Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Law (640)
- Constitutional Law (48)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (46)
- International Law (42)
- Business Organizations Law (35)
-
- Criminal Law (35)
- Intellectual Property Law (35)
- Banking and Finance Law (31)
- Environmental Law (31)
- Health Law and Policy (25)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (24)
- Other Law (24)
- Tax Law (24)
- Law and Economics (23)
- Courts (22)
- Family Law (22)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (20)
- Criminal Procedure (19)
- Torts (17)
- Evidence (16)
- Law and Politics (16)
- Securities Law (16)
- Arts and Humanities (15)
- Law and Race (15)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (15)
- Science and Technology Law (15)
- Administrative Law (14)
- Contracts (14)
- Law and Gender (14)
- Legal Education (14)
- Institution
-
- Columbia Law School (108)
- Duke Law (102)
- Boston University School of Law (74)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (74)
- UC Law SF (68)
-
- Brooklyn Law School (55)
- Texas A&M University School of Law (50)
- University of New Mexico (38)
- Fordham Law School (32)
- Mitchell Hamline School of Law (20)
- University of Louisville (19)
- California Western School of Law (14)
- Western New England University School of Law (13)
- Nova Southeastern University (12)
- Brigham Young University Law School (11)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law (11)
- Trinity College (7)
- Barry University School of Law (5)
- Case Western Reserve University (5)
- Colby College (3)
- College of DuPage (3)
- Xavier University (2)
- Wofford College (1)
- Keyword
-
- SSRN (19)
- International law (13)
- Family law (9)
- United States (8)
- Climate change (7)
-
- Courts (7)
- Criminal law (7)
- Race (7)
- Bankruptcy (6)
- Columbia Law Review (6)
- Corporate governance (6)
- Democracy (6)
- Intellectual property (6)
- Same-sex marriage (6)
- Supreme Court (6)
- Civil rights (5)
- Copyright law (5)
- Criminal justice (5)
- Health law (5)
- Human rights (5)
- Judicial review (5)
- Law (5)
- Legal education (5)
- Legislation (5)
- Marriage (5)
- Religion (5)
- Terrorism (5)
- Torts (5)
- War (International law) (5)
- Administrative law (4)
Articles 721 - 727 of 727
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
A Theory Of Wealth And Punitive Damages, Keith N. Hylton
A Theory Of Wealth And Punitive Damages, Keith N. Hylton
Faculty Scholarship
One recurring problem in the punitive damages case law is the degree to which the wealth of the defendant should matter in the determination of a punitive award. Intuition suggests that the wealthy should pay more than the nonwealthy. On the other hand, the view has been expressed that wealth should not play a role in the determination of a punitive award. I will use examples to develop several arguments. The claim that wealth is seldom relevant to the determination of a punitive award is unsupportable. The key proposition advanced in this paper is that the defendant's wealth is relevant …
Preemption And Products Liability: A Positive Theory, Keith N. Hylton
Preemption And Products Liability: A Positive Theory, Keith N. Hylton
Faculty Scholarship
In a large number of products liability lawsuits, sellers assert that plaintiffs' claims should be rejected because their products fall under some federal regulatory regime, and that the regulatory statute takes precedence over or preempts state tort law. This paper is an attempt to set out a positive theory of the doctrine on preemption of products liability claims. The federal case law is largely consistent with an approach that seeks to minimize the costs of erroneous decisions to preempt tort lawsuits. In particular, two factors explain many of the outcomes of the preemption cases in federal courts: agency independence and …
Reincarnating The 'Major Questions' Exception To Chevron Deference As A Doctrine Of Non-Interference (Or Why Massachusetts V. Epa Got It Wrong), Abigail Moncrieff
Reincarnating The 'Major Questions' Exception To Chevron Deference As A Doctrine Of Non-Interference (Or Why Massachusetts V. Epa Got It Wrong), Abigail Moncrieff
Faculty Scholarship
In a pair of cases declaring a major questions exception to Chevron deference, the Supreme Court held that executive agencies may not implement major policy changes without explicit authorization from Congress. But in Massachusetts v. EPA, the Court unceremoniously killed its major questions rule, requiring the EPA to implement one such major policy change. Because the scholarly literature to date has failed to discern a worthy justification for the major questions rule, the academy might be tempted to celebrate the rule's death. This Article, how-ever, argues that the rule ought to be mourned and, indeed, reincarnated. It offers a non-interference …
Self-Defense: Reasonable Beliefs Or Reasonable Self-Control?, Kenneth Simons
Self-Defense: Reasonable Beliefs Or Reasonable Self-Control?, Kenneth Simons
Faculty Scholarship
The reasonable person test is often employed in criminal law doctrine as a criterion of cognitive fault: Did the defendant unreasonably fail to appreciate a risk of harm, or unreasonably fail to recognize a legally relevant circumstance element (such as the nonconsent of the victim)? But it is sometimes applied more directly to conduct: Did the defendant depart sufficiently from a standard of reasonable care, e.g. in operating a motor vehicle, that he deserves punishment? A third version of the reasonable person criterion, which has received much less attention, asks what degree of control a reasonable person would have exercised. …
When Should A Case Be Dismissed? The Economics Of Pleading And Summary Judgment Standards, Keith N. Hylton
When Should A Case Be Dismissed? The Economics Of Pleading And Summary Judgment Standards, Keith N. Hylton
Faculty Scholarship
This paper applies a simple economic framework to the choice between pleading and summary judgment as points at which a claim can be dismissed. It concludes generally that pleading standards should vary with the evidentiary demands of the associated legal standards and the social costs of litigation. The common law's imposition of higher pleading standards for fraud claims is consistent with this proposition. The theory implies that the rigorous summary judgment standards that have been developed by antitrust courts should lead to a correspondingly rigorous assessment at the pleading stage.
Bizarre Love Triangle: The Spending Clause, Section 1983, And Medicaid Entitlements, Nicole Huberfeld
Bizarre Love Triangle: The Spending Clause, Section 1983, And Medicaid Entitlements, Nicole Huberfeld
Faculty Scholarship
The first two terms of the Roberts Court signal a willingness to revisit precedent, and the Court appears poised to reinterpret another area of jurisprudence: the private enforcement of conditions on federal spending against states through actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The most recent pre-Roberts Court precedent is Gonzaga University v. Doe. Federal courts have inconsistently and confusingly applied the Gonzaga framework, but the Rehnquist Court would not revisit the rule. Last term, the Roberts Court granted a petition for certiorari that would have required reconsidering Gonzaga. Before it could be heard on the merits, the respondents mooted the …
Clear Notice For Conditions On Spending, Unclear Implications For States In Federal Healthcare Programs, Nicole Huberfeld
Clear Notice For Conditions On Spending, Unclear Implications For States In Federal Healthcare Programs, Nicole Huberfeld
Faculty Scholarship
This article explores an important case from the 2005-06 Supreme Court term, Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy. Murphy is a benchmark for Spending Clause jurisprudence, as the new Roberts Court adopted what was the dissenting view for years, but its significance has gone largely unnoticed. Additionally, Murphy may have critical implications for the federalism revolution and for the country's largest healthcare programs. These broad observations are focused in this article by the example of the Clawback Provision, a new Medicaid requirement that has been challenged by New Jersey, Texas, Maine, Missouri, and Kentucky. The Supreme Court …