233 research outputs found

    Selection and Tenure of Maryland Judges: an Explanation of a Proposal

    Get PDF

    Considering New Issues on Appeal: The General Rule and the Gorilla Rule

    Get PDF
    One aspect of the appellate process that most bedevils judges and lawyers occurs when a party attempts to raise an issue in the appellate court that it did not present to the trial court. This question creates problems for the following reasons: (1) the general rule against considering new issues on appeal; (2) the perception that it is unfair to the appellant if the new issue is not considered, yet it is unfair to the appellee if the new issue is considered; and (3) the failure or inability of appellate courts to articulate any principled basis for determining when and under what circumstances a new issue will be considered. As a result, it is almost impossible to predict in a particular case whether or not the appellate court will consider a new issue raised by the appellant. This uncertainty reduces the value of being the successful party in the trial court and adds to the already overwhelming caseload of American appellate courts by encouraging appeals. Further, in many appeals, which would have been taken in any event, it can add two issues: whether or not to consider the new issue, as well as the merits of the issue itself. Legal scholars have paid little attention to the problem, not-withstanding the enormous implications of the decision whether or not to consider new issues on appeal. In fact, the only article on the subject was published over a half century ago. Since that time,courts increasingly are willing to consider new issues, bringing into question the continued validity of the general rule. The purpose of this Article is to reexamine the general rule against considering new issues on appeal, explore the many exceptions to it, and analyze whether courts should continue to apply the rule. The Article will also examine whether exceptions to the general rule should exist and, if so, which exceptions should be recognized and under what circumstance

    Restrictions on Publication and Citation of Judicial Opinions: A Reassessment

    Get PDF
    In response to the crisis of volume, state and federal appellate courts have been restricting the opinions they write to those opinions which will: (1) establish a new. rule of law or expand, alter, or modify an existing rule; (2) involve a legal issue of continuing public interest; (3) criticize existing law; or (4) resolve a conflict of authority. All other opinions are limited to brief statements of the reasons for the decision, go unpublished, and generally carry a prohibition against their being cited as precedent. Recently, critics have alleged a number of faults with this practice, including the supposed loss of judicial accountability, the difficulties of appellate review, the problems of predicting precedential value, the inequalities of parties\u27 access to unpublished opinions, and the illusory nature of the claims of judicial and litigant economy. In this Article, Professor Martineau demonstrates that these criticisms are based on false premises and ignore the realities of legal research and the appellate decision making process. Professor Martineau writes that limited publication and citation rules are an essential way to respond to increasing caseloads, so long as: (1) they are crafted and administered to ensure that the criteria for publication are maintained with several checks on judges\u27 discretion not to publish and (2) the prohibitions against citing unpublished opinions be enforced strictly through good example, sanctions, and structural mechanisms intended to make the opinions available less readily to people other than the immediate parties

    Mechanical strength and thermophysical properties of PM212: A high temperature self-lubricating powder metallurgy composite

    Get PDF
    A powder metallurgy composite, PM212, composed of metal bonded chromium carbide and solid lubricants is shown to be self-lubricating to a maximum application temperature of 900 C. The high temperature compressive strength, tensile strength, thermal expansion and thermal conductivity data needed to design PM212 sliding contact bearings and seals are reported for sintered and isostatically pressed (HIPed) versions of PM212. Other properties presented are room temperature density, hardness, and elastic modulus. In general, both versions appear to have adequate strength to be considered as sliding contact bearing materials, but the HIPed version, which is fully dense, is much stronger than the sintered version which contains about 20 percent pore volume. The sintered material is less costly to make, but the HIPed version is better where high compressive strength is important

    Frivolous Appeals: The Uncertain Federal Response

    Full text link
    • …
    corecore