Law Commons^™

Scientific Testing & Proof Of Paternity: Some Controversy And Key Issues For Family Law Counsel, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

Blood and tissue testing, especially DNA matching, have become important elements of both criminal and paternity or maternity litigation. Such scientific testing has become so important that it has taken on aspects that may cause it to benefit or to do harm to the judicial process or to any given case. This article focuses on the value and the dangers surrounding this interesting subject.

The 1995 Louisiana Supreme Court decision in Pace v. State reemphasized the importance of DNA testing generally and the significance of blood and tissue genetic testing used to exclude paternity. The advances in and importance of …

The Short Happy Life Of Litigation Between Tortfeasors: Contribution, Indemnification And Subrogation After Washington's Tort Reform Acts, Stewart A. Estes

Seattle University Law Review

Section I summarizes the history and development of tort law in Washington, with an emphasis on the impact of the 1981 and 1986 Tort Reform Acts and their imperfect union. Section II outlines the traditional equitable remedies that are potentially available to a tortfeasor seeking reimbursement for having paid more than its share. Section III sets out the thesis and explains why under current law a tortfeasor's suit for reimbursement should be the exception, not the rule. The need, and the basis, for such litigation is dependent upon the existence of joint and several liability-which now occurs only infrequently.

Class Action Reform: Lessons From Securities Litigation, Jill E. Fisch

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

What Is Eleventh Amendment Immunity?, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court's Eleventh Amendment decisions give conflicting signals about what the Amendment does. On one view, the Amendment functions as a forum-allocation principle--immunizing states from liability in suits filed in federal court, but leaving open the possibility that states may be compelled to entertain suits against themselves in their own courts. A separate line of cases, however, implies that state courts enjoy an immunity from suit in their own courts and that nothing in the Constitution withdraws such immunity; on this view, the Eleventh Amendment, by protecting the states from suit in the federal courts, effectively immunizes the states …

Why Civil Cases Go To Trial: Strategic Bargaining And The Desire For Vindication, Samuel R. Gross, Kent D. Syverud

Articles

When negotiations break down and a dispute cannot be settled, attorneys commonly blame their adversaries, often questioning their ethics or their judgment. After interviewing many attorneys, we have come to believe much of the criticism is directed at strategic moves in negotiation. But strategic ploys are not the only reason dispute resolution fails. Rather, our research also suggest that a genuine desire for vindication through trial or other formal process may be very significant in some types of cases where bargaining breaks down.

Development Of An Early Identification And Response Model Of Malpractice Prevention, Ellen Wright Clayton, Gerald B. Hickson, James W. Pichert, Charles F. Federspiel

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The dramatic rise in the incidence of malpractice claims over the past thirty years has revealed several problems with the U.S. system of medical dispute resolution. First, the sudden and unexpected increase in claims has created an insurance crisis wherein various medical specialists have had difficulty obtaining affordable insurance coverage. One such crisis occurred in Florida in the mid-1980's, when an inability of many physicians to procure medical malpractice coverage caused some to limit or curtail their practice. This resulted in access problems for the public. This phenomenon has disproportionately befallen physicians practicing obstetric medicine. Second, besides contributing to periodic …

Class Action Chaos? The Theory Of The Core And An Analysis Of Opt-Out Rights In Mass Tort Class Actions, Michael A. Perino

Faculty Publications

From breast implants to cigarettes, mass tort class actions are a prominent and controversial part of the contemporary litigation landscape. A critical component of these actions is the ability of class members to “opt out” and thereby exclude themselves from the effect of any class judgment. The tension between individual autonomy and the desire for global resolution of mass controversies has led to an intense debate concerning the circumstances under which opt-out rights should be constrained, if at all.

This Article makes five distinct contributions to the class action literature. First, the Article applies the game theoretic concept of the …

Provisional Relief In Transnational Litigation, George A. Bermann

Faculty Scholarship

In this article, Professor Bermann identifies and analyzes the principal problems raised by the rapidly growing phenomenon of transnational provisional relief National courts are facing serious challenges in organizing such interventions, but as yet lack a sufficiently comprehensive framework of analysis. The author begins with the clarifying distinction that provisional relief may be transnational either because of its significant effects abroad or because it lends support to protective measures ordered by foreign courts, and draws on the experiences of U.S. and foreign courts in determining the costs of both granting and withholding provisional relief He concludes that, despite the very …

The Case Of Mrs. Jones Revisited: Paternalism And Autonomy In Lawyer-Client Counseling, Mark Spiegel

Mark Spiegel

No abstract provided.

The Crisis Of Poverty Law And The Demands Of Benevolence, Paul R. Tremblay

Paul R. Tremblay

No abstract provided.