Justifying the Law-Equity Divide Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Marco Jimenez, Justifying the Law-Equity Divide, 2016 Jotwell 178 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
2016
Transparency and Policymaking at the Supreme Court Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Louis J. Virelli, Transparency and Policymaking at the Supreme Court, 32 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 903 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Transparency is undoubtedly an important principle in a democratic government. It is not, however, necessarily a one-size-fits-all proposition. This holds true for issues of transparency at the Supreme Court. Whereas the Court’s traditional adjudicative responsibilities fit comfortably within norms of transparent decision making like publishing written opinions in merits cases, some of its other, more policy-oriented roles do not. This short paper considers two areas in which the Court’s activities more closely resemble policy judgments than traditional adjudication — certiorari and recusal — and uses them as examples of how the nature of the Court’s activity can impact the value of transparency in that activity. It does not seek to prove that transparency is per se less valuable in certiorari and recusal decisions, but rather to highlight the highly discretionary nature of those decisions and to propose that granting such a high degree of latitude to the Court also triggers some of the protections, like the deliberative process privilege, that are more commonly associated with policymaking by administrative agencies. The result is a call for a more context-based dialogue about transparency at the Court in hopes of promoting both our democratic values and the legitimacy of one of our most important institutions.
Avoid-Mitigate-Compensate Sequence: Wetland Conservation Book Chapter
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Royal C. Gardner, Avoid-Mitigate-Compensate Sequence: Wetland Conservation, in The Wetland Book (C. Max Finlayson et al. eds., 2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Not So Friendly to Frenville: The Split Among Courts Regarding Accrual of Claims in Bankruptcy Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Theresa J. Pulley Radwan, Not So Friendly to Frenville: The Split Among Courts Regarding Accrual of Claims in Bankruptcy, 68 Baylor L. Rev. 728 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Compensation in Wetlands Book Chapter
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Royal C. Gardner, Compensation in Wetlands, in The Wetland Book (C. Max Finlayson et al. eds., 2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Examining and Dismantling the School-to-Prison Pipeline: Strategies for a Better Future Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Judith A.M. Scully, Examining and Dismantling the School-to-Prison Pipeline: Strategies for a Better Future, 68 Ark. L. Rev. 959 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Thirty Years after ‘Walters’ the Mission is Clear, the Execution is Muddled: A Fresh Look at the Supreme Court’s Decision to Deny Veterans the Due Process Right to Hire Attorneys in the VA Benefits Process Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Stacey-Rae Simcox, Thirty Years after ‘Walters’ the Mission is Clear, the Execution is Muddled: A Fresh Look at the Supreme Court’s Decision to Deny Veterans the Due Process Right to Hire Attorneys in the VA Benefits Process, 84 U. Cin. L. Rev. 671 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Part I of this article will discuss the historical beginnings of the VA’s mission and the current process for a veteran to receive benefits from the VA. Part II will consider the historical underpinnings of the VA’s non-adversarial system and review the history of attorney representatives in the VA process. It will also discuss the Supreme Court decision in Walters and the changes in the law that brought judicial review to VA decisions and codified the VA’s duties to a veteran. Part III will analyze the current state of the non-adversarial system of the VA and the problems the VA has recently had in implementing a non-adversarial, veteran-friendly system. Part IV will propose that the current state of affairs at the VA require a new evaluations of a veteran’s due process right to an attorney under the Mathews test. It will also propose that the best way to preserve the veteran-friendly nature of the VA’s system is to allow attorneys to help veterans in this process and alleviate the burden on the VA.
Ecosystem Credit and Payment Stacking: Overview Book Chapter
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Royal C. Gardner, Ecosystem Credit and Payment Stacking: Overview, in The Wetland Book (C. Max Finlayson et al. eds., 2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Family Matters in an Elder Law Practice Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Rebecca C. Morgan, Family Matters in an Elder Law Practice, 29 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers 109 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The Need for Better Medical Evidence in VA Disability Compensation Cases and the Argument for More Medical-Legal Partnerships Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Stacey-Rae Simcox, The Need for Better Medical Evidence in VA Disability Compensation Cases and the Argument for More Medical-Legal Partnerships, 68 S.C. L. Rev. 223 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability compensation process is intended to recompense military veterans who suffer a physical or mental disability caused by their service in the United States military. Anyone who has worked to help a veteran navigate the VA disability compensation system knows that the process can be daunting. A veteran is required to provide evidence to the VA that the disability he suffers is related to his military service. While the VA system does have procedures that are intended to ease the burden of providing this evidence, the overall implementation of the system, particularly when it applies to medical evidence, is not terribly efficient or effective. Recognizing the importance of medical evidence in particular to establish a veteran's entitlement to disability compensation, this Article intends to 1) provide an overview of the veteran's need for medical evidence; 2) discuss some of the issues within the VA system that inhibit a veteran from reaping the statutory benefit Congress intended the VA system to provide; and 3) provide an alternate method of helping veterans to navigate the medical evidentiary requirements of this process. To explore these topics, a case study will be provided in order to examine the issues in more depth.