Fun with Numbers: Gall’s Mixed Message regarding Variance Calculations
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Fun with Numbers: Gall’s Mixed Message regarding Variance Calculations on Facebook
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Fun with Numbers: Gall’s Mixed Message regarding Variance Calculations on Twitter
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Fun with Numbers: Gall’s Mixed Message regarding Variance Calculations on Email
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Fun with Numbers: Gall’s Mixed Message regarding Variance Calculations on LinkedIn
She thanks the University of Chicago Law Review Online team for their helpful feedback.
This Case Note first provides a background on the doctrine of absolute immunity. It then evaluates the court’s analysis in Gay and compares Gay with the Third Circuit’s decision in Williams v. Consovoy (3d Cir. 2006). Finally, this Case Note argues that Gay is more consistent with Supreme Court precedent on absolute immunity and more in line with historical understandings of the doctrine. This issue has particularly high stakes, as psychologists’ medical role can create a “guise of objectivity.” As a result, even a biased psychologist might still receive strong deference from a judge and could then be the reason a person spends the rest of their life in prison.
The author thanks the University of Chicago Law Review Online team for their helpful feedback.
How often do Supreme Court opinions include what might be called “lobbying language,” which endorses a policy position while calling for another government entity to realize it? Reviewing relevant cases, this Essay finds that the sample set includes at least a dozen examples of lobbying language. As it turns out, lobbying is not so unusual for the Supreme Court.
I would like to thank Professor Alison Siegler for introducing me to the law on joinder. This Comment would not exist without her guidance and support. I would also like to thank the talented editors of the Law Review for their helpful comments and suggestions.
A criminal defendant is charged with wire fraud in violation of 18 USC § 1343. As he and his defense attorney prepare for trial, the US Attorney’s Office notifies him that there is reason to believe he has previously committed bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 USC § 152.