Circuit Court Of Appeals Research Articles

Educators: Qualifying for the Home-Office Deduction

Abstract Before 1985 the home-office deduction was rarely available for professors. The Weissman Case (1984) liberalized the home-office deduction significantly. Now the focal point doctrine has been dismissed by the U.S. Tax Court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, making the home-office deduction more available to university professors. This article addresses the qualifying factors for professors to obtain the home-office deduction.

British and American Journal Evaluation: Divergence or Convergence?

regarded by a jury who undoubtedly knew its own mind when it came to pornography (Alexander v. United States, 271 F.2d 140 (8th Cir. 1959)). Similarly, the university political science professor who testified on the effects of hair length in public schools may have ventured beyond his area of expertise; at least so thought the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (Karr v. Schmidt, 460 F.2d 609, 612-613 (5th Cir. 1972)). Nevertheless, political scientists generally have been respectfully received in most cases reviewed. In many cases their opinions have been central to the resolution of key issues. As awareness of the contributions of social scientists spreads in the legal community, political scientists can expect additional opportunities to test their experience in federal and state courtrooms. About the Author

A Court Divided: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Politics of Judicial Reform.

A Court Divided: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Politics of Judicial Reform.

<sc>deborah j. barrow</sc> and <sc>thomas g. walker</sc>. <italic>A Court Divided: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Politics of Judicial Reform</italic>. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1988. Pp. xiv, 274. $29.95

Journal Article deborah j. barrow and thomas g. walker. A Court Divided: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Politics of Judicial Reform. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1988. Pp. xiv, 274. $29.95 Get access Barrow Deborah J. and Walker Thomas G.. A Court Divided: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Politics of Judicial Reform. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1988. Pp. xiv, 274. $29.95. Tony Freyer Tony Freyer University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The American Historical Review, Volume 95, Issue 2, April 1990, Pages 578–579, https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/95.2.578-a Published: 01 April 1990

A Court Divided: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Politics of Judicial Reform.

A Court Divided: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Politics of Judicial Reform.

A Court Divided: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Politics of Judicial Reform

A Court Divided: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Politics of Judicial Reform

Federal Judicial Remedial Power: The Yonkers Case

The United States District Court in 1985 determined that Yonkers, New York intentionally segregated public housing and public schools by locating nearly all of its public and subsidized housing in one section of the city. Although the city initiated actions to promote school integration in compliance with a court order, the city council refused to implement the housing remedy order. Failure of the council to implement a consent order in 1988 led to the U.S. District Court holding the city and four council members in contempt of court and imposing fines. The desegregation decision was upheld by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court of appeals upheld the contempt rulings against the city and the four council members, and the Supreme Court granted the council members' petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari. The council members raised procedural objections, charged the district court with abuse of discretion, maintained that the remedial ordinance could not be adopted by the specified date without violating the state's notice and hearing requirements, and claimed legislative immunity and protection under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court in 1990 held that the district court's contempt sanctions were an abuse of discretion and that the district court should have limited its contempt sanctions to the city of Yonkers and not to the councilmen. The Court did not address the question of whether local legislators possess legislative immunity.

Deciding Who Decides: Understanding the Realities of Judicial Reform

On October 1, 1981, an extraordinary spectacle took place in the ceremonial courtroom of the ornate Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals building in New Orleans. More than 30 circuit judges assembled on a platform along with Solicitor General Rex E. Lee, former Attorney General Griffin Bell, and other dignitaries. After a series of speeches extolling the Fifth Circuit’s illustrious past, 17 of the judges, led by Chief Judge John Godbold, filed from the platform. They were now members of a new tribunal, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The old Fifth Circuit had passed into history.The story of how the Fifth Circuit came to be divided into two new circuits is told by two political scientists, Deborah J. Barrow and Thomas G. Walker, in A Court Divided: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Politics of Judicial Reform. The account is fascinating in its own right, but it also raises a number of questions that transcend the particular restructuring that is the book’s subject. This essay addresses two of these broader issues. First, how does a scholar go about investigating the origins of judicial reforms? Second, were the political underpinnings to the controversy over dividing the Fifth Circuit aberrational, or are political consequences implicit in any proposal for the restructuring of judicial institutions?In this essay, the author draws on his experiences as the deputy director of the Hruska Commission to provide additional context for the events discussed in the book and to illustrate the difficulties of accurately tracing the history of a judicial reform measure. The author also examines the history and political implications of other judicial-reform efforts, including a successful proposal to centralize patent appeals in a single national court and pending legislation to divide the largest of the federal circuits, the Ninth.

Interventions and Power in Judicial Hierarchies: Appellate Courts in England and the United States

Despite the advances made in the study of appellate courts in the past several decades, little attention has been devoted to evaluating the role of appellate courts cross-nationally. This article examines appellate courts in England and in America, particularly the English Court of Appeal and the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals. The American and English systems are proposed as alternative models of the relationship between courts and their respective political systems in Western common law regimes. Focusing on the intervention behavior of the intermediate appellate courts and their interaction with their respective courts of last resort, the data presented reveal more commonality than divergence in the behavior of the two judicial hierarchies.

A Court Divided: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Politics of Judicial Reform. By Deborah Barrow and Thomas Walker. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. 263p. $29.95.

A Court Divided: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Politics of Judicial Reform. By Deborah Barrow and Thomas Walker. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. 263p. $29.95.

A Court Divided: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Politics of Judicial Reform

A Court Divided: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Politics of Judicial Reform

The new competitive environment

~ re are at the beginning of an important decade in telecommunications, a decade that began in 1988. The year 1968 marked the beginning of the decade of customer premises equipment (CPE). That was the year the Federal Communicat ions Commission (FCC) announced Carterfone. The conventional wisdom at the time, in much of the telephone business--most especially in the Bell Syst e m w a s that competition was economically impossible, or technologically undesirable, in CPE markets. CPE was widely viewed as part of the network, part of that natural monopoly that would never be shattered. Many thought that Carterfone was a regulatory frolic, going nowhere fast. Where are we today? Competition in CPE markets could not be more robust. The Carterfone policy has been an enormous success. Ten years after Carterfone came Execunet II. That was in 1978, the second landmark year. The FCC had been considering competitive long-distance services for some time. Then, in 1978, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals handed down its Execunet II decision. That ruling declared that the Bell System companies had to provide MCI and the other common carriers (OCCs) with the interconnection necessary for the OCCs to originate and terminate MTS (measured toll service) and WATS (wide area telephone service) calls. That was the beginning of equal access, and really the beginning of the end of the old Bell System. The breakup that followed four years later was all but inevitable. The central objective of divestiture was to make full equal access for long-distance carriers a reality. It is worth remembering how drastically the accepted wisdom has changed in the intervening decade. In 1978 a great many people were certain that the whole idea of long-distance competition was another piece of regulatory insanity. Some serious economists were confident that the long-distance network was an integral part of the existing telephone system and the natural monopoly. If MCI were going to make any headway at all, it would only be because it had favorable access tariffs and could cream-skim, as the pundits put it. As soon as tariffs equilibrated, MCI and the rest were certain to fold. Those predictions have been proved wrong as well, so far at least. We have growing and apparently viable competition in the long-distance markets. Nobody really talks much about natural monopoly in those areas any more.

A case study of a difference in perspectives: The DC circuit court of appeals and the FCC

The conflict between the Federal Communications Commission and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in recent years has been the cause of a great deal of consternation on the part of interested parties. The leading trade magazine, Broadcasting, reported that “The FCC's record in defending its actions in the [DC Circuit] court has come under increasing scrutiny because of what appears to be a large number of defeats.” FCC General Counsel Diane Killory said in a speech that she was troubled that “honest differences of opinion seem to have given rise to a more generalized distrust and disdain toward the commission.” This paper demonstrates that the roots of the conflict lie in the two incompatible philosophies embraced by the major parties engaged in the conflict.

At Law: Webster and the Politics of Abortion

Recent legal disputes regarding the constitutionality of statutes restricting abortion in the US center around whether women and their physicians will make decisions about abortions or whether such decisions will be the domain of state legislatures. In 1989 the Missouri 8th Circuit Court of Appeals heard a case (Webster) involving a state statute designed to restrict access to abortion. The statute under question included an assumption that life begins at conception a hospitalization requirement the requirement that a physician determine viability a ban on use of public funds for abortion and restrictions on the use of public facilities for pregnancy terminations. A federal trial court declared these provisions unconstitutional; however Missouri is seeking Supreme Court review of the Webster decision. Since abortion has become the most frequently performed medical procedure in the US it is unlikely to be outlawed. However a narrowing of abortion rights seems inevitable. In addition to further restrictions on indirect government support in terms of facilities and funding there will likely be efforts to add restrictions to minors seeking abortions and to confine abortions to earlier points in pregnancy.

A court divided: the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the politics of judicial reform

A court divided: the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the politics of judicial reform

AFSCME v. Washington: The Continued Viability of Title VII Comparable Worth Actions

The recent AFSCME v. Washington comparable worth case attracted significant public attention when plaintiffs won an initial $800 million judgment against the State of Washington, only to see the award overturned on appeal. This paper reviews the legal theories used by the trial court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The current legal status of comparable worth is discussed, with particular emphasis on the applicability and precedential value of the Ninth Circuit's opinion for comparable worth cases in other jurisdictions. Analysis indicates that conflicts between the Ninth Circuit holding and opinions in other circuits provide a continuing opportunity for aggrieved employees to pursue claims under comparable worth or closely related legal theories.

Ball Memorial Hospital: Section 2 Sherman Act Analysis in The Alternative Health Care Delivery Market

In 1986, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Ball Memorial Hospital v. Mutual Hospital Insurance denied an injunction sought under the antitrust laws by the plaintiffs, eighty acute care hospitals, which would have precluded Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Indiana from implementing a Preferred Provider Organization. The Ball court used a conservative economic analysis to deny the injunction and failed to consider many industry-specific factors. This Note examines these factors and challenges the Ball court's position by arguing that antitrust scrutiny of alternative health care delivery markets must go beyond the court's narrow approach.

Die Alchemie in der europaischen Kultur- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Christoph Meinel

Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewsDie Alchemie in der europaischen Kultur- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Christoph Meinel Bruce T. MoranBruce T. Moran Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Isis Volume 78, Number 3Sep., 1987 Publication of the History of Science Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/354530 Views: 2Total views on this site Citations: 23Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1987 History of Science Society, Inc.PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Ettore Asoni Reassessing the camp/prison dichotomy: New directions in geographic research on confinement, Progress in Human Geography 46, no.66 (Sep 2022): 1349–1368.https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325221118578Claire Nolasco Braaten, Michael S. Vaughn Litigation on Gender Confirmation Surgery and Hormonal Therapy among Trans Women Prisoners: Views from the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, Women & Criminal Justice 32, no.1-21-2 (Aug 2021): 163–184.https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2021.1962481Sharon Dolovich The Failed Regulation and Oversight of American Prisons, Annual Review of Criminology 5, no.11 (Jan 2022): 153–177.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024445Kathrine Bendtsen On the Force-Feeding of Prisoners on Hunger Strike, HEC Forum 31, no.11 (Oct 2018): 29–48.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-018-9365-4Keramet Reiter, Kelsie Chesnut Correctional Autonomy and Authority in the Rise of Mass Incarceration, Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14, no.11 (Oct 2018): 49–68.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-031009Vidisha Barua Worley Smart use of smart weapons: jail officer liability for the inappropriate use of tasers and stun guns on pretrial detainees, Security Journal 31, no.33 (Feb 2018): 726–748.https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-018-0127-4Roger J. R. Levesque Marital Rights, (Feb 2018): 2224–2227.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33228-4_746Louis A. Ruprecht Secular Courts and Sacred Ties: A Critical Analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court's Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage, Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal 99, no.44 (Nov 2016): 429–478.https://doi.org/10.5325/soundings.99.4.0429Rick Dierenfeldt, Greg Lindsteadt, Jacob Laan, Kristen N. Sobba Big Brother as a Contract Monitor: An Assessment of the Use of Contract Staff to Monitor Offender Communications, American Journal of Criminal Justice 41, no.22 (Mar 2015): 279–295.https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-015-9295-5Kevin I. Minor, Jennifer L. Tilley The Roberts Court and the Technicalization of Correctional Law, Corrections 1, no.11 (Feb 2016): 20–39.https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2016.1105655Christopher E. Smith Shaping Constitutional Law: The Example of Prisoners’ Rights, (Aug 2016): 1–13.https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56763-5_1Christopher E. Smith The Expansion and Contraction of Rights: Through the Eyes of Justice Marshall, (Aug 2016): 37–59.https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56763-5_3Christopher E. Smith A Protective Constitutional Vision: Justice Stevens and the Principles of Liberty, (Aug 2016): 61–83.https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56763-5_4Christopher E. Smith A Rejectionist Constitutional Vision: Justice Thomas and Originalist Arguments, (Aug 2016): 85–107.https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56763-5_5Christopher E. Smith The Pragmatic Middle and Its Consequences: The Influence of Justice O’Connor, (Aug 2016): 109–128.https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56763-5_6Christopher E. Smith Redefinition of Precedent: The Influence of Justice Scalia, (Aug 2016): 153–173.https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56763-5_8Christopher E. Smith Reaction and Retrenchment, (Aug 2016): 175–195.https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56763-5_9James E. Robertson Recent Legal Developments, Criminal Justice Review 38, no.22 (Mar 2013): 256–270.https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016813479081Naoki Kanaboshi, James F. Anderson Conjugal visits could test the limits of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, Criminal Justice Studies 24, no.44 (Nov 2011): 381–393.https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2011.625700Mie Lewis The Human Rights of Children in Conflict with the Law: Lessons for the U.S. Human Rights Movement, (Apr 2011): 255–273.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511842269.014Lee Boothby Protecting Freedom of Religion or Belief in Restricted or Institutional Settings, (Jan 2004): 407–423.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-5616-7_16Frederick R. Parker, Charles J. Paine Informed Consent and the Refusal of Medical Treatment in the Correctional Setting, The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 27, no.33 (Jun 2016): 240–251.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.1999.tb01458.xJ. Richard Ciccone THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND PSYCHIATRY IN THE 1990s, Psychiatric Clinics of North America 22, no.11 (Mar 1999): 197–211.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-953X(05)70069-1

4,4'-Methylenebis (2-chloroaniline): an unregulated carcinogen.

4,4'-Methylenebis (2-chloroaniline) (MBOCA) is a confirmed animal carcinogen. It is used commercially as a curing agent for polymers containing isocyanate. There are no adequate studies documenting a carcinogenic risk for MBOCA in humans; however, studies in rats and dogs have shown that MBOCA is a carcinogen. Also, MBOCA is structurally similar to aromatic amines, which cause bladder cancer in workers with occupational exposure. Manufacture of MBOCA in the United States ceased in 1979. However, estimates of the number of workers potentially exposed range from 1,400 to 33,000 in the manufacture of MBOCA-cured products. Presently, there are no federal regulations limiting occupational exposure to MBOCA. An occupational standard for MBOCA proposed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration was remanded by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on procedural grounds in 1974. NIOSH recommended in 1978 that MBOCA be treated as a potential human carcinogen and that worker exposure be controlled so that it does not exceed 3 micrograms/m3 of air determined as a time-weighted average concentration for up to a 10-hour workshift (the lowest level that can be reliably measured). In this paper, we will review the literature in regard to MBOCA's carcinogenicity, describe industrial use and extent of worker exposure, and review MBOCA's status in relation to occupational regulations in the United States and abroad.

Reimbursement of Private School Costs Is Available Under the EHCA

One of the more controversial issues litigated in the courts under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act is whether the parents of a handicapped child who unilaterally place that child in a private school can be reimbursed for tuition costs if their choice in placement is later determined to be the appropriate one. For several years most of the federal courts held that they were not unless exceptional circumstances prompted the unilateral move. Controversy developed in 1983 when the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the parents were entitled to be reimbursed even if exceptional circumstances were not present to warrant the unilateral placement. The Supreme Court recently settled the controversy by agreeing with the First Circuit. In this article the author presents the factual background surrounding the controversy and discusses the implications of the Supreme Court decision.