts make policy, not only by hearing cases themselves, but by establishing legal rules for the disposition of future cases. The problem is that such courts are generally multimember, or collegial, courts. If different judges prefer different rules, can a collegial court establish meaningful legal rules? Can preferences that take the form of legal rules be aggregated? I use a “case-...