Public justice: Toward a state action theory of alternative dispute resolution

California Law Review

Volumn 85, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 579-

  Reuben, Richard C ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0042546995     PISSN: 00081221     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/3481153     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Much of the privatization literature focuses on the diminishment of individual rights that accompanies privatization. See, e.g., Shirley L. Mays, Privatization of Municipal Services: A Contagion in the Body Politic, 34 DUQ. L. REV. 41 (1995); Ira P. Robbins, The Impact of the Delegation Doctrine on Prison Privatization, 35 UCLA L. REV. 911 (1988); Jana B. Singer, The Privatization of Family Law, 1992 WIS. L. REV. 1443; Douglas W. Dunham, Note, Inmates' Rights and the Privatization of Prisons, 86 COLUM. L. REV. 1475 (1986); Julie Huston Vallarelli, Note, State Constitutional Restraints on the Privatization of Education, 72 B.U. L. REV. 381 (1992). For a contrary view based on the pragmatic, ideological, commercial, and populist factors spurring privatization, see E.S. SAVAS, PRIVATIZATION: THE KEY TO BETTER GOVERNMENT 4-10 (1987). The U.S. Supreme Court considered the issue in the prison context during its October 1996 Term. See McKnight v. Rees, 88 F.3d 417 (6th Cir.), cert. granted sub nom. Richardson v. McKnight, 117 S. Ct. 504 (1996) (concerning whether private correctional officers, who perform a traditionally public function, are entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense in a civil rights lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
2. Much of the privatization literature focuses on the diminishment of individual rights that accompanies privatization. See, e.g., Shirley L. Mays, Privatization of Municipal Services: A Contagion in the Body Politic, 34 DUQ. L. REV. 41 (1995); Ira P. Robbins, The Impact of the Delegation Doctrine on Prison Privatization, 35 UCLA L. REV. 911 (1988); Jana B. Singer, The Privatization of Family Law, 1992 WIS. L. REV. 1443; Douglas W. Dunham, Note, Inmates' Rights and the Privatization of Prisons, 86 COLUM. L. REV. 1475 (1986); Julie Huston Vallarelli, Note, State Constitutional Restraints on the Privatization of Education, 72 B.U. L. REV. 381 (1992). For a contrary view based on the pragmatic, ideological, commercial, and populist factors spurring privatization, see E.S. SAVAS, PRIVATIZATION: THE KEY TO BETTER GOVERNMENT 4-10 (1987). The U.S. Supreme Court considered the issue in the prison context during its October 1996 Term. See McKnight v. Rees, 88 F.3d 417 (6th Cir.), cert. granted sub nom. Richardson v. McKnight, 117 S. Ct. 504 (1996) (concerning whether private correctional officers, who perform a traditionally public function, are entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense in a civil rights lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
3. Much of the privatization literature focuses on the diminishment of individual rights that accompanies privatization. See, e.g., Shirley L. Mays, Privatization of Municipal Services: A Contagion in the Body Politic, 34 DUQ. L. REV. 41 (1995); Ira P. Robbins, The Impact of the Delegation Doctrine on Prison Privatization, 35 UCLA L. REV. 911 (1988); Jana B. Singer, The Privatization of Family Law, 1992 WIS. L. REV. 1443; Douglas W. Dunham, Note, Inmates' Rights and the Privatization of Prisons, 86 COLUM. L. REV. 1475 (1986); Julie Huston Vallarelli, Note, State Constitutional Restraints on the Privatization of Education, 72 B.U. L. REV. 381 (1992). For a contrary view based on the pragmatic, ideological, commercial, and populist factors spurring privatization, see E.S. SAVAS, PRIVATIZATION: THE KEY TO BETTER GOVERNMENT 4-10 (1987). The U.S. Supreme Court considered the issue in the prison context during its October 1996 Term. See McKnight v. Rees, 88 F.3d 417 (6th Cir.), cert. granted sub nom. Richardson v. McKnight, 117 S. Ct. 504 (1996) (concerning whether private correctional officers, who perform a traditionally public function, are entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense in a civil rights lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
4. Much of the privatization literature focuses on the diminishment of individual rights that accompanies privatization. See, e.g., Shirley L. Mays, Privatization of Municipal Services: A Contagion in the Body Politic, 34 DUQ. L. REV. 41 (1995); Ira P. Robbins, The Impact of the Delegation Doctrine on Prison Privatization, 35 UCLA L. REV. 911 (1988); Jana B. Singer, The Privatization of Family Law, 1992 WIS. L. REV. 1443; Douglas W. Dunham, Note, Inmates' Rights and the Privatization of Prisons, 86 COLUM. L. REV. 1475 (1986); Julie Huston Vallarelli, Note, State Constitutional Restraints on the Privatization of Education, 72 B.U. L. REV. 381 (1992). For a contrary view based on the pragmatic, ideological, commercial, and populist factors spurring privatization, see E.S. SAVAS, PRIVATIZATION: THE KEY TO BETTER GOVERNMENT 4-10 (1987). The U.S. Supreme Court considered the issue in the prison context during its October 1996 Term. See McKnight v. Rees, 88 F.3d 417 (6th Cir.), cert. granted sub nom. Richardson v. McKnight, 117 S. Ct. 504 (1996) (concerning whether private correctional officers, who perform a traditionally public function, are entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense in a civil rights lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
5. Much of the privatization literature focuses on the diminishment of individual rights that accompanies privatization. See, e.g., Shirley L. Mays, Privatization of Municipal Services: A Contagion in the Body Politic, 34 DUQ. L. REV. 41 (1995); Ira P. Robbins, The Impact of the Delegation Doctrine on Prison Privatization, 35 UCLA L. REV. 911 (1988); Jana B. Singer, The Privatization of Family Law, 1992 WIS. L. REV. 1443; Douglas W. Dunham, Note, Inmates' Rights and the Privatization of Prisons, 86 COLUM. L. REV. 1475 (1986); Julie Huston Vallarelli, Note, State Constitutional Restraints on the Privatization of Education, 72 B.U. L. REV. 381 (1992). For a contrary view based on the pragmatic, ideological, commercial, and populist factors spurring privatization, see E.S. SAVAS, PRIVATIZATION: THE KEY TO BETTER GOVERNMENT 4-10 (1987). The U.S. Supreme Court considered the issue in the prison context during its October 1996 Term. See McKnight v. Rees, 88 F.3d 417 (6th Cir.), cert. granted sub nom. Richardson v. McKnight, 117 S. Ct. 504 (1996) (concerning whether private correctional officers, who perform a traditionally public function, are entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense in a civil rights lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
6. Much of the privatization literature focuses on the diminishment of individual rights that accompanies privatization. See, e.g., Shirley L. Mays, Privatization of Municipal Services: A Contagion in the Body Politic, 34 DUQ. L. REV. 41 (1995); Ira P. Robbins, The Impact of the Delegation Doctrine on Prison Privatization, 35 UCLA L. REV. 911 (1988); Jana B. Singer, The Privatization of Family Law, 1992 WIS. L. REV. 1443; Douglas W. Dunham, Note, Inmates' Rights and the Privatization of Prisons, 86 COLUM. L. REV. 1475 (1986); Julie Huston Vallarelli, Note, State Constitutional Restraints on the Privatization of Education, 72 B.U. L. REV. 381 (1992). For a contrary view based on the pragmatic, ideological, commercial, and populist factors spurring privatization, see E.S. SAVAS, PRIVATIZATION: THE KEY TO BETTER GOVERNMENT 4-10 (1987). The U.S. Supreme Court considered the issue in the prison context during its October 1996 Term. See McKnight v. Rees, 88 F.3d 417 (6th Cir.), cert. granted sub nom. Richardson v. McKnight, 117 S. Ct. 504 (1996) (concerning whether private correctional officers, who perform a traditionally public function, are entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense in a civil rights lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).