Panel Formation

A Court of Specialists ◽

10.1093/oso/9780197509234.003.0005 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 109-132

Author(s):

Chris Hanretty

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Political Factors ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Working Together

This chapter looks at the identity of the judges chosen to hear each case. The Supreme Court is unlike other courts: it does not sit en banc, and the five-, seven-, or nine-judge panels are not chosen randomly, but are drawn up by court officials working together with senior judges. This chapter looks at explanations of how these panels are chosen. The key finding is that specialists in the relevant area of law are prohibitive favorites to be chosen to hear cases in those areas of law—and this effect is stronger the more important the case is. There is no evidence of political factors playing a role—if anything, judges who agree with senior judges are less likely to be picked for important cases.

Download Full-text

The Constrained Court

10.23943/princeton/9780691151045.001.0001 ◽

2011 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Michael A. Bailey ◽

Forrest Maltzman

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Policy Preferences ◽

Political Factors ◽

Unique Role ◽

Political Actors ◽

Constitutional Order ◽

Law And Politics ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

American Law

How do Supreme Court justices decide their cases? Do they follow their policy preferences? Or are they constrained by the law and by other political actors? This book combines new theoretical insights and extensive data analysis to show that law and politics together shape the behavior of justices on the Supreme Court. The book shows how two types of constraints have influenced the decision making of the modern Court. First, the book documents that important legal doctrines, such as respect for precedents, have influenced every justice since 1950. The book finds considerable variation in how these doctrines affect each justice, variation due in part to the differing experiences justices have brought to the bench. Second, it shows that justices are constrained by political factors. Justices are not isolated from what happens in the legislative and executive branches, and instead respond in predictable ways to changes in the preferences of Congress and the president. This book shatters the myth that justices are unconstrained actors who pursue their personal policy preferences at all costs. By showing how law and politics interact in the construction of American law, this book sheds new light on the unique role that the Supreme Court plays in the constitutional order.

Download Full-text

International Recognition in the Supreme Court of Canada’s Québec Reference

Canadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international ◽

10.1017/s0069005800006950 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 36 ◽

pp. 335-346 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Daniel Turp ◽

Gibran van Ert

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Supreme Court Of Canada ◽

Political Factors ◽

International Recognition ◽

The Supreme Court

SummaryIn its August 1998 reference, Reference Re Secession of Québec, the Supreme Court of Canada discussed the topic of the international recognition of Québec. The authors argue that the Court is incorrect in its suggestion that recognition is a precondition for statehood, confusing legal and political factors. In the authors’ view, the introduction of the concept of international recognition by the Court is an attempt to provide a sanction against unilateral secession and to back up the Court’s view that there is an obligation to negotiate any departure by Québec. The result, the authors consider, is unsatisfying for it leads the Court into legal error and political conjecture.

Download Full-text

Malpractice & Negligence: Cal. Supreme Court Clarifies Negligence Provisions under State’s Elder Abuse Act

The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics ◽

10.1017/s1073110500012973 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 27 (2) ◽

pp. 203-203

Author(s):

Kendra Carlson

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Health Care Providers ◽

Elder Abuse ◽

Skilled Nursing Facility ◽

Pressure Sores ◽

Care Providers ◽

Nursing Facility ◽

Skilled Nursing ◽

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of California held, in Delaney v. Baker, 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 610 (1999), that the heightened remedies available under the Elder Abuse Act (Act), Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 15657,15657.2 (West 1998), apply to health care providers who engage in reckless neglect of an elder adult. The court interpreted two sections of the Act: (1) section 15657, which provides for enhanced remedies for reckless neglect; and (2) section 15657.2, which limits recovery for actions based on “professional negligence.” The court held that reckless neglect is distinct from professional negligence and therefore the restrictions on remedies against health care providers for professional negligence are inapplicable.Kay Delaney sued Meadowood, a skilled nursing facility (SNF), after a resident, her mother, died. Evidence at trial indicated that Rose Wallien, the decedent, was left lying in her own urine and feces for extended periods of time and had stage I11 and IV pressure sores on her ankles, feet, and buttocks at the time of her death.

Download Full-text

Medical and Legal Issues Raised by the Protz Decision Issued by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2017.julaug03 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 22 (4) ◽

pp. 12-13

Author(s):

LuAnn Haley ◽

Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

Workers Compensation ◽

Sixth Edition ◽

Complex Concept ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Compensation Claims ◽

Recent Edition ◽

Impairment Ratings ◽

Definition Of

Abstract Pennsylvania adopted the impairment rating provisions described in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) in 1996 as an exposure cap for employers seeking predictability and cost control in workers’ compensation claims. In 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down the Protz decision, which held that requiring physicians to apply the methodology set forth in the most recent edition of the AMA Guides reflected an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the American Medical Association. The decision eliminates the impairment-rating evaluation (IRE) mechanism under which claimants were assigned an impairment rating under the most recent edition of the AMA Guides. The AMA Guides periodically are revised to include the most recent scientific evidence regarding impairment ratings, and the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, acknowledges that impairment is a complex concept that is not yet defined in a way that readily permits an evidence-based definition of assessment. The AMA Guides should not be considered standards frozen in time simply to withstand future scrutiny by the courts; instead, workers’ compensation acts could state that when a new edition of the AMA Guides is published, the legislature shall review and consider adopting the new edition. It appears unlikely that the Protz decision will be followed in other jurisdictions: Challenges to using the AMA Guides in assessing workers’ compensation claims have been attempted in three states, and all attempts failed.

Download Full-text