Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Antitrust And The 'Filed Rate' Doctrine: Deregulation And State Action, Herbert J. Hovenkamp
Antitrust And The 'Filed Rate' Doctrine: Deregulation And State Action, Herbert J. Hovenkamp
All Faculty Scholarship
In its Keogh decision the Supreme Court held that although the Interstate Commerce Act did not exempt railroads from antitrust liability, a private plaintiff may not recover treble damages based on an allegedly monopolistic tariff rate filed with a federal agency. Keogh very likely grew out of Justice Brandeis's own zeal for regulation and his concern for the protection of small business — in this case, mainly shippers whom he felt were protected from discrimination by filed rates. The Supreme Court's Square D decision later conceded that Keogh may have been “unwise as a matter of policy,” but reaffirmed it …
The Rhetoric Hits The Road: State Resistance To Affordable Care Act Implementation, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard
The Rhetoric Hits The Road: State Resistance To Affordable Care Act Implementation, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard
Scholarly Works
This paper provides an update and reanalysis of my previously published article, Rhetorical Federalism: The Value of State-Based Dissent to Federal Health Reform, 93 Hofstra Law Review 111 (2010). In Rhetorical Federalism, I made an affirmative case for the widespread trend of state resistance to the then-recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA). Before and immediately after ACA’s enactment, a significant number of states engaged in various forms of objection to the new federal Act, including but not limited to lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the individual insurance mandate. My article focused on five targets of …
A Crisis In Federal Habeas Law, Eve Brensike Primus
A Crisis In Federal Habeas Law, Eve Brensike Primus
Reviews
Everyone recognizes that federal habeas doctrine is a mess. Despite repeated calls for reform, federal judges continue to waste countless hours reviewing habeas petitions only to dismiss the vast majority of them on procedural grounds. Broad change is necessary, but to be effective, such change must be animated by an overarching theory that explains when federal courts should exercise habeas jurisdiction. In Habeas for the Twenty-First Century: Uses, Abuses, and the Future of the Great Writ, Professors Nancy King and Joseph Hoffmann offer such a theory. Drawing on history, current practice, and empirical data, King and Hoffmann find unifying themes …
Clarity And Clarification: Grable Federal Questions In The Eyes Of Their Beholders, Elizabeth Mccuskey
Clarity And Clarification: Grable Federal Questions In The Eyes Of Their Beholders, Elizabeth Mccuskey
Faculty Scholarship
Jurists and commentators have repeated for centuries the refrain that jurisdictional rules should be clear.' Behind this mantra is the idea that clearly designed jurisdictional rules should enable trial courts to apply the law more easily and therefore allow litigants to predict more accurately how trial courts will rule.2 The mantra's ultimate goal is efficiency-that trial courts not labor too long on jurisdiction and, most important, that litigants can accurately predict the correct forum and choose to spend their money litigating the merits of their claim, rather than where it will be heard. Jurisdictional clarity largely is devoted …