Law Commons^™

Only One Kick At The Cat: A Contextual Rubric For Evaluating Res Judicata And Collateral Estoppel In International Commercial Arbitration, Randy D. Gordon

Faculty Scholarship

Arbitration is the preferred method of resolving disputes arising out of international commercial transactions. It stands outside national legal systems because contracting parties agree in advance that they want neutral arbitrators — not local judges and juries — deciding who is at fault when a commercial relationship breaks down. But arbitration nevertheless butts up against litigation from time to time, often because one party attempts to arbitrate a matter that has been litigated to conclusion or vice versa. This article examines — through a contextual approach — questions of preclusion that thereby arise and ultimately suggests that res judicata and …

The Silent Criminal Defendant And The Presumption Of Innocence: In The Hands Of Real Jurors, Is Either Of Them Safe, Mitchell J. Frank, Dawn Broschard

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Sausage-Making, Pigs' Ears, And Congressional Expansions Of Federal Jurisdiction: Exxon Mobil V. Allapattah And Its Lessons For The Class Action Fairness Act, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

The year 2005 witnessed two watershed developments in federal jurisdiction: the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. and the enactment of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Allapattah and CAFA raise the same fundamental question: how should courts interpret a statute whose text would expand federal jurisdiction far beyond what Congress apparently intended? In Allapattah, the Court confronted this question in resolving an aspect of the supplemental jurisdiction statute that had deeply divided both the judiciary and academia. CAFA's expansion of federal jurisdiction over class actions will require courts to struggle with this question …

Invisible Settlements, Invisible Discrimination, Minna J. Kotkin

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Civil Contempt Confinement And The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention And Consumer Protection Act Of 2005: An Examination Of Debtor Incarceration In The Modern Age, Jayne S. Ressler

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The 2000 Amendments To The Discovery Rules, Richard L. Marcus

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Revitalizing Frcp 68: Can Offers Of Judgment Provide Adequate Incentives For Fair, Early Settlement Of Fee-Recovery Cases?, William W. Schwarzer

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Procedural Soft Law Of International Arbitration, William W. Park

Faculty Scholarship

The conference organizers set me the daunting task of exploring arbitration's “non-national instruments,” which is to say the guidelines of professional groups and non-governmental organizations related to evidence, conflicts of interest, ethics and the organization of arbitral proceedings. Frequently these procedural standards build on the lore of international dispute resolution as memorialized in articles, treatises and learned symposium papers. These guidelines represent what might be called “soft law,” in distinction to the harder norms imposed by arbitration statutes and treaties, as well as the procedural framework adopted by the parties through choice of pre-established arbitration rules.

The growth of procedural …

E-Discovery And Beyond: Toward Brave New World Or 1984?, Richard L. Marcus

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Modest Proposal: Recognizing (At Last) That The Federal Rules Do Not Declare That Discovery Is Presumptively Public, Richard L. Marcus

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Irrepressible Myth Of Celotex: Reconsidering Summary Judgment Burdens Twenty Years After The Trilogy, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

Twenty years ago, the Supreme Court decided a trilogy of cases on summary judgment. These cases have had a profound impact on federal litigation. Empirical data presented in this article demonstrate that federal courts have cited these three cases more than any Supreme Court decisions in history. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett is widely recognized as the most significant decision of the trilogy, both because it expanded the availability of summary judgment and because it remains the Court's most current instructions on how burdens are allocated between the party seeking and the party opposing summary judgment. However, Celotex failed to clarify …