Law Commons^™

Slides: Disappearing Roads--An Efd Project: An Exploration Into Low Impact And Efficient Gas Field Drilling, Charles Dolan

Best Practices for Community and Environmental Protection (October 14)

Presenter: Rich Haut, Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC), for Dr. Charles Dolan, University of Wyoming, Environmentally Friendly Drilling Program

25 slides

Improper Joinder: Confronting Plaintiffs' Attempts To Destroy Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction., Paul Rosenthal

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Where's The Party: Do Class Action Plaintiffs Really Prefer State Courts?, Neil J. Marchand

Neil J. Marchand

Scholars and interest groups have discussed litigants’ behavior in the class action context. This paper uses empirical data to determine whether class action plaintiffs actually prefer to litigate their suits in state courts. Despite well-reasoned conjectures on the subject, to date there is a paucity of empirical data on class action litigation, especially at the state court level. This scarcity has thwarted analysis of the likelihood of class certification in the state courts, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005’s (CAFA) total impact on the judiciary, and the predictability of class action litigation. This study aims to start filling the …

Choice Of Forum In Securities Litigation: Confronting The Aftermath Of Congressional Reform Of The Securities Act Of 1933, Matthew O'Brien

Matthew O'Brien

The article addresses the wave of federal legislative reform since the mid-1990s aimed at reducing forum shopping by plaintiffs in securities class actions. In particular, the article examines the direct conflict between section 22(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”), which prohibits defendants from removing 1933 Act cases from state court to federal court, and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), which permits removal of high-dollar class actions involving diverse parties.

The article shows how this statutory conflict has produced a recent split between the Seventh and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals. In July 2008, the …

Comedy Or Tragedy: The Tale Of Diversity Jurisdiction Removal And The One-Year Bar, Michael W. Lewis

Michael W. Lewis

The current laws governing diversity removal are badly broken. They create counterproductive incentives that have increased the workload of federal courts while rewarding deceptive practices on the part of plaintiffs. Defendants have every incentive to remove even low value cases to federal court, on the chance that the vague and uncertain standards governing amount in controversy issues will allow them to succeed. At the same time, the current rules encourage plaintiffs to conceal the true value of their cases for one-year, to prevent removal to federal court, and then to reveal the true value, while using the one-year bar to …

Redefining The Rights Of Undocumented Workers, Keith Cunningham-Parmeter

American University Law Review

Should a nation extend legal rights to those who enter the country illegally? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question when it held that unauthorized immigrants who are fired illegally for unionizing cannot recover monetary remedies. This has led to a significant decline in employment protections for unauthorized immigrants beyond the unionized sector. For example, some courts now question whether unauthorized immigrants can receive full remedies for sexual harassment, workplace discrimination, or on-the-job injuries.

Scholars have criticized these losses but have yet to formulate a coherent framework for evaluating the employment rights of unauthorized immigrants. This article does so by …

The Immigration Representation Project: Meeting The Critical Needs Of Low-Wage And Indigent New Yorkers Facing Removal, Joho Annobil

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Securities Class Actions, Cafa And A Countrywide Crisis: A Call For Clarity And Consistency, Denise Mazzeo

Fordham Law Review

The unfolding of the credit crisis raises novel issues in securities litigation. This Note explores the conflict between the nonremoval provision of the Securities Act of 1933 (’33 Act) and the removal provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), and their interplay in the context of class actions involving mortgage-backed securities. Circuits are currently split over whether or not such class actions are removable under CAFA. The Seventh Circuit and the Southern District of New York have held that class actions asserting only ’33 Act claims are removable under CAFA unless they fall within one of CAFA’s …

The Shifting Border Of Immigration Regulation, Ayelet Shachar

Michigan Journal of International Law

While American immigration law is still largely informed by the doctrine of plenary power, which holds that "[a]dmission to the United States is a privilege granted by the sovereign" (as the Supreme Court asserted in Knauff more than fifty years ago), what has dramatically changed in recent years is the location of "our gates," which no longer stand at the country's territorial edges. Instead, the border itself has become a moving barrier, a legal construct that is not tightly fixed to territorial benchmarks. This shifting border of immigration regulation, as we might call it, is selectively utilized by national …

Toward A Duty-Based Theory Of Executive Power, David M. Driesen

Fordham Law Review

This article develops a duty-based theory of executive power. This theory maintains that the Constitution seeks to instill a duty in all executive branch officers to faithfully execute the law. Conversely, the Constitution’s Framers and Ratifiers did not intend to empower the President to distinctively shape the law to suit his policy preferences or those of his party. Rather, they envisioned a model of “disinterested leadership” serving rule-of-law values. Because of the Ratifiers’ and Framers’ interest in preventing abuse of executive power, the Constitution obligates executive branch officials to disobey illegal presidential directives and creates a major congressional role in …