Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Punishment But Not A Penalty? Punitive Damages Are Impermissible Under Foreign Substantive Law, Paul A. Hoversten
Punishment But Not A Penalty? Punitive Damages Are Impermissible Under Foreign Substantive Law, Paul A. Hoversten
Michigan Law Review
It is a well-established principle that no court applies the penal laws of another sovereign. But what exactly is a penal law? According to Judge Cardozo, a penal law effects “vindication of the public justice” rather than “reparation to one aggrieved.” Although courts have historically treated punitive damages as a purely civil remedy, that attitude has shifted over time. Modern American punitive damages serve not to compensate the plaintiff but to punish the defendant on behalf of the whole community. Therefore, when courts rely on foreign substantive law to impose punitive damages, they arguably violate the well-established principle that no …
The International Law Of State Responsibility: Revolution Or Evolution?, Pierre-Marie Dupuy
The International Law Of State Responsibility: Revolution Or Evolution?, Pierre-Marie Dupuy
Michigan Journal of International Law
After briefly summarizing the classical doctrine of state responsibility, Part One will discuss whether extending compensation to the harmful consequences of certain hazardous activities necessarily involves the recognition of a "liability for lawful conduct" without any link to traditional ideas of state responsibility. Part Two, starting again from responsibility for wrongful acts, will discuss whether raising a new category, the breach of an "essential obligation" or "international crimes," confers not only an obligation to make reparations, but a right, in both the victim state and the non-victim states, to sanction the responsible state.
Conflict Of Laws-Torts-Choice Of Law In Multiple State Defamation, Peter Van Domelen S.Ed.
Conflict Of Laws-Torts-Choice Of Law In Multiple State Defamation, Peter Van Domelen S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff, a Connecticut corporation engaged in business throughout several Eastern states, brought an action for an injunction and damages arising from alleged defamatory statements broadcast over defendant's radio network. Defendant's broadcast originated in New York and was heard by listeners from Maine to North Carolina and as far west as Pennsylvania including the area in which plaintiff was carrying on its business. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. To rule on this motion, it was necessary to choose the appropriate governing law. Held, the law of New …
Corporations-Shareholders' Derivative Suits-When Demand On Shareholders Is A Prerequisite To Maintenance Of Suit, Thomas L. Waterbury S.Ed.
Corporations-Shareholders' Derivative Suits-When Demand On Shareholders Is A Prerequisite To Maintenance Of Suit, Thomas L. Waterbury S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
A shareholder's derivative suit is an equity proceeding instituted by a shareholder on behalf of himself and all other shareholders to assert corporate rights. Both the corporation and the parties allegedly liable to the corporation are necessary parties. The question to be considered in this comment is, when must the plaintiff shareholder show that he sought redress for the corporation through collective action of the shareholders and failed to secure it? As a preliminary matter, we may ask what sort of collective action the shareholders are expected to take. A few authorities suggest that the shareholders, as a body, bring …
Substance And Procedure In The Conflict Of Laws, Edgar H. Ailes
Substance And Procedure In The Conflict Of Laws, Edgar H. Ailes
Michigan Law Review
It is perhaps the most inveterate doctrine of the conflict of laws that all questions of procedure in a given instance are governed by the lex fori, or the law of the court invoked, regardless of the law under which the substantive rights of the parties accrued. For seven centuries, at least, courts and lawyers have broadly stated or assumed to be axiomatic the rule that substantive rights are fixed and immutable whilst the procedural devices by which such rights may be vindicated and enforced depend solely upon the law of the forum.