CLH ARTICLE: Ann MUMFORD, Re-enacting the judicial philosophy of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: Saunders v Vautier and Claflin v Claflin compared (Comparative Legal History, XIV (2026), nr. 1, pp. 97-125) [OPEN ACCESS]

(Image source: Taylor&Francis)

 

Abstract: 

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. sat on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in 1889, when, in the case of Claflin v Claflin, he joined the decision that a trust may not be modified if the intention of the testator would be undermined. Claflin rejected Lord Cottenham’s reasoning in Saunders v Vautier that, under certain circumstances, beneficiaries may compel the termination of the trust and transfer the property to them. Claflin v Claflin and Saunders v Vautier are perhaps the two most famous cases in Anglo-American Equity. Through a detailed examination of manuscripts, this article offers a comparative expansion of the US and English histories, and particularly considers the role played by Holmes. Re-enactment theory offers the possibility of creating, or reliving, the intellectual process that led to Claflin, thus revealing a significant moment in the history of US federalism.

To read the article, please click here. The article is available in open access; the full issue is freely accessible online to members of the European Society for Comparative Legal History.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2049677X.2026.2671607

ARTICLE: Vincent GUFFROY, An account of the negotiations inside the Parlement de Paris: Claude Guillaume Lambert’s diary (French History XXXVII (2023), Nr. 2, 111-125)

 

(image source: OUP)

Abstract:

The Parlement de Paris is well known to historians. However, if its role as a recorder of edicts and royal declarations is clear, less is known of the debates that informed its judgments and remonstrances. The official records compiled by court clerks have tended to be the only source used by historians. Yet some magistrates created a more personal memory of the discussions that took place within the secret council. The diary kept by Claude Guillaume II Lambert, a young councillor at the Chambre des Enquêtes, is a good example of this. It uncovers the parlementaires’ connections, power plays and strategic postures from May 1749 to June 1751, brings to life the negotiations that took place within the assembly and abounds in anecdotes. After having been a privileged source of information for the pamphleteering journalists of the eighteenth century, Lambert’s diary offers the historian a window into the very soul of the parlement.

Read more with OUP (DOI 10.1093/fh/crac056)

CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS: Hughes-Gossett Award for the best student paper on some aspect of the Supreme Court's history (DEADLINE: rolling basis)

(Source: Supreme Court Historical Society)

Via H-Law, we have the following call for submissions:

The Supreme Court Historical Society invites submissions for the Hughes-Gossett Award for the best student paper on some aspect of the Supreme Court's history. Authors must have been enrolled as students at the time the paper was written. Past winners have been law school students or doctoral students in the departments of history, government, and political science. Papers may be of any length and may be submitted on an ongoing basis to Clare Cushman, Managing Editor, at ccushman@supremecourthistroy.org

The winner will be awarded a $500 cash prize and the paper will be published in the Journal of Supreme Court History. The recipient will be awarded the prize at a ceremony in the Supreme Court Courtroom on the first Monday in June.

Past winners of the Hughes-Gossett Student Prize:

James B. Barnes,“The Font of Federal Power: Wickard v. Filburn and the Aggregation Principle”

Evan C. Rothera, “The Tenacious ‘Twin Relic’: Republicans, Polygamy and the Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. United States”

Daniel J. Wisniewski, "Heating Up a Case Gone Cold: Revisiting the Charges of Bribery and Official Misconduct Made Against Supreme Court Justice Robert Cooper Grier in 1854-55."

Jesse Blair “The Silent Man: From Lochner to Hammer v. Dagenhart, A Reevaluation of Justice William R. Day”

Jessie Steffan “Doing Brandies Justice: The Development of the Liebman Dissent”.

Daniel J. Wisniewski “Heating Up a Case Gone Cold: Revisiting the Charges of Bribery and Official Misconduct Made Against Supreme Court Justice Robert Cooper Grier in 1854-55”

Chris Hickman, "Courting the Right: Richard Nixon's 1968 Campaign against the Warren Court"

Daniel Thomas, "The Passenger Cases Reconsidered in Transatlantic Commerce Clause History"

Connor Mullin, "Edward Bennett Williams for the Petitioner: Profile of a Supreme Court Advocate"

Galen Thorp, "William Wirt"

Constance L. Martin, "The Life and Career of Justice Robert H. Jackson"

Kurt Hohenstein, "Just What the Doctor Ordered: the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act, the Supreme Court, and the Federal Regulation of Medical Practice, 1915-1919"

Jeffrey M. Anderson, "Conscience on the Court, 1931-1946: Religion as Duty and Choice"

Artemus Ward, "The Tenth Justice: The Retirement of William O. Douglas"

Patricia L. Franz, "Ohio v. The Bank: An Historical Examination of Osborn v. The Bank of the United States"

Kevin M. Kruse, "Public Wrongs, Personal Rights: The Gaines Decision and the Beginning of the End of Segregation"

Joseph Mosnier, "The Demise of 'An extraordinary Criminal Procedure': Klopfer v. North Carolina and the Incorporation of the Sixth Amendment's Speedy Trial Provision"

I. Scott Messinger, "Legitimating Liberalism: the New Deal Image-Makers and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr."

Jeannie Rhee, "In Black and White: Chinese in the Mississippi Delta"

Helen J. Knowles, "May It Please the Court?: The Solicitor General's Not So 'Special' Relationship--Archibald Cox and the 1963-1964 Reapportionment Cases"

Daniel W. Hamilton, "A New Right to Property: Civil War Confiscation in the Reconstruction Supreme Court"

(Source: H-Law)

SEMINAR: Tribonien. Revue critique de législation et de jurisprudence: Regards d’historiens du droit sur le projet de réforme de la Cour de cassation (Paris: IDH, 31 May 2018)

(image source: Tribonien; click on the image to enlarge)

The legal periodical Tribonien. Revue critique de législation et de jurisprudence organises a seminar in Paris on the proposed reform of the French Court of Cassation.

Programme:

Sous la présidence de Madame Cécile Chainais, professeur à l’Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas et membre de l’Institut universitaire de France

14h30 : Fait et droit dans la répartition des compétences juridictionnelles Nicolas Cornu Thénard, professeur à l’Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas et membre de l’Institut universitaire de France
Les diverses dimensions de la distinction entre fait et droit
Jean-Louis Halpérin, professeur à l’École normale supérieure et membre de l’Institut universitaire de France
La réforme de la cassation au prisme de l’ancien droit
Xavier Godin, professeur à l’Université de Nantes
L’arrêt enrichi appauvrit-il l’autorité de la loi ?
Nicolas Warembourg, professeur à l’École de droit de la Sorbonne (Université Paris 1)

Les travaux seront suivis d’un cocktail au collège Sainte-Barbe, Salle Collinet (4, rue Valette)

Subscribing to the journal Tribonien costs € 56 (private persons in France) or € 76 (private persons outside of France). Institutions pay a supplement of € 10.

More information with Mme Christine Zamora (Société de Législation Comparée). 

LECTURE SERIES: Parlement(s) et cours souveraines, en France et en Europe, sous l’Ancien Régime (Paris: Collège Ste Barbe)

Parlement(s) et cours souveraines, en France et en Europe, sous l’Ancien Régime

2018

Autour de d’Aguesseau, magistrature et idées politiques au XVIIIème siècle

Around chancellor d’Aguesseau, magistracy and politics culture in the Eighteenth Century

Séminaire du Groupe de travail « Parlement(s) et cours souveraines » de l’IHRIM-ENS-Lyon

An IHRIM-ENS-Lyon international seminar

Organisé par Isabelle Brancourt en partenariat avec le Labex CoMod (Université de Lyon) et en association avec l’Institut d’histoire du droit (Paris II-Panthéon-Assas)

Organised by Isabelle Brancourt (IHRIM-CNRS)

A partnership with LabEx CoMod (Lyon University) and association with the Legal history Institute of Paris II University.

Lieu de tenue des séances :

Institut d’histoire du droit, Centre Sainte-Barbe,

4 rue Valette, 75005 Paris

bâtiment C, 3^e étage, salle Collinet

Vendredi 09 mars 2018 (à partir de 16h30) :

Reprise du séminaire. Ouverture d’Olivier Descamps (Professeur d’histoire du droit, directeur de l’IHD). Bilan des productions historiographiques de juin 2016 à mars 2018, par Isabelle Brancourt

La Grand Robe parisienne et les arts, à travers l’exemple de Jean René de Longueil, président de Maisons, par Béatrice Vivien, déléguée à la Conservation et au Patrimoine de Maisons-Laffitte.

Vendredi 13 avril 2018 (à partir de 16h30) : « Année » d’Aguesseau

            Quel « événement » ? Pourquoi célébrer le 350^e anniversaire de la naissance du chancelier d’Aguesseau à l’heure du numérique et du transhumanisme ? Comment le célébrer ?

            Table ronde animée par Isabelle Brancourt

Vendredi 15 juin 2018 (à partir de 16h30) :

            Développement des principes fondamentaux de la monarchie française dans les dernières années du XVIIIe siècle ou Testament politique de la Grande Robe, par Élina Lemaire, Maître de conférences en droit public à l’Université de Bourgogne

Pour mémoire : Mardi 27 novembre, journée d’étude pour le 350^e anniversaire de la naissance de d’Aguesseau, sous le haut patronage de Mme la Ministre et Garde des sceaux Nicole Belloubet, Place Vendôme, Ministère de la Justice.

Source:  AHMUF.

BOOK: Wolfgang ERNST, Rechtserkenntnis durch Richtermehrheiten. "Group choice" in europäischen Justiztraditionen. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016, XX + 362 p. ISBN 9783161543616, € 109

(image source: Mohr Siebeck)

Prof. dr. Wolfgang Ernst (Oxford) published Rechterkenntnis durch Richtermehrheiten (Mohr-Siebeck). This work was elected Book of the year 2016 in Germany (43  Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (2016), 3142,3143). 

Book abstract:

When judges in collegiate courts disagree, establishing the collective decision poses particular methodological problems. What is the result if judges disagree as to the quantitative or qualitative aspects of their decision? How can they fuse their individual legal reasoning into a joint opinion, if that is what the several judges are expected to deliver? These problems are not addressed by contemporary methodology, which focusses on the intellectual ratiocinations to be performed by an individual person. Yet, throughout the European development of collegiate judiciaries, these problems have challenged jurists and philosophers alike. Can a group of persons apply the law with an authoritative, meaningful group voice? This book seeks to describe the European legal history of judicial majoritarianism. It analyses the concepts of collegiate decision-making as advanced by legal scholars at key points in that history, and also shows the aggregation techniques actually employed by judiciaries in a number of legal systems. We are inspecting, so to speak, a laboratory of ideas and solutions that may contribute to theories of plural decisionmaking, aggregated and collective will and choice, and theories of group preference and identity.  

A full book abstract can be found here.

More information on the publisher's website.