Solimine, Michael E. / Fall 2014

Posted on by

Michael published:

 
Michael was quoted in a news article on election law and third parties in Sean Myers, “Don’t Like Kasich or Fitzgerald? Ohio Ballot Will Have 3rd Option for Governor,” Cincinnati Enquirer, Oct. 25, 2014.

Several of Michael’s books and articles were cited:

  • Respecting State Courts: The Inevitability of Judicial Federalism (1999) (with James L. Walker), in Paul R. Gugliuzza, Patent Law Federalism, 2014 Wis. L. Rev. 11; Wayne A. Logan, A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 235 (2014).
  • Voting Rights and Election Law (2010) (with Michael Dimino and Bradley Smith), in Nicholas O. Stephanopolous, Teaching Election Law, 13 Election L.J. 447 (2014); David Schultz, The State of Democracy in North Dakota, 89 N.D. L. Rev. 371 (2013).
  • Newsmagazine Coverage of the Supreme Court, 57 Journalism Q. 661 (1980), in RonNell Anderson Jones, Media Politicization of the United States Supreme Court, 4 Oñati Socio-Legal Ser. 613 (2014).
  • Constitutional Litigation in Federal and State Courts: An Empirical Analysis of Judicial Parity, 10 Hastings Const. L.Q. 213 (1983) (with James L. Walker), in Dustin E. Buehler, Solving Jurisdiction’s Social Cost, 89 Wash. L. Rev. 653 (2014); Brooke D. Coleman, Civil-izing Federalism, 89 Tul. L. Rev. 307 (2014).
  • Ideology and En Banc Review, 67 N.C. L. Rev. 29 (1988), in Jennifer Barnes Bowie, et al., The View from the Bench and Chambers: Examining Judicial Process and Decision Making on the U.S. Courts of Appeals (U. Va. Press 2014).
  • An Economic and Empirical Analysis of Choice of Law, 24 Ga. L. Rev. 49 (1989), in Mark Thomson, Method or Madness?: The Leflar Approach to Choice of Law as Practiced in Five States, 66 Rutgers L. Rev. 81 (2013).
  • Revitalizing Interlocutory Review in the Federal Courts, 58 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1165 (1990), in Dustin E. Buehler, Solving Jurisdiction’s Social Cost, 89 Wash. L. Rev. 653 (2014); Ana Matanzo Vicens & Rocío de Félix Dávila, Derecho Procesal Civil, 82 Rev. Jur. U.P.R. 309 (2013).
  • Skills Skepticism in the Postclinic World, 40 J. Legal Ed. 307 (1990) (with Joseph P. Tomain), in Robert J. Condlin, “Practice Ready Graduates”: A Millennialist Fantasy, 31 Touro L. Rev. 75 (2014).
  • Rethinking Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, 52 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 383 (1991), in Paul R. Gugliuzza, Patent Law Federalism, 2014 Wis. L. Rev. 11.
  • Choice of Law in the American Courts in 1991, 40 Am. J. Comp. L. 951 (1992), in Symeon C. Symeonides, Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2013: Twenty-Seventh Annual Survey, 62 Am. J. Comp. L. 223 (2014).
  • Forum-Selection Clauses and the Privatization of Procedure, 25 Cornell Int’l L.J. 51 (1992), in Gerhard Wagner, The Dispute Resolution Market, 62 Buff. L. Rev. 1085 (2014); Monika L. Woodward, Comment, Ghosts Have Rights Too! A New Era in Contractual Rights: Third-Party Invocation in Forum-Selection Clauses, 26 St. Thomas L. Rev. 467 (2014).
  • The Next Word: Congressional Response to Supreme Court Statutory Decisions, 65 Temp. L. Rev. 425 (1992) (with James Walker), in Robert Katzmann, Judging Statutes (Oxford Univ. Press 2014).
  • Diluting Justice on Appeal?: An Analysis of the Use of District Judges Sitting by Designation on the United States Courts of Appeal, 28 U. Mich. J. L. Ref. 351 (1995) (with Richard Saphire), in Jonah J. Horwitz, Social Insecurity: A Modest Proposal for Remedying Federal District Court Inconsistency in Social Security Cases, 34 Pace L. Rev. 30 (2014).
  • The Three-Judge District Court in Voting Rights Litigation, 30 U. Mich. J.L. Ref. 79 (1996), in Jonah J. Horwitz, Social Insecurity: A Modest Proposal for Remedying Federal District Court Inconsistency in Social Security Cases, 34 Pace L. Rev. 30 (2014).
  • Judicial Reputation: A Citation Analysis of Federal Courts of Appeals Judges, 27 J. Legal Stud. 271 (1998) (with William Landes and Lawrence Lessig), in John S. Liu, et al., Citations with Different Levels of Relevancy: Tracing the Main Paths of Legal Opinions, 65 J. Assoc. Inform. Sci. & Tech. 2479 (2014).
  • The Quiet Revolution in Personal Jurisdiction, 73 Tul. L. Rev. 1 (1998), in S.I. Strong, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in U.S. Courts: Problems and Possibilities, 33 Rev. Litig. 45 (2014).
  • Deciding to Decide: Class Action Certification and Interlocutory Review by the United States Courts of Appeals Under Rule 23(f), 41 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1531 (2000) (with Christine Oliver Hines), in Dustin E. Buehler, Solving Jurisdiction’s Social Cost, 89 Wash. L. Rev. 653 (2014).
  • Supreme Court Monitoring of the United States Courts of Appeals En Banc, 9 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 171 (2001) (with Tracey E. George), in Jennifer Barnes Bowie et al., The View from the Bench and Chambers: Examining Judicial Process and Decision Making on the U.S. Courts of Appeals (U. Va. Press 2014); Kirk A. Randazzo & Richard W. Waterman, Checking the Courts: Law, Ideology and Contingent Discretion (SUNY Press 2014); Hope Babcock, How the Supreme Court Uses the Certiorari Process in the Ninth Circuit to Further its Pro-Business Agenda: A Strange Pas de Deux With an Unfortunate Coda, 41 Ecology L.Q. 653 (2014).
  • The False Promise of Judicial Elections in Ohio, 30 Cap. U. L. Rev. 559 (2002), in Ohio Council 8 v. Brunner, 24 F. Supp. 3d 680 (S.D. Ohio 2014).
  • The Law and Economics of Conflict of Laws, 4 Am. L. Econ. Rev. 208 (2002), in Shaun Larcom, Problematic Legal Pluralism: Causes and  Some Potential “Cures,” 46 J. Legal Pluralism & Unofficial L. 193 (2014).
  • Supreme Court Monitoring of State Courts in the Twenty-First Century, 35 Ind. L. Rev. 335 (2002), in Wayne A. Logan, A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 235 (2014); Ryan D. Walters, Fragmenting the Judiciary: Shifting Implementation of Supreme Court Doctrine from Federal Courts to State Courts, 42 Cap. U. L. Rev. 951 (2014); Jack L. Landau, Do Precedents Take Precedence? Stare Decisis and Oregon Constitutionalism, 77 Alb. L. Rev. 1347 (2013–2014); Jason Mazzone, The Rise and Fall of Human Rights: A Skeptical Account of Multilevel Governance, 3 Cambridge J. Int’l & Comp. L. 929 (2014); Jeffrey Omar Usman, Constitutional Constraints on Retroactive Civil Legislation: The Hollow Promises of the Federal Constitution and Unrealized Potential of State Constitutions, 14 Nev. L.J. 63 (2013); Ernest A. Young, A General Defense of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 10 J.L. Econ. & Pol’y 17 (2013).
  • The Selection of Judges in Ohio, in 1 The History of Ohio Law (Michael Les Benedict & John F. Winkler eds., 2004) (with Richard B. Saphire), in David M. Gold, Judicial Elections and Judicial Review: Testing the Shugerman Thesis, 40 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 39 (2013).
  • The Future of Parity, 46 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1457 (2005), in Brandon Byers, Case Note, Federal Question Jurisdiction and Indian Tribes: The Second Circuit Closes the Courthouse Doors in New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation, 82 U. Cin. L. Rev. 901 (2014).
  • Judicial Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals, 32 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 1331 (2005), in Jonathan Remy Nash, Expertise and Opinion Assignment on the Courts of Appeals: A Preliminary Investigation, 66 Fla. L. Rev. 1599 (2014).
  • The Supreme Court and the DIG: An Empirical and Institutional Analysis, 2005 Wis. L. Rev. 1421 (with Rafael Gely), in John S. Haddock, Note, Articulating a “Rational Connection” Requirement in Article III Standing, 66 Stan. L. Rev. 1423 (2014); Daniel J. Knudsen, Institutional Stress and the Federal District Courts: Judicial Emergencies, Vertical Norms, and Pretrial Dismissals, 2014 Utah L. Rev. 187.
  • Congress, Ex parte Young, and the Fate of the Three-Judge District Court, 70 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 101 (2008), in 2014 Supplement to Richard H. Fallon, Jr., et al., Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System (Foundation Press 6th ed. 2009).
  • Congress, Separation of Powers, and Standing, 59 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 1023 (2009), in Bradford C. Mank, Clapper v. Amnesty International: Two or Three Competing Philosophies of Standing Law?, 81 Tenn. L. Rev. 211 (2014); Bradford C. Mank, No Article III Standing for Private Plaintiffs Challenging State Greenhouse Gas Regulations: The Ninth Circuit’s Decision in Washington Environmental Council v. Bellon, 63 Am. U. L. Rev. 1525 (2014).
  • The Supreme Court and the Sophisticated Use of DIGs, 18 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 155 (2010) (with Rafael Gely), in 2014 Supplement to Richard H. Fallon, Jr., et al., Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System (Foundation Press 6th ed. 2009).
  • State Amici, Collective Action, and the Development of Federalism Doctrine, 46 Ga. L. Rev. 355 (2012), in Brandon D. Harper, Comment, The Effectiveness of State-Filed Amicus Briefs at the United States Supreme Court, 16 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 1503 (2014).
  • The Solicitor General Unbound: Amicus Curiae Activism and Deference in the Supreme Court, 45 Ariz. St. L.J. 1183 (2013), in Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl, Following Lower-Court Precedent, 81 U. Chi. L. Rev. 851 (2014); Sandra F. Sperino & Suja A. Thomas, Fakers and Floodgates, 10 Stan. J. Civ. Rts. & Civ. Liberties 223 (2014).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *