Geological Observatory of Coldigioco
PennState, The Dickinson School of Law: Penn State Law eLibraryNot a member yet
7581 research outputs found
Sort by
Dimensions of Prosecutor Decisions: Revealing Hidden Factors with Correspondence Analysis
No full textDespite the significant impact of prosecutorial discretion on criminal justice outcomes, there are very few large-scale studies of state and local prosecutor decision-making. Our previous empirical research demonstrated that a defendant’s race and class do not affect prosecutorial charging decisions and revealed a gap in the literature about factors that do influence prosecutorial charging decisions and sentencing recommendations. Accordingly, we designed a study to obtain more information about prosecutor discretion and decision-making. Over 500 prosecutors from across the United States completed our vignette-based experiment and survey, which produced quantitative and qualitative data. We transformed these data to use Correspondence Analysis (CA), an empirical method that allowed us to identify associations between prosecutors’ charging decisions and sentencing recommendations for a hypothetical defendant and the prosecutors’ individual characteristics, office and jurisdiction characteristics, and the factors they described as important to their decision-making. Our analysis shows two dimensions of prosecutor decisions—Punitive vs. Therapeutic Sentence and Most Severe Criminal Record vs. Least Severe Criminal Record—and we mapped the prosecutor decisions onto these dimensions. Our results also reveal factors associated with prosecutor decisions about charges and whether to (i) defer prosecution or suspend sentences, (ii) recommend a monetary penalty, (iii) recommend a term of confinement, or (iv) seek alternative sentences, and we discuss these findings in the context of effects on recidivism
The Intra-EU BIT Dilemma and the Enforcement of Awards Outside the EU: A Solution for Investors After the CJEU Shut the Door to Their Cases?
No full text
The LIV Golf v. PGA Tour Antitrust Case as a Case Study in Federal Civil Procedure
No full textThis Article uses LIV Golf Inc. v. PGA Tour, Inc., a sophisticated and headline-grabbing antitrust matter, as a means of instantiating federal civil procedure concepts. The first Part of this Article addresses the unsuccessful motion for a temporary restraining order that in many ways shaped how the litigation proceeded. The second Part examines the dance that is discovery through a focus on a drawn-out dispute regarding a single interrogatory. The final Part drills down on a more novel discovery dispute that began the path towards settlement, namely whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 and related common-law doctrine insulated two third parties based in Saudi Arabia from discovery obligations in the United States. The Article concludes that, although the settlement of the case was superficially a front-page surprise, it was actually the inevitable result of procedure. Created both to inspire assignments and be assignable, this is an Article written with the classroom in mind
A Bill of Thirst: How Congress Can Support Interstate Water Markets
No full textAddressing modern-day water scarcity will likely require legal mechanisms to facilitate efficient water transfers between states. One such mechanism is a water market. Water markets promote more efficient water consumption and abound within states, but generally do not exist between states. This absence stems from protectionist state laws and from interstate water compact provisions which govern and allocate shared water sources. While useful in many regards, interstate water compacts often impose unnecessary legal obstacles against innovative drought-mitigating measures—including interstate water markets. The most serious of these obstacles is the fact that states cannot revise interstate water compacts without (1) obtaining unanimous consent from all original parties to a compact and (2) receiving Congressional approval for proposed revisions. The fierceness of interstate water disputes—and the asymmetrical costs and benefits associated with revising outdated interstate compact provisions—make it extremely difficult for states to take the initiative in implementing interstate water markets.
This Comment contends that Congress should take the initiative instead, under the exercise of its Commerce Clause powers. This Comment advances the foregoing proposal as follows: Part I provides a primer on water law and interstate water compacts. Part II presents interstate water markets as a solution to water scarcity and explains how Congress should act to enable them. Specifically, Part II argues that Congress should enact legislation that revises federal and state statutory provisions which presently prevent interstate water transfers. Part II also argues that Congress should enact legislation prohibiting states from imposing new, reactionary impediments to prevent parties from buying and selling water rights to buyers in other states. By so doing, Congress can unleash the floodgates of interstate water commerce needed to respond to drought conditions
