This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.
Edit playlist item notes below to have a mix of public & private notes, or:MAKE ALL NOTES PUBLIC (8/8 playlist item notes are public) MAKE ALL NOTES PRIVATE (0/8 playlist item notes are private)
|1||Show/Hide More||Break Up the Presidency?: Governors, State Attorneys General, and Lessons from the Divided Executive|
The issue of attorney general litigation control remains in dispute. Attorneys general are often “directed” by other branches of state government to take positions in litigation or, in some cases, to withdraw from litigation.
The majority rule is that the attorney general retains control over litigation and that “client” agencies do not have the final word. This means that although a part of the state executive branch, state attorneys general are not required to follow instructions from the governor or other executive agencies.
A 2006 law review article by William Marshall is one of the few that explores the historical and policy reasons for the majority rule that states attorneys general control litigation.
|4||Show/Hide More||State AGs Refuse to Defend Statutes|
|5||Show/Hide More||Investigation by Delaware Attorney General|
|6||Show/Hide More||Changing Sides Mid-Litigation|
May 21, 2013
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org. Thank you.