株式会社極東書店トップ > 商品一覧 > Injustice on Appeal : The United States Courts of Appeals in Crisis.
商品詳細
Injustice on Appeal : The United States Courts of Appeals in Crisis. W.M.リッチマン、W.L.レイノルズ著 上訴に関する不正-危機における米国控訴裁判所
・ISBN 978-0-19-534207-9 2013 hard US$ 150.00
¥35,145.- (税込) ※(※)価格はご注文時の参考価格となります。
納品価格につきましては書籍の入荷時点で確定となります。
版元の原価改定、外国為替の変動等により異なる場合がございますので、予めご了承下さい。
お気に入り
★★★
電子版あり 大学・学術機関向け電子ブック(eBook)ISBN 978-0-19-933239-7
| 著者・編者 | Richman, William M. / Reynolds, W. L., |
|---|---|
| 出版社 | (Oxford U. Pr., US) |
| ページ数 | 256 pp. |
| 言語 | ENG |
| ニュース番号 | <598-1123> |
解説
The United States Circuit Courts of Appeals are among the most important governmental institutions in our society. However, because the Supreme Court can hear less than 150 cases per year, the Circuit Courts (with a combined caseload of over 60,000) are, for practical purposes, the courts of last resort for all but a tiny fraction of federal court litigation. Thus, their significance, both for ultimate dispute resolution and for the formation and application of federal law, cannot be overstated. Yet, in the last forty years, a dramatic increase in caseload and a systemic resistance to an increased judgeship have led to a crisis. Signed published opinions form only a small percentage of dispositions; judges confer on fifty routine cases in an afternoon; and most litigants are denied oral argument completely. In Injustice on Appeal: The United States Courts of Appeals in Crisis, William M. Richman and William L. Reynolds chronicle the transformation of the United States Circuit Courts; consider the merits and dangers of continued truncating procedures; catalogue and respond to the array of specious arguments against increasing the size of the judiciary; and consider several ways of reorganizing the circuit courts so that they can dispense traditional high quality appellate justice even as their caseloads and the number of appellate judgeships increase. The work serves as an analytical capstone to the authors' thirty years of research on the issue and will constitute a powerful piece of advocacy for a more responsible and egalitarian approach to caseload glut facing the circuit courts.