Research in Progress – April 2011

Nancy Marder is working on the production of a symposium entitled “Comparative Jury Systems,” which she has organized for the Chicago-Kent Law Review. The symposium includes articles from ten contributors who have written about jury systems all over the world. The symposium begins with a Foreword by Judge Brian Barker, the Common Serjeant of London and Deputy Senior Judge at the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey. Professor Marder, who is the Symposium Editor, has also contributed an article entitled Two Weeks at the Old Bailey: Jury Lessons from England and an Introduction. The symposium will be published this spring.

Sheldon Nahmod has been on leave for spring semester 2011 in order to study the papers of various Supreme Court justices at the Library of Congress in Washington, DC. His project involves an historical analysis of important Supreme Court cases on Section 1983 beginning with the first, Tenney v. Brandhove, handed down in 1951.

Henry Perritt is working on a new article on how the law should mitigate search and holdup costs when creators of new entertainment works seek to clear copyright permissions.

Joan Steinman is completing her article, Appellate Courts as First Responders: The Constitutionality and Propriety of Appellate Courts Resolving Issues in the First Instance. The article addresses questions such as “Do Article III or Congressional statutes speak to federal appellate authority to address new issues – and, if so, what do they say?” and “What guidance has the Supreme Court given with respect to appellate courts’ proper role in regard to new issues?”

Professor Steinman is also completing a 2011 Teachers’ Update for Appellate Courts: structures, functions, processes and personnel (2d ed., LexisNexis, 2006) (with Daniel J. Meador and Thomas E. Baker).

She is planning an article on the questionable constitutionality of the Energy Policy Act. The Act provides that claims alleging actual or threatened water contamination by MTBE may be removed to federal court. Some of these claims will not constitute “federal questions,” the Act does not require that a federal defense be asserted, and it does not require even minimal diversity among the parties.

Professor Steinman is starting work on the 2012 pocket parts for volumes 14B and 14C of Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure.