Law Commons^™

Modeling Narrowest Grounds, Maxwell Stearns

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s doctrinal statements governing nonmajority opinions demonstrate inconsistencies and confusion belied by the Justices’ behaviors modeling the narrowest grounds doctrine. And yet, lower courts are bound by stated doctrine, beginning with Marks v. United States, not rules of construction inferred from judicial conduct. This Article simplifies the narrowest grounds rule, reconciling doctrinal formulations with observed behaviors, avoiding the implicit command: “Watch what we do, not what we say.”

The two most recent cases considering Marks, Ramos v. Louisiana and Hughes v. United States, obfuscate three central features: (1) when the doctrine does or does not …

Is The Supreme Court Disabling The Enabling Act, Or Is Shady Grove Just Another Bad Opera?, Robert J. Condlin

Faculty Scholarship

After seventy years of trying, the Supreme Court has yet to agree on whether the Rules Enabling Act articulates a one or two part standard for determining the validity of a Federal Rule. Is it enough that a Federal Rule regulates “practice and procedure,” or must it also not “abridge substantive rights”? The Enabling Act seems to require both, but the Court is not so sure, and the costs of its uncertainty are real. Among other things, litigants must guess whether the decision to apply a Federal Rule in a given case will depend upon predictable ritual, judicial power grab, …

Standing In The Judge’S Shoes: Exploring Techniques To Help Legal Writers More Fully Address The Needs Of Their Audience, Sherri Keene

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Victim Or Thug? Examining The Relevance Of Stories In Cases Involving Shootings Of Unarmed Black Males, Sherri Keene

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Debt-Buyer Lawsuits And Inaccurate Data, Peter A. Holland

Faculty Scholarship

Pursuant to secret purchase and sale agreements (also known as forward flow agreements), the accounts that banks sell to debt buyers are often sold “as is,” with explicit and emphatic disclaimers that the debts may not be owed, the amounts claimed may not be accurate, and documentation may be missing. Despite their full knowledge that the accuracy and completeness of the data has been specifically disclaimed by the bank, when they sue consumers, debt buyers tell courts that the information obtained from the bank is inherently reliable and accurate. In order to avoid a fraud on the courts, the contents …

Locality V. Online Travel Company: Does The Bell Finally Toll For Quill Corp. V. North Dakota, Jaan Rannik

Journal of Business & Technology Law

No abstract provided.

In Re Mstg And The Shifting Role Of Litigation-Related Patent Licenses In Reasonable Royalty Rate Determinations, Whitney Levandusky

Journal of Business & Technology Law

No abstract provided.

Deference, Chenery, And Foia, Margaret B. Kwoka

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dellinger V. Science Applications International Corporation: Missing An Opportunity To Expand The Meaning Of "Employee" Under The Fair Labor Standards Act, Ashley Sharif

Proxy

No abstract provided.

Christopher V. Smithkline Beecham Corporation: An Unsurprising Loss For Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives And An Erosion Of Power For Administrative Agencies, Anna Johnston

Proxy

No abstract provided.

The Curious Case Of Transformative Dispute Resolution: An Unfortunate Marriage Of Intransigence, Exclusivity, And Hype, Robert J. Condlin

Faculty Scholarship

Why do proponents of Transformative Dispute Resolution (TDR) defend the Theory in such intransigent, exclusivist, and grandiose terms? TDR is a mature theory, and a relatively sophisticated one, and qualities of this sort usually go hand in hand with a balanced, refined, and well-modulated sense of self. But TDR proponents will have none of that. They make ambitious (some would say outlandish) assertions about the Theory’s capacity to develop moral and political character, reform deliberative government, and resolve ethno-political conflict, while simultaneously rejecting overtures from sympathetic outsiders to rein in the overstated aspects of these claims and craft a more …

Janus Capital Group, Inc. V. First Derivative Traders: Further Limited Liability, And Missing An Opportunity To Curb Corporate Misconduct, Zachary K. Ostro

Journal of Business & Technology Law

No abstract provided.

Consumer Financial Services Arbitration: What Does The Future Hold After Concepcion?, Alan S. Kaplinsky, Mark J. Levin

Journal of Business & Technology Law

No abstract provided.

Incorporating Litigation Perspectives To Enhance The Business Associations Course, Ann M. Scarlett

Journal of Business & Technology Law

No abstract provided.

Logic, Not Evidence, Supports A Change In Expert Testimony Standards: Why Evidentiary Standards Promulgated By The Supreme Court For Scientific Expert Testimony Are Inappropriate And Inefficient When Applied In Patent Infringement Suits, Claire R. Rollor

Journal of Business & Technology Law

No abstract provided.

Drafting Arbitration Agreements: A Practioner's Guide For Consumer Credit Contracts, Nicole F. Munro, Peter L. Cockrell

Journal of Business & Technology Law

No abstract provided.

Speech, Brian S. Harvey

Journal of Business & Technology Law

No abstract provided.

Human Rights Litigation And The National Interest: Kiobel'S Application Of The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality To The Alien Tort Statute, Jonathan Hafetz

Maryland Journal of International Law

No abstract provided.

The Women's Health Amendment And Religious Freedom: Finding A Sufficient Compromise, Rebecca Hall

Journal of Health Care Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

Climate Change And The Public Law Model Of Torts: Reinvigorating Judicial Restraint Doctrines, Donald G. Gifford

Faculty Scholarship

The Article traces the origins of climate change litigation back to earlier forms of “public interest tort litigation,” including government actions against the manufacturers of cigarettes, handguns and lead pigment. Public interest tort litigation is different in kind from traditional tort actions, even asbestos and other mass products litigation. These new lawsuits address society-wide or even worldwide problems and seek judicially imposed regulatory regimes. As such, they more closely resemble civil rights litigation and what Abram Chayes deemed “the public law model” than they do earlier tort actions. I conclude that the public law model of tort litigation is the …

Teach Your Jurors Well: Using Jury Instructions To Educate Jurors About Factors Affecting The Accuracy Of Eyewitness Testimony, Derek Simmonsen

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Importance Of Being Ambiguous: Substantive Canons, Stare Decisis, And The Central Role Of Ambiguity Determinations In The Administrative State, Brian G. Slocum

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Legal Bargaining Theory's New "Prospecting" Agenda: It May Be Social Science, But Is It News?, Robert J. Condlin

Faculty Scholarship

In the good old days legal bargaining scholarship was based mostly on negotiator war stories exuberantly told. The social-scientific study of the subject did not begin in earnest until the nineteen-seventies. Since then, however, the literature of storytelling has gone into a pronounced eclipse and social-scientific study is now the principal scholarly game in town. This article questions the wisdom of this shift, almost seismic in its proportions, and argues that it is too soon to jump on the social science bandwagon. Discussion focuses on the uses made of the Prospect Theory of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky and the …

D Is For Digitize: An Introduction, James Grimmelmann

Faculty Scholarship

This brief introductory essay reviews the history of D is for Digitize conference on the Google Books settlement and provides an overview of the seven articles in the symposium issue.

Thoughts On Preemption In The Wake Of The Levine Decision, Erika Fisher Lietzan, Sarah E. Pitlyk

Journal of Health Care Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

Toward Procedural Optionality: Private Ordering Of Public Adjudication, Robert J. Rhee

Faculty Scholarship

Private resolution and public adjudication of disputes are commonly seen as discrete, antipodal processes. There is a generally held understanding of the dispute resolution processes. The essence of private dispute resolution is that the parties can arrange the disputed rights and entitlements per agreement and without judicial intervention. In public adjudication, however, the sovereign mandates the substantive and procedural laws to be applied, many of which cannot be changed by either a party’s unilateral decision or both parties’ mutual consent. Neither approach allows a party an option to unilaterally alter important aspects of the process, such as the standards of …

Tobacco Litigation Without The Smoke? Cigarette Companies In The Smokeless Tobacco Industry, Micah L. Berman

Journal of Health Care Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

Justiciable Generalized Grievances, Kimberly N. Brown

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Goldberg V. Boone: Getting Away With “Murder”— An Attempt To Exploit The Arbitrary Limits On Cross-Examination Questioning, Brigham J. Lundberg

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Against Genetic Exceptionalism: An Argument In Favor Of The Viability Of Preconception Genetic Torts, Daniel S. Goldberg

Journal of Health Care Law and Policy

No abstract provided.