Search

The article explains the grounds for decision on the merits in the context of an extraordinary writ petition. Issues discussed include entitlement to a second or third opportunity for the same relief by the same writ in a different court in Jenkins v. Wainwright, unelaborated denial of an extraordinary writ petition and the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel in Topps v. State, difference between judicial finality and discretion, and per curiam affirmed decision.

The Supreme Court's decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson seriously complicates judicial review of unconventional private enforcement schemes. Announced in December 2021, before the leak and eventual publication Of the Dobbs decision, *WH studiously declined to block the effectiveness of the Texas Heartbeat Act, S.B. 8, citing a reluctance to allow injunctive reliefagainst state courts andjudges. As a result, parties threatened with bounty-based private entbrcement akin to that in S.B. 8 will struggle to secure an efective federal test of the constitutionality of state restrictions. The WNVH framework encourages more states, both red and blue, to use unconventional private enforcement regimes to limit pre-enforcement review. Legal scholarship on unconventional regimes like S.B. 8 has yet to consider the writ of prohibition as a vehicle, for judicial review. This Essay puts the *WH decision into conversation with the forms of injerior-court supervision available through the common law writ of prohibition. Prohibition empowers superior courts to block lower courts from exercising authority over matters outside their jurisdiction. Among its other features, prohibition operates directly on lower courts and their judges, threatening them with the injunctive relief that WWH deemed improper in an Ex parte Young action. Prohibition thus offers one answer to the.judicial-power concerns that derailed the *WH litigation and a jbundation for a broader vision of federal judicial oversight of unconventional enforcement schemes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When the United States Supreme Court agrees to hear a case, it also determines what legal questions it will answer in that case. We investigate the variation in the Court's acceptance, alteration, and addition of questions presented (QPs) in petitions for the writ of certiorari. Examining data on granted cases from 2010–2020, we find that the Court is overwhelmingly passive, accepting the petitioners' QPs without comment in most cases. We also find variation related to ideological alignment and petitioner identity. These findings have important implications for our understanding of the Court's policymaking efforts and its exercise of agenda-setting power and underscore the important role that litigants play in legal development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In June 2023, the Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari in Moore v. United States, ostensibly a challenge to an obscure provision of the 2017 tax legislation. Moore's real target is the constitutionality of federal wealth and accrual taxation, which policymakers have proposed to combat record inequality and raise revenue for social-welfare reform. At the center of the doctrinal dispute in Moore is a century-old case, Eisner v. Macomber, on which the Moore petitioners and other commentators have relied to argue that Congress has no power to tax wealth or unrealized gains--e.g., appreciation in unsold stocks. Most scholars agree that Macomber limited Congress's taxing power to realized income, and they argue that subsequent cases have abrogated Macomber. However, the Supreme Court has never overruled--in fact, went out of its way not to overrule--Macomber, and some contend that it remains good law. This Article reconceptualizes Macomber and analyzes its doctrinal implications for structural tax reform. In contrast to the prevailing scholarly views, it argues that Macomber is best read as a case turning on the absence of income rather than realization. Through careful analysis of the majority opinion and its doctrinal background, including constitutional challenges to the Civil War income tax, the Article articulates five interpretive models of Macomber. By examining little-read cases on the taxation of lease improvements and corporate reorganizations from the 1920s to the 1940s, the Article shows that Macomber's doctrinal progeny eliminated three of those models, left undisturbed another, and reaffirmed the income-centric model. Under the income-centric model, Macomber poses no serious barrier to federal wealth or accretion taxation. In fact, it suggests avenues to designing a constitutional wealth tax that might otherwise fail judicial scrutiny. This firmer ground for a broad conception of the federal taxing power allows Congress to enact structural tax reform to vindicate our democracy's commitment to egalitarianism and distributive justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a literal prohibition in the media bar that media lawyers cannot represent plaintiffs in suits for defamation. The stated principle behind this rule--a rule that can result in excommunication from the premier media law organization if it is violated--is that playing both sides of the defamation game is disloyal to traditional media actors because any chance of victory could inadvertently distort the law of defamation to increase the risk of frivolous suits against media outlets or other innocent third parties. But has the maxim finally gone too far? Fueled by a new model where media profits are driven by views, both the mainstream media and social media platforms have restructured their business in a way that calls for the revisitation of the prohibition. Specifically, if one examines the disturbing rise of misinformation and disinformation, the clear trend is toward knowing falsehoods by media outlets and media pundits. There are numerous recent lawsuits against the media for engaging in misinformation, including the Sandy Hook lawsuit against Alex Jones, suits by poll workers in Georgia against the Gateway Pundit and One America News Network, and of course, Dominion and Smartmatic's suits against Fox and other media pundits for erroneous statements in the aftermath of the 2020 election. This Article argues that "Defamation 2.0"--suits by media lawyers against media companies and media pundits that spread misinformation and disinformation--can significantly improve media accountability by seeking to obtain the truth and to push for apologies and corrections on equal footing with misinformation. In addition, the link between misinformation and political violence is now well-established, and defamation lawsuits offer the possibility of holding not only the media accountable but also social media platforms where the content is or has been created by the platform. In so doing, it offers the possibility of protecting democracy against erosion by forces threatening to undermine U.S. institutions and seeking to inflame and foment violence such as the January 6 insurrection or mass shootings throughout the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to address the encountered problems and concerns of the National Labor Relations Commission - National Capital Region Arbitration Branch (NLRC-NCRAB) Sheriffs in implementing the writ of execution. A quantitative and descriptive research approach was used, with a survey questionnaire as the research instrument tool. 29 active sheriffs in the NLRC-NCRAB were the respondents of this study. Findings show that most of the incumbent sheriffs at the NLRCNCRAB are 51-65 years old, have been in the service for at least 6-10 years, and are college graduates. A substantial number received more or less 11-20 writs of execution in a month; a more significant number satisfied an average of 1-10 writs. It was concluded that among the problems and concerns at the Sheriff's Office regarding the issuance of the writ is the "non-issuance of the break-open, contempt order, and show-cause order" being the top compared to other raised issues encountered by them (M=3.93). It also reveals that parties' compliance relative to the writ, a predominant calculated mean of 3.86, points to the "no coordination by the prevailing parties with the sheriff assigned to the case" and is considered similarly "serious." Correlatively, the results reveal that in terms of writ implementation, the "non-provision of bonded warehouse and towing vehicles" exhibited the most rated among the enumerated issues and was interpreted "very serious" problem being encountered by the NLRC-NCRAB Sheriffs with a determined mean average of 4.28. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lord Frederick Campbell Charter xxi 5 is the only surviving English document that still has an authentic, legible, pre-Conquest seal attached to it. The text purports to be a writ of Edward the Confessor (1003x5–1066) granting a slew of rights to Christ Church Cathedral, Canterbury. We examined the writ using multispectral imaging to recover layers of erased text. Many scholars have noted that the text of the writ was altered on at least one occasion. Now, multispectral imaging confirms that there were multiple layers of erasures, even more than previously anticipated. The original writ may have been inscribed on reused parchment. This can be used as evidence for the conditions (and even the immense quantity) in which writs were produced during Edward's reign. Alternatively – or additionally – the writ's multiple alterations could suggest that it was rewritten repeatedly after the Conquest, during various phases of Canterbury's post-Conquest property disputes. The results confirm Nicholas Brooks' hypothesis that at one stage the text was altered from referring to the rights to the archbishop alone (in the singular), to instead refer to the whole community at Christ Church (in the plural). Taken together, these results reveal shifts in legal thinking in Canterbury between 1066 and 1100, while demonstrating the enduring authority of Edward the Confessor's seal. These results also show the potential for using multispectral imaging to illuminate – literally – the history of manuscript production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on twenty-fifth anniversary of the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Topics include representing a number of clients in federal district and appellate courts petitioning for writs of habeas corpus; and federal courts and the Supreme Court in particular driving common-law making under the statute.

Habeas corpus is known as the "Great Writ" because it supposedly protects individual liberty against government overreach and guards against wrongful detentions. This idea shapes habeas doctrine, federal courts theories, and habeas-reform proposals. It is also incomplete. While the writ has sometimes protected individual liberty, it has also served as a vehicle for the legitimation of excesses of governmental power. A more complete picture of the writ emerges when one considers traditionally neglected areas of public law that are often treated as distinct--the law of slavery and freedom, Native American affairs, and immigration. There, habeas has empowered abusive exercises of government authority rather than just constraining them. Accurate histories of the writ--and accurate stories about the writ--matter. The myth of habeas was one device that courts used to fold the writ into the legal apparatus of American colonialism and racial subordination. Dispelling that myth and developing a more complete picture of habeas can provide a new lens through which to evaluate habeas-reform proposals and avoid replicating the errors of the past. Understanding the complex and sometimes internally contradictory functions of habeas illuminates the dynamic relationship between judicial remedies and government power. And these usages of habeas show how law and legal processes, including celebrated instruments such as habeas, can and have become tools of racial subordination and colonialism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses how lawyers can challenge a Florida circuit court's decision denying a real estate developer client's case questioning a local government's disapproval of a proposed development project. Topics discussed include writ of mandamus, writ of certiorari, and the appellate remedy to appeal the court's ruling.

This is the first article-length study of the sheriffs of York and Yorkshire in the Tudor period. It argues that the shrievalty was a thriving system which fulfilled diverse vital functions of local government and administration. It begins by introducing the sheriffs of York and Yorkshire, explaining their relationship and manner of appointment. It then explains the principal duties of these sheriffs, namely service on the city council of York, the execution of writs, the keeping of prisoners, the maintenance of law and order and revenue collection. The article proceeds to analyse the sheriffs' judicial responsibilities in the Court of Pleas, tourn and county court. It concludes with information about a broader project conceived by the author: a comprehensive study of the Tudor sheriff across England, Wales and Ireland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is the first article-length study of the sheriffs of York and Yorkshire in the Tudor period. It argues that the shrievalty was a thriving system which fulfilled diverse vital functions of local government and administration. It begins by introducing the sheriffs of York and Yorkshire, explaining their relationship and manner of appointment. It then explains the principal duties of these sheriffs, namely service on the city council of York, the execution of writs, the keeping of prisoners, the maintenance of law and order and revenue collection. The article proceeds to analyse the sheriffs' judicial responsibilities in the Court of Pleas, tourn and county court. It concludes with information about a broader project conceived by the author: a comprehensive study of the Tudor sheriff across England, Wales and Ireland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The originary constituent safeguards defenses mechanisms for the realization of constitutional rights, the right that, the doctrine called as constitutional writs . Two of then, particularly interesting to save-guard the judicial protection of the fundamental rights: The People's and Public Civil lawsuit. this is evidence of a guarantee that we will establish in this script.

This article opens up a neglected source-base for the study of late medieval England: royal writs under the privy seal to the chief justice of the King's Bench ordering a halt to legal proceedings. These writs gave the king a greater degree of flexibility than simply pardoning someone, including allowing him the option of reopening cases. This article demonstrates the value of this neglected instrument of royal power by placing one example in a broader context. The case study focuses on a writ sent by Henry VII to his chief justice halting the case against John Hale, a yeoman, who was in the contingent of John de Vere, earl of Oxford, in the lead up to the Battle of Stoke. It illuminates the nature of kingship and good lordship in late medieval England, showing how the two ideas could interact for the benefit of king, lord and servant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article argues that the issuance of decryption orders under the All Writs Act threatens to violate the separation of powers doctrine and also violates the freedom of third-party corporations not to assist. Topics covered include the history of the All Writs Act, including its predecessors as well as their common usage by federal courts before 1948, the applications of the Act in Supreme Court jurisprudence, and the Act's role as a gap-filling jurisdictional device for judicial review.

This study analyses two Old English formulae gret freodlice ('greets in a friendly manner') and ic cyðe eow þæt ('I make it known to you that'), which form a salutation–notification template in a document type called writs. It connects the emergence of this formulaic set to previous oral traditions of delivering news and messages, and to their reflection in dictation practices from at least the time of King Alfred. Their later routinisation and standardisation is seen as a factor brought about by the centralised production of royal writs and their subsequent adoption as templates in monastic scriptoria across the country. These templates continue to be recycled in the early Middle English period both in English and in Latin writs, ultimately shifting to Latin-only documents during the reign of William the Conqueror. Although this shift does not hinder the continuity of the selected bureaucratic template into the later Middle Ages, it affects the structure of the discourse community associated with the chancery norms, consolidating its core (those literate in Latin who are involved in production and preservation of writs) and marginalising its periphery (English speakers who used to make up the informed audience for writs in local courts). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Note argues that the Federal Circuit’s holding in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva—that sales that are publicly known but that do not disclose the invention trigger the on-sale bar to patentability—perpetuates an interpretation o f the onsale bar that disproportionately burdens small inventors by limiting their ability to engage in pre-commercialization transactions with third parties. The addition of the language “otherwise available to the public” to 35 U.S.C. § 102 provided the Federal Circuit with the opportunity to narrow the on-sale bar to include only sales that make the invention publicly available, but the Federal Circuit did not apply such an interpretation in Helsinn. Furthermore, this Note argues that the interpretation o f the on-sale bar adhered to in Helsinn is undesirable as a matter of policy because it obstructs innovation by small firms and individuals. A narrow on-sale bar that does not cover pre-commercialization transactions would better serve to drive innovation. An exploration of the policy implications of the Federal Circuit’s decision is particularly timely since the Supreme Court granted Helsinn’s petition for a writ of certiorari on June 25, 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The courts are often a key site in the struggle for the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights and accountability. In this article, I draw attention to an important avenue for both the historical and contemporary study of comparative administrative law: the incorporation of the prerogative writs into written constitutions. I offer a global genealogy of the writs as a colonial common law transfer that took on a new life in written constitutions across former British colonies, particularly across South Asia, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Myanmar, as well as parts of Africa, the Pacific and the Caribbean. I illustrate the history, development and variations of this model, transforming from the common law remedies of England to a constitutional means of protecting rights. Through the case of Myanmar, I demonstrate the history of transnational constitutional borrowing and innovation in former British colonies. The importance of the writs lies in their symbolic status as a constitutional remedy and, despite present limitations, comparative experience offers future scope for judicial activism in Myanmar. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Commentators have identified that one of the most significant problems in current MDL practice is the lack of judicial authority over non-class aggregate settlements. This paper explores the use of the All Writs Act to provide MDL judges with robust authority to manage, supervise, and ultimately review non-class aggregate deals that are the object of much recent criticism. It rejects the thesis that judicial supervision of non-class settlements is unwarranted because these deals are contractual, and that oversight therefore removes claimant autonomy and damages the adversarial system. Several MDL judges already have invoked the All Writs Act to police parallel class action settlements that might jeopardize pending MDL negotiations. This paper explores and endorses the argument that MDL judges may, with equal force, exercise power pursuant to the All Writs Act to police pending non-class settlements in their jurisdiction. As the MDL non-class settlement paradigm has evolved, some MDL judges have sought to intervene in settlement activities by invoking authority pursuant to three theories: (1) the quasi-class action, (2) the inherent powers of the court, and (3) the All Writs Act. As critics note, the quasi-class action and inherent judicial power have provided weak support for judicial intervention in non-class aggregate settlements. But to date, commentators have paid scant attention to judicial power under the All Writs Act or its use in MDL proceedings. The explosion o f the MDL docket in the twenty-first century represents the most notable paradigm shift in the American legal landscape in several decades. Currently, the MDL panel assumes jurisdiction over almost all emerging aggregate mass tort and small claims consumer actions. With this marked proliferation o f MDL proceedings, commentators have signaled various growing concerns with the MDL resolution o f large-scale collective disputes. In particular, critics have focused on issues relating to non-class aggregate settlements accomplished under MDL auspices. The MDL statute provides judges with authority to supervise and manage coordinated pre-trial proceedings, but little else. Historically, MDL proceedings have proven effective vehicles fo r resolving mass disputes through class action settlements, subject to Rule 23 requirements and constraints. Currently, however, attorneys have pivoted to resolving aggregate disputes through nonclass settlements that are negotiated and consummated outside class action procedures, which relieves parties o f Rule 23 judicial supervision, oversight, and review. The MDL statute provides scant authority fo r judicial oversight o f non-class aggregate settlements. This shift to non-class settlements has inspired concern regarding the substantive, procedural, and ethical dimensions o f these deals. A major debate centers on the question o f judicial authority in the non-class settlement arena and this paper seeks to provide that authority by focusing on judicial power under the All Writs Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of FORO: Revista de Ciencias Juridicas y Sociales Nueva Epoca is the property of Universidad Complutense de Madrid and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article focuses on the right to immediate appeal of orders under Rule 9.130(a)(3) (C) of Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure addressing workers compensation immunity. Topics discussed include difference between appealable and nonappealable orders; protection from workplace injuries to the employees; and granting of extraordinary writs for the same.

In nearly 700 years of activity the position of the Court of Common Pleas in the English legal scene was paramount. This article examines the court 's surviving brevia files, recently accessioned into series CP 52 at The National Archives. It unravels their archival journey from their creation by the court's clerks through centuries of neglect and often poor storage conditions up to the digital world of The National Archives online catalogue, with a focus on variation and change in the court's record keeping practice over time. It also outlines the complex task of arranging and cataloguing the files so that they could be made available to researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses Louisiana appellate system and writ application process. It mentions information on consistent Louisiana Supreme Court precedent concerning writ denial; judges viewpoints on the effect of a writ denial; and inconsistencies in Louisiana appellate courts' application of the law of the case doctrine after declining to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.

The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, authorizes federal courts to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law." The Act has applications in a variety of contexts, including law enforcement investigations, the detention of military prisoners, and the management of complex multidistrict litigation. Another important but less studied area is the Act's use as a mechanism to examine ongoing proceedings of federal administrative agencies. While judges generally hesitate to review nonfinal administrative action, courts have found authority under the Act to issue writs of mandamus and injunctions to agencies to compel action or suspend the enforceability of preliminary decisions while parties pursue administrative appeals. This Note examines the use of the All Writs Act to issue such relief and the doctrine governing the standards parties must meet to obtain it. After revealing significant disagreement in the case law as to the appropriate thresholds for court intervention, it advocates for balanced standards designed to preserve agency autonomy and access to judicial review alike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on decision of Bangladesh High Court's decision of dismissal and discusses the substance of the petition before ultimately proffering a prediction. Topics discussed include history of secularism in the region of Bengal, India as birth of Bangladesh as a secular nation, how Islam became the state religion, thereby supplanting the principle of secularism and merits of the writ petition and analyzes the legal arguments of its position.

The article focuses on constitutional adjudication process for healthcare questions in Costa Rica and the benefits and limitations of this constitutional adjudication process. It mentions different constitutional writs that can be submitted by Costa Rican citizens in the defense of their individual rights and liberties. It also mentions impact on the Costa Rican public health and social security systems.

The article discusses the authority of the government to compel information technology companies to develop software that bypass their security features under the All Writs Act, arguing that the statute violates the Fifth and First Amendment liberties.

The article focuses on the issues surrounding the marketing policy of Apple iPhones in the U.S. Topics include law enforcement's use of All Writs Act (AWA)for the public safety; United States v. New York Telephone Co. case in which the court held that law enforcement officials may obtain a court order forcing telephone companies to install pen registers in order to record the numbers called from a particular telephone; and Apple's opposition of AWA used by the Department of Justice.