PLAYING GOD: A CRITICAL LOOK AT SUA
SPONTE DECISIONS BY APPELLATE COURTS
Adam A. Milani
Michael R. Smith
Mercer University School of Law
1021 Georgia Ave.
Macon, GA 31207
(478) 301-2203 (Milani)
(478) 301-2239 (Smith)
milani_a@mercer.edu
smith_mr@mercer.edu
Articles
Professional Responsibility: Report of the Joint Conference of the American Bar Association and
the Association of American Law Schools, 44 A.B.A.J. 1159 (1958)
Erwin Chemerinsky, The Court Should Have Remained Silent: Why the Court Erred in Deciding
Dickerson v. United States, 149 U. Pa. L. Rev. 287 (2000)
Neal Devins, Asking the Right Questions: How the Courts Honored the Separation of Powers by
Reconsidering Miranda, 149 U. Pa. L. Rev. 251(2000)
Lon L. Fuller, The Forms and Limits of Adjudication, 92 Harv. L. Rev. 353 (1978).
Allan D. Vestal, Sua Sponte Consideration in Appellate Review, 27 Fordham L. Rev. 477 (1959)
Note, Appellate-Court Sua Sponte Activity: Remaking Disputes and the Rule of Non-Intervention, 40
S. Cal. L. Rev. 352 (1967)
F. Ryan Keith, Note, Must Courts Raise the Eleventh Amendment Sua Sponte?: The Jurisdictional
Difficulty of State Sovereign Immunity, 56 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1037 (1999)
Rosemary Krimbel, Note, Rehearing Sua Sponte in the U.S. Supreme Court: A Procedure for
Judicial Policymaking, 65 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 919 (1989)
Michelle Lawner, Comment, Why Federal Courts Should Be Required to Consider State Sovereign
Immunity Sua Sponte, 66 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1261 (1999)
Jeffrey C. Metzcar, Note, Raising the Defense of Procedural Default Sua Sponte: Who Will Enforce
the Great Writ of Liberty?, 50 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 869 (2000).
Eric D. Miller, Comment, Should Courts Consider 18 U.S.C. § 3501 Sua Sponte?, 65 U. Chi. L. Rev.
1029 (1998)
Cases
Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392 (2000)
Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313 (1971)
Carducci v. Regan, 714 F.2d 171 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 572-76 (1993) (Souter, J.,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment)
Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000).
Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 82-88 (1938) (Butler, J., dissenting)
Kolstad v. American Dental Ass’n., 527 U.S. 526, 547-553 (1999) (Stevens, J., concurring in part
and dissenting in part).
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 672-77 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 708-10 (1978) (Powell, J., concurring).
Snider v. Melindez, 199 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 1999).
U.S. v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 246 (1992) (Scalia, J., concurring)
U.S. Nat’l Bank of Or. v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., 508 U.S. 439 (1993)
Books
Lon L. Fuller, The Problems of Jurisprudence 705-707 (temp. ed. 1949).
Stephan Landsman, Readings on Adversarial Justice: The American Approach to Adjudication 3539 (1988)
Karl N. Llewellyn, The Common Law Tradition: Deciding Appeals 29, 325 (1960)
Thomas B. Marvell, Appellate Courts and Lawyers: Information Gathering in the Adversary System
121-25, 328 (1978)
Edward A. Purcell, Jr., Brandeis and the Progressive Constitution: Erie, the Judicial Power, and the
Politics of the Federal Courts in Twentieth- Century America (2000)