Search

On September 22, 2020, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13950: Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping. This order stopped federal agencies, federal grant recipients, and government contractors from conducting training in the workplace that involves "stereotyping" or "scapegoating" based on sex or race, specifically banning discussions of critical race theory and white privilege. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction on December 22, 2020, banning the enforcement of the order, and, on January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden, during his first day in office, revoked the order. However, this did not signify the end of Executive Order 13950's importance. While this executive order is atypical because it utilizes government procurement as a vehicle to enact socially conservative policies, it continues the troubling trend of presidents using executive orders to regulate government contractors. This Note will first analyze three problems with the defunct executive order: (1) the executive order was bad policy; (2) it violated the United States Constitution; and (3) most importantly, the executive order itself is the wrong mechanism to enact social change and regulate government contractors. Second, this Note will explain that the rise and fall of Executive Order 13950 exemplifies the turbulent nature of regulating government contractors through executive orders. Instead of relying on such orders, government officials should regulate labor and employment requirements on government contractors through legislation because such measures are longer lasting, give interested parties the opportunity for input, and undergo more deliberate considerations before enactment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the effect of the use of tolling orders by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on the due process rights of aggrieved landowners in natural gas pipeline eminent domain proceedings. Topics discussed include the procedures for the district court preliminary injunctions and approach of the FERC to rehearing applications, tendency of the orders to undermine the legitimacy of the system, and possible solutions of district courts and FERC to the issue.

Town and village justice courts have been the center of municipal law, both civil and criminal, since the mid-nineteenth century. However, in the modern world, they have become corrupt, poorly managed institutions, creating issues involving procedural integrity and civil rights. In order to remedy these failures and modernize the New York State Unified Court System, state legislators must look to the district court model as it currently exists in Nassau and Eastern Suffolk Counties. The district court model offers several benefits, including the imposition of educational and experiential requirements for judges, the creation of internal and external oversight institutions, the expansion of jurisdiction for local judges, and increased transparency in records and court dealings. By creating such a centralized, professionalized system of municipal courts, oversight can be expanded, procedural uniformity can be promoted, and basic civil rights now left unguarded or outright denied by justice courts can be protected. Moreover, to preserve the spirit of democratically elected local judicial offices, the Vermont justice of the peace model may be adopted in New York, creating popularly elected positions responsible for handling key local functions, such as giving oaths of office, solemnizing marriages, and hearing tax appeals. By moving away from the unwieldy, outdated town and village justice court regime, New York can catch up with a growing number of similarly minded states, move forward with its efforts to reform the justice system, and ensure that fair local justice is guaranteed to all New Yorkers--not just those living downstate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thepandemic we face today poses unique challenges for courts. If a disaster Of the future brings similar challenges, we may be better equipped to face them based on the COVID-19 experience. At the United States District Court for the Northern District Of nlinois, our response has been halting but effectiue as we learn to issue rulings without the benefit of direct oral aduocacy and to conduct hearings by uideoconference. Changes underway before 2020 haue been accelerated. Our newer practices have advantages in ease and safety for litigants but also generate risks that parties will become less engaged and that we will not succeed in creating an atmosphere of confidence and dignity. The practice of pretrial discovery has changed rapidly, and questions of jurisdiction and venue may become tess salient. The dectine in the number of jury trials impticates constitutional rights and undermines an important avenue for public education. As a result, courts will need to find new ways to enhance public understanding of and confidence in, the ZegaZ process. Public health concerns dictate greater Bexibitity in the location and times when work is performed but will also require the courts to make anowances for sudden changes in the lives and capabilities of litigants and staff. New lawyers will likely be more able to make their way in the online world, but legal institutions wilt need to make particular efforts to connect and socialize them in the practice of law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many states in the United States have recently implemented voter suppression policies, which make voting more difficult, particularly for members of marginalized populations (e.g. non-white and female voters). In this article, we examine how these policies and other measures of political climate influence criminal sentencing in US district courts. Using 2015 data from the US Sentencing Commission, alongside other district-level measures, we find both direct and conditioning relationships between political climate and extra-legal variables. Specifically, we find that, while voter suppression policies do not directly affect sentence length, racial threat effects are enhanced in districts governed by such policies. Conversely, districts without such policies see larger mitigating effects at high levels of ethnic diversity and gender equality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Federal Circuit's jurisdiction is unique. Unlike the jurisdiction of all other U.S. courts of appeals, the Federal Circuit's jurisdiction is defined not by its geographical boundaries, but rather by the subject matter of the original claims and compulsory counterclaims. The court has appellate jurisdiction over final decisions from all U.S. district courts if a plaintiff's claim or a party's counterclaim arises under the patent laws. From this unusual jurisdictional grant, the Federal Circuit has concluded that, as a policy matter, it should apply and develop its own law only if the legal issue pertains to patent law. For all other legal issues, the Federal Circuit defers to the law of the court of appeals in which the case originated--i.e., it applies the procedural law and the non-patent substantive law of the regional circuits. This Article undertakes a thorough evaluation of the Federal Circuit's choice-of-law rule. It examines how the rule compares against the congressional objectives reflected in the court's enabling statute as well as against possible alternative rules. In addition, it considers how the court's rule causes the court to depart from the trans-substantivity principle of procedural law and a related principle of equity in a nontransparent manner, and, in doing so, engage in substantive lawmaking that may be beyond the court's authority. Finally, this Article contemplates solutions beyond a mere change in the court's choice-of-law rule. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Magistrate judges function as a shadow judiciary, assisting U.S. district court judges--and sometimes standing in their shoes--in managing caseloads, resolving disputes, making law, and choosing winners and losers. Yet we lack basic knowledge about magistrates themselves, the rules that govern their activity, and the ways in which they execute their duties. To fill those gaps, this Article offers a detailed typology of the district-level local rules and standing orders that govern magistrate operations in civil cases. It also describes a case study of ten years of magistrate practice in a single federal district court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, in resolving summary judgment motions. The case study reveals that the involvement of a magistrate makes a difference to the outcome, and that the way that a magistrate became involved (by automatic operation of court rules, by consent of the parties, or by the discretion of the district judge) matters as well. Further, case characteristics such as claim complexity and plaintiffs' pro se status amplify magistrate judge effects while others weaken it. We also observe the effects of district judges' race, age, and experience on the bench on case referrals and adoptions of magistrates' recommendations. These findings suggest multiple avenues for future research, nationwide, to understand the complexities of the interactions between magistrates and district judges, and the role of magistrates more generally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article highlights final row of the U.S. District Court, Arizona District, with a legal pad and a draft copy of the calendar, on which judge wrote some comments related to illegal migrants in the U.S.

Government transparency is a key component of democratic accountability. The U.S. Congress and the president have created multiple legislative avenues to facilitate executive branch transparency with the public. However, when the executive branch withholds requested information from the public, the federal judiciary has the power to determine whether agencies must release documents and information to requestors. When enforcing standards of executive branch transparency, judges must balance concerns of executive autonomy and judicial intrusion into administrative decisionmaking. While much judicial scholarship focuses on the decisionmaking on high courts, in the U.S. context, federal district courts play a key role in adjudicating transparency disputes. In this article, I examine case outcomes in disputes involving agency claims of deliberative process privilege over internal agency documents litigated between 1994 and 2004. I find that U.S. federal district courts largely defer to administrative agencies in transparency disputes. However, factors such as agency structure and the congruence between judicial and administrative agency policy preferences influence whether federal judges require executive branch officials to release requested information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article informs about several court cases with emergent trends in federal practice and legal profession of Minnesota lawyer. Topics include court case Servotronics, Inc. v. RollsRoyce PLC, which claims for discretion afforded district courts to render assistance in gathering evidence for use in a foreign or international tribunal; and court case Sunlight Logistics, Inc. v. County Hall Ins. Co, claims for litigants were parties to an insurance contract that contained benfit for policyholder.

The article examines the reasons why Florida's appellate courts have collectively issued few en banc opinions per year since 1982. Topics discussed include a brief history of the U.S. federal and Florida en banc history and several reasons why there are very few en banc opinions including each district court of appeal issuing a large number of per curium affirmed opinions.

The article announces several appointments, awards and hirings which include Raymond E. Patricco, Jr. for appointment as a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of Idaho; Andrew Brassey awarded for Carl P. Burke Award and appointment of attorney Kyle Brekke for Hawley Troxell & attorneys .

When a state utility wishes to cross land located within a Native American reservation, but the landowners refuse to allow it, the utility in most circumstances may exercise eminent domain over the land. Under the authority of a federal statute, 25 USC §357, states may generally condemn allotments, plots owned by individuals that lie within the sovereign boundaries of a tribal reservation. Courts have long recognized that the state authority to condemn these allotments under § 357 arises from the principle that individually owned allotments are no longer "tribal" land and, as a result, they are not protected by tribal sovereignty. Congress's failure to transition away from the allotment system has resulted in an ownership structure for certain plots of reservation land that it did not anticipate when it enacted § 357. Today, not all allotments are held entirely by individuals, and many now contain fractional, undivided interests that belong to tribes themselves. This status of joint ownership between individuals and tribes, which this Comment refers to as "partially tribal," leads to considerable complications with respect to the scope of § 357. Courts have routinely held that land owned by a sovereign Native American tribe is not subject to state condemnation and that this principle protects tribal interests in allotments. Unresolved, however, is whether a tribal interest in an allotment-which can be as small as a fraction of 1 percent-should immunize even the nontribal interest in the plot from state condemnation proceedings. In other words, should a fractional tribal interest place an entire parcel out of the state's reach? This Comment argues that it should. The courts that have attempted to allow condemnations to proceed against partially tribal allotments run into the problem that all ownership interests in an allotment are undivided; each owner holds an undivided share of the whole parcel. This means there is no way to divide the tribal interests from the nontribal ones without effecting some kind of incursion on a tribal land interest without the tribe's or Congress's consent, a result that principles of tribal sovereignty squarely reject. This Comment recognizes that Congress's intent when it passed § 357 was to eliminate tribal landholdings, but it argues that Congress has since changed course such that courts should disregard that original intent. This Comment also concedes that diminishing eminent domain power may lead to holdout problems, though it argues that protecting tribal sovereignty is the more important interest. Consistent with the principle that states may not diminish any tribal sovereignty without Congress's consent, this Comment concludes that a state utility has multiple avenues for seeking access to a partially tribal allotment, including opportunities for negotiation with the tribe and the federal government. Courts should not permit states to use § 357 unilaterally to divest a nonconsenting tribe from its interest in land. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the methods used in the selection and appointment of members of the magistrate judge bench in the U.S., as well as the efforts to increase the diversity of the court. Other topics include the efforts by various U.S. presidents like Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush to appoint minority judges, a relative diversity comparison of district court bench and magistrate judge bench, as well as the effect of diversity on judgment quality in the courts.

This essay examines the demographics of federal district court judges in the 10th Circuit. Consistent with the literature regarding the glass-ceiling effect in positions of power and influence in the legal profession, the study finds that women judges are under-represented on the 10th Circuit bench compared with their numbers as lawyers in the jurisdictions of the Circuit. However, the study finds that ethnic minority judges are over-represented in the Circuit. The essay next explores the relationship between under-representation, over-representation, discrimination and judicial "catch up": addressing historical and contemporary under-representation by means of temporary over-representation of qualified under-represented groups on the bench. It argues that under-representation that cannot be explained in terms of merit criteria or informed opting out strongly suggests the lingering effects of past discrimination, as well as the current effects of implicit bias. Such past explicit and present implicit discrimination ought to shift the burden of addressing under-representation to the institutional players involved in the judicial commission process, who should temporarily deploy over-representation to break through the glass-ceiling and catch up the disparity. The feasibility of such a judicial catch up is evidenced by the over-representation of ethnic minority judges in the 10th Circuit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the Minnesota Supreme Court's adoption of a rule governing the recognition and enforcement of tribal court orders and judgments in the state's district courts, and it mentions judicial deference and the sovereignty and jurisdiction of tribal courts. According to the article, state legislatures in America should amend their state constitutions to give full faith and credit to tribal court orders.

The article offers a case law of Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., a case from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning copyright infringement of digital music. Topics include record label Capitol Records claimed copyright infringement against ReDigi, a service that allows resale of digital music tracks; district court found that resale through ReDigi were infringing and concluded that ReDigi infringed the Plaintiffs' copyrights.

This Note discusses 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which authorizes district courts to issue orders compelling discovery of evidence located within their district for use in a proceeding in a foreign tribunal. For a district court to grant a § 1782 application, it must find that the requested evidence is "for use in a foreign or international tribunal." This Note addresses whether, to satisfy the § 1782 "for use" requirement, applicants must show that they possess some procedural right entitling them to participate in the foreign proceeding or otherwise describe the procedures through which the applicant intends to inject the requested discovery into the foreign proceeding. After reviewing the evolution of § 1782, this Note describes transnational bankruptcy proceedings in less-developed legal systems involving Islamic finance. The Note posits that, in such a context, a narrow reading of the "for use" requirement would contravene the principal Supreme Court decision construing the statute, Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., and its purpose by unnecessarily limiting U.S. judicial assistance to lessdeveloped legal systems. To support that conclusion, this Note surveys federal court precedent interpreting the "for use" requirement. With a focus on Second Circuit decisions, federal court precedent is analyzed against the transnational bankruptcy context, Supreme Court precedent, and the text and "twin aims" of § 1782. This Note rejects a narrow reading of the "for use" requirement as supra-textual, inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent, and unfaithful to § 1782's twin aims. Understanding that participation rights are an important factor in § 1782 analysis, this Note suggests that a § 1782 applicant's participation rights are properly assessed not within the "for use" requirement, but under the discretionary factors outlined by the Supreme Court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the jurisdiction of district courts in some offenses committed by juvenile delinquents in Utah. Topics discussed include the general rule for the jurisdiction of juvenile courts under state law, ways for prosecutors to transfer jurisdiction from juvenile to district court, and the state's failure to set a minimum age for delinquency.

The article focuses on disjointed application and discussion regarding patent injunction decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case in eBay v. MercExchange. It mentions analysis of grant rates based on patentee status showed that post-eBay patent assertion entity (PAE) injunction grants and differences in injunction decision outcomes between district courts and the Federal Circuit. It also mentions patent infringement and validity have been adjudged.

Every federal circuit, in one form or another, gives cognizable deference to the United States Sentencing Commission. The presumption of reasonableness that appellate courts apply to sentences falling within the Commission's Sentencing Guidelines represents the most popular iteration of this deference. However, deference to the Commission--whether in the form of a presumption, or otherwise--is problematic. Examination of the justifications and effects of the presumption shows that it is the functional equivalent of Chevron deference. Further examination shows that such de facto deference is unjustified. The Commission's expertise is redundant to, and less than, that of Article III courts. Additionally, notions of lenity counsel against deference in a setting where the government acts at its fullest power. Appellate courts should remove any aspect of deference from their jurisprudence and strive toward a robust sentencing review. Holistic review of federal sentences will achieve the happy result of additional guidance to district courts, increased uniform and well-justified sentences, and an affirmance of the judiciary's power over the cases and controversies of the nation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been a significant increase in the use of a controversial, dramatic remedy known as the nationwide injunction. This development is worrisome because it risks substantial harm to the judiciary by encouraging forum shopping, freezing the "percolation" of legal issues among the circuits, and undermining the comity between the federal courts. But a complete ban on nationwide injunctions is both impractical and undesirable. This Note proposes a solution to limit the abuse of nationwide injunctions without banning them outright. When fashioning remedies, courts should simplify the sheer number of relevant factors by focusing on three main meta-factors, or categories, that should be used as a balancing test: the identity of the parties before the court, the nature of the claim being litigated, and the effect the remedy would have on the courts where the claim is being litigated--"who," "what," and "where," respectively. The balancing of these three meta-factors will enable district courts to weigh more clearly whether nationwide injunctions are proper and will also give appellate courts a framework for reviewing whether district courts have abused their discretion by issuing this type of relief. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Certifying a class is the first and most important step in bringing a claim as a class action. For certain plaintiffs, especially those suing on the basis of a contract like royalty owners of oil and gas leases, the class action is the only practical means of bringing a claim against the oil and gas production companies. In the past few years, the Supreme Court has raised the standard for Rule 23 class certification requirements. Over the same timeframe, circuits like the Fifth Circuit have reversed numerous orders certifying classes. Royalty owners are especially susceptible to unfavorable review because a reviewing court can point to minute differences within leases as the reason why the class fails to satisfy Rule 23. Rather than focus on the requirements of Rule 23, this Note examines the relationship between the circuit and district courts and the standard of review that should govern the circuit courts' review of a certification order. There is a consensus that the abuse-of-discretion standard applies to review of certification orders, but the ambiguous definition of abuse of discretion has allowed circuit courts free reign when reviewing classes. To maintain the class action as a managerial tool for the district court, this Note proposes two solutions. First, the Note explains that codifying the abuse-of-discretion standard in Rule 23 will prevent circuit courts from circumventing the standard and push circuit courts to treat abuse of discretion as an independent standard. Second, the Note argues that each issue within the certification order falls somewhere along the abuse-of-discretion spectrum, and the Note provides examples from royalty litigation to illustrate how the spectrum should operate. These steps remedy the current imbalance of power between circuit and district courts regarding the decision to certify a class. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article deals with the use of statistical sampling by U.S. district courts to prove liability in False Claims Act (FCA) cases concerning healthcare fraud. It explores the outcome of the case United States ex rel. Michaels v. Agape Senior Community Inc., as well as the impact of court decisions on future FCA and qui tam litigation. Courts are advised to use a more reasonable approach in a bellwether trial to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to prove a fraud claim.

The article discusess how Texas exploited divisional judge-assignment systems for securing favorable judges challenging former U.S. President Obama administration initiatives. Topics discussed icnlude survey of the judge assignment procedures used in district courts; challenges of divisional judge-shopping; and Nevada v. U.S. Department of Labor court case on Fair Labor Standards Act.

The article presents a case where the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) has filed a complaint against the Harvard College in a federal district court. It mentions that SFFA has claimed that Harvard discriminates against Asian Americans by holding them to higher admissions standards than other racial group, including whites. It also mentions about judgment of Supreme Court in the U.S. concerning discrimination against Asian students in colleges in the U.S.

Objective This article investigates the role of organizations in the construction of expert authority by examining legal disputes about the credibility of expert witnesses who work for consulting firms, in academia, and in private practice offices and clinics. Methods I analyzed 472 deliberations of expert witness credibility summarized in judicial opinions from civil rights, patent infringement, and medical malpractice cases in U.S. district courts. Binary logistic regressions tested whether lawyers' challenges to experts' credibility or judges' decisions to admit or exclude experts' testimony differed according to experts' organizational location. Results Challenges to experts' credibility and decisions about their admissibility reflected the organizational context of experts' labor. Overall, consultants were most likely and private practitioners were least likely to overcome credibility challenges and be admitted into court. Conclusions Legal negotiations of experts' credibility depend on their organizational location. This suggests that organizations may also shape the attribution of expertise in other settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents practical advice for American attorneys on how to keep litigation matters in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit after the court issues jurisdictional questions, and it mentions concerns about subject-matter jurisdiction. America's Constitution is addressed, along with U.S. federal district courts' original jurisdiction over civil actions. Legal complaints, diversity jurisdiction, and the removal of litigation to another court are assessed.

The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines represent a uniform set of formal rules that are implemented across a broad range of diverse social contexts. Drawing from neo-institutional theory and kindred perspectives on criminal courts, we argue that the federal courts represent an organizational field in which local influences play a key role in conformity to institutional rules. We use unique survey data from federal judges, aggregated to the district court level and combined with individual-level federal sentencing data, to examine hierarchical models of judicial departures from the Guidelines. Our analysis includes more proximate measures of court community culture than prior research. We find that the collective views of federal judges, including their perceptions of the degree of regulative constraint posed by the Guidelines, as well as the extent to which the Guidelines are normatively and morally legitimate, are intimately related to variation in judicial Guidelines departures across district courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses America's spoliation of evidence doctrine in relation to electronically stored information (ESI), pre-trial discovery processes, and a December 2015 amendment to Rule 37(E) of the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. American electronic discovery (e-discovery) is addressed, along with the nation's district courts and the case Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC which deals with a duty to preserve evidence. Intentional spoliation is assessed.

An interview is presented with Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court Anne McKeig. Topics discussed include her experience as the first Native American woman appointed to any state's highest court; works ethics followed by her; and her experience of serving as a Supreme Court judge along with the things she misses about being a judge on the district court.

The article discusses various developments involving American criminal sentencing law and the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 2005 case United States v. Booker which deals with the Sixth Amendment to the nation's Constitution and an enhanced sentence based on a judge's determination of a fact that was not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant. District courts in Florida and U.S. Probation Office investigation reports are examined.

Drawing from data obtained in a comparative study of US district courts' criminal justice practices, this paper examines adjudication processing responses at the intersection of immigration and drug offences in a Southwestern federal district court, where the logic of immigration enforcement subsumes more traditional federal drug law enforcement. I demonstrate how characteristics of 'drug cases' are constructed at this intersection in such a manner that they stand apart from the prototypical federal drug case, and more closely resemble criminal immigration cases. I argue that in this border jurisdiction, the prevailing adjudicatory logic is concerned with defendants' status as unauthorized outsiders such that these defendants are barely distinguishable from immigration defendants in how their sentences are calculated and rhetorically justified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To address the exorbitant costs of air ambulance services, North Dakota passed House Bill 1255, codified as North Dakota Century Code § 23-27-04.10. Under this law, for an air ambulance service provider to be on the primary caller list, it must be a participating provider of health insurance carriers which collectively hold at least seventy-five percent of the health insurance coverage in North Dakota. In response to this bill, Valley Med Flight, Inc. moved to prevent enforcement of the law. The District Court of North Dakota granted relief based on preemption under the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. This Note discusses relevant case and statutory law, and addresses the need for air ambulance regulation for not only North Dakota, but the entire United States. In so doing, this Note examines arguments for and against state regulation of air ambulance service providers, the regulation of insurance providers, and the regulation of health care providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author talks about the recollections of how the circuit and district court functioned in courthouse at Seventh and Mission Streets in San Francisco. Topics discussed include his experience as U.S. Ninth Circuit judge; mention of Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co. court case; and functioning of the courthouse.

The history o f court reporting o f the federal lower judiciary dates from the early days of the Republic. Mr. Fishman helps to document that history by reviewing the publication o f the reports for the Third Circuit (circuit and district courts) covering the nominative reports from the late-eighteenth to the late-nineteenth century, before their republication in Federal Cases by West Publishing Company. A bibliography is appended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many standards development organizations ask participants who hold patents that may be essential to practice a standard to agree to license those patents under "reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND)" terms. But what exactly are RAND terms? This article discusses the policy of RAND obligations, explains how disputes can arise about whether a proposed license to a standard-essential patent includes RAND terms, and explains how a particular dispute over RAND terms was resolved in a United States district court. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

We use structural break analysis to estimate rates of patent validity and infringement in decisions on the merits in U.S. courts over 1929-2006. We separately estimate these rates for district court and appeals court decisions. We find multiple structural breaks in both validity and infringement, and the breaks do not coincide. The rate of validity falls around 1939 and rises around 1983, while the rate of infringement rises around 1950 and falls around 1991. We argue that these breaks, and the variation across the implied five 'eras' of decision standards, reflect political and legal innovations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]