Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Abuse In Plaintiff Class Action Settlements: The Need For A Guardian During Pretrial Settlement Negotiations, Sylvia R. Lazos
Abuse In Plaintiff Class Action Settlements: The Need For A Guardian During Pretrial Settlement Negotiations, Sylvia R. Lazos
Michigan Law Review
This Note explores the problem of abuse of the class action device during the pretrial settlement process. Part I analyzes the underlying sources of potential abuse in pretrial settlement negotiations. Part II assesses the adequacy of the standards currently used by courts to detect collusive class action settlements. Part III concludes that the appointment of a neutral third-party guardian to oversee the pretrial negotiation process furthers the judicial policy of encouraging settlements while protecting the interests of the absentee class.
The Applicability Of The Antitrust Procedures And Penalties Act Of 1974 To Voluntary Dismissals, Jon B. Jacobs
The Applicability Of The Antitrust Procedures And Penalties Act Of 1974 To Voluntary Dismissals, Jon B. Jacobs
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Note argues that Congress should amend the APPA to require a judicial public interest determination prior to the entry of a voluntary dismissal in government-initiated civil antitrust actions. Part I of this Note briefly describes the APPA and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Part II asserts that APPA procedures do not currently apply to voluntary dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1). Part III concludes that the purposes underlying the APPA and general policy considerations support the legislative extension of the Act to dismissals. Part IV responds to objections to this proposal. Finally, Part V presents a specific amendment to the …
Relief From Final Judgment Under Rule 60(B)(1) Due To Judicial Errors Of Law, Michigan Law Review
Relief From Final Judgment Under Rule 60(B)(1) Due To Judicial Errors Of Law, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
This Note seeks to resolve these conflicts by proposing a sensible reading of rule 60(b )(1) that reconciles the basic philosophies underlying differing interpretations of the rule. Part I examines the history of rule 60(b)(l) and the policies espoused by the courts and commentators in considering whether the rule should be applied to judicial errors of law and concludes that courts should employ the rule to correct obvious judicial errors of law. Part II recommends a broad scope for rule 60(b )(1) motions, proposing that the only type of alleged judicial error outside the reach of such a motion should …