Taking the Imperial Judiciary Seriously: Segmenting Property Interests and Judicial Revision of Legislative Judgments

This Article examines the diversion of the Takings Clause from its historic limited role to that of a charter for courts to second-guess legislative determinations of land-use rights and wrongs. As we shall see, prior to Lucas the Supreme Court and others following its lead have generally not regarded the Takings Clause as a warrant for reaching de novo determinations on land use problems and then substituting such judicial determinations, if different, for those of the legislature. Some notable exceptions in the Claims Court and Federal Circuit will then be considered along with the ostensible Supreme Court authority, a sentence in Agins v. City of Tiburon. The future importance of such activist review will be considered in light of the main barrier still standing against it, the no-segmentation rule, which requires that the impact of land use regulations be viewed in relation to the owner\u27s property “as a whole.” Finally, against this background the Article will address the question of the courts\u27 proper role in supervising legislative judgments in the land use field

Document Similarity of Czech Supreme Court Decisions

Retrieval of court decisions dealing with a similar legal matter is a prevalent task performed by lawyers as it is a part of a relevant decision-making practice review. In spite of the natural language processing methods that are currently available, this legal research is still mostly done through Boolean searches or by contextual retrieval. In this study, it is experimentally verified whether the doc2vec method together with cosine similarity, can automatically retrieve the Czech Supreme Court decisions dealing with a similar legal issue as a given decision. Furthermore, the limits and challenges of these methods and its application on the Czech Supreme Court decisions are discussed

Trenton Threatened Skies Inc v. FAA

Agenc

Semantic Segmentation of Legal Documents via Rhetorical Roles

Legal documents are unstructured, use legal jargon, and have considerable length, making them difficult to process automatically via conventional text processing techniques. A legal document processing system would benefit substantially if the documents could be segmented into coherent information units. This paper proposes a new corpus of legal documents annotated (with the help of legal experts) with a set of 13 semantically coherent units labels (referred to as Rhetorical Roles), e.g., facts, arguments, statute, issue, precedent, ruling, and ratio. We perform a thorough analysis of the corpus and the annotations. For automatically segmenting the legal documents, we experiment with the task of rhetorical role prediction: given a document, predict the text segments corresponding to various roles. Using the created corpus, we experiment extensively with various deep learning-based baseline models for the task. Further, we develop a multitask learning (MTL) based deep model with document rhetorical role label shift as an auxiliary task for segmenting a legal document. The proposed model shows superior performance over the existing models. We also experiment with model performance in the case of domain transfer and model distillation techniques to see the model performance in limited data conditions.Comment: 19 pages, Accepted at Natural Legal Language Processing Workshop, EMNLP 202

An Evaluation of Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Practices among Agribusiness Firms

Customer Relationship Management (CRM) has received much attention in the business press as a management process to enhance firm performance. This research highlights differences between groups of respondents who believe their firm's CRM program is performing at a high level, as compared to those not satisfied with the performance of their CRM initiative. Cluster analysis was used to develop a taxonomy of respondents based on their perceived CRM performance. The resulting clusters are then profiled on both demographic variables as well as a core set of activities/behaviors to better understand key differences in the CRM programs of agribusinesses.customer relationship management (CRM), marketing, strategy, information technology, cluster analysis., Agribusiness,

National Juries for National Cases: Preserving Citizen Participation in Large-Scale Litigation

Procedural evolution in complex litigation seems to have left the civil jury behind. Reliance on aggregating devices, such as multidistrict litigation and class actions, as well as settlement pressure created by “bellwether” cases, has resulted in cases of national scope being tried by local juries. Local juries thus have the potential to impose their values on the rest of the country. This trend motivates parties to forum-shop, and some commentators suggest eliminating jury trials in complex cases altogether. Yet the jury is at the heart of our uniquely American understanding of civil justice, and the Seventh Amendment mandates its use in federal cases. This Article makes a bold proposal to align the jury assembly mechanism with the scope of the litigation: In cases of national scope, juries would be assembled from a national pool. This proposal would eliminate incentives for parties to forum-shop, and it would make the decisionmaking body representative of the population that will feel the effects of its decision. The Article argues that we would see greater legitimacy for decisions rendered by a national jury in national cases. Moreover, it argues that geographic diversification of the jury would enhance the quality of decisionmaking. Finally, national juries would preserve the functional and constitutional values of citizen participation in the civil justice system

Precedent as Rational Persuasion

The ways that judges and lawyers make and justify their arguments and decisions have profound impacts on our lives. Understanding those practices in light of theories of reasoning and argumentation is thus critical for understanding law and the society it shapes. An inquiry that explores the very foundations of all legal reasoning leads to a broad, important question: How do lawyers and judges use cited cases in their legal arguments? It turns out there is practically no empirical research to suggest the answer. As the first step in a comprehensive empirical effort to answer this question, this article performs a ground-breaking analysis of a carefully constructed corpus of judicial opinions and the advocates’ briefs that gave rise to them. It tells us not just that these textual artifacts cited court opinions, but how they used the opinions in their reasoning. The article then reveals whether judges and advocates placed different values on different ways of using cited cases. These legal authors used them to make assertions about legal rules in their arguments about twice as often as they used them as legal analogies and about four times as often as they used them to make policy arguments. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the practices of judges differed significantly from those of advocates. But so, too, did those of the prevailing advocates and their less fortunate opponents. On functional grounds, therefore, this article empirically supports the claim that there is a hierarchy of rational legal argumentative appeals, and that there is a common look to the ‘losing brief.’ This special convergence between theory and function can transform ongoing debates across legal scholarship on the value of drawing on precedent as a tool for rational persuasion

Clogging the Pipeline: Exploring the D.C. Circuit\u27s Improper Segmentation Analysis in \u3cem\u3eDelaware Riverkeeper Network v. FERC

Technological advancement in drilling techniques, primarily hydraulic fracturing, has provided access to previously unreachable natural gas reserves. Much of this increase in natural gas production is derived from the Marcellus Shale, a shale formation that spans Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and New York. This surge in natural gas production has prompted natural gas pipeline companies to upgrade their pipeline networks. Pipeline companies must apply for certificates of public convenience and necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and, if approved, perform an environmental evaluation, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In examining the environmental impacts of the pipeline project, pipeline companies must be careful not to impermissibly segment the project into component parts, thereby failing to consider a proposed project\u27s full range of environmental impacts. This is referred to as the rule against segmentation, developed by courts to ensure that companies consider the full range of environmental consequences of proposed projects. The D.C. Circuit recently reviewed the scope of a pipeline project\u27s environmental assessment in Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, holding that the FERC impermissibly segmented four pipeline upgrade projects by failing to consider their impacts in one environmental assessment. This Comment analyzes the D.C. Circuit\u27s decision in Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. FERC and argues that the court improperly applied NEPA \u27s rule against segmentation. The precedent established from the D.C. Circuit\u27s decision will cause even further delays in the pipeline permitting process and will hinder the United States\u27s ability to utilize its supply of natural gas