Law Commons^™

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, …

Aggregation By Acquisition: Replacing Class Actions With A Market For Legal Claims, Minor Myers, C. Korsmo

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Transnational Litigation As A Prisoner's Dilemma, Maya Steinitz, Paul Gowder

Faculty Scholarship

In this Article we use game theory to argue that perceptions of widespread corruption in the judicial processes in developing countries create ex ante incentives to act corruptly. It is rational (though not moral) to preemptively act corruptly when litigating in the courts of many developing nations. The upshot of this analysis is to highlight that, contrary to judicial narratives in individual cases — such as the (in)famous Chevron–Ecuador dispute used herein as an illustration — the problem of corruption in transnational litigation is structural and as such calls for structural solutions. The article offers one such solution: the establishment …

The First Patent Litigation Explosion, Christopher Beauchamp

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Judging Third-Party Funding, Victoria Sahani

Faculty Scholarship

Third-party funding is an arrangement whereby an outside entity finances the legal representation of a party involved in litigation or arbitration. The outside entity—called a “third-party funder”—could be a bank, hedge fund, insurance company, or some other entity or individual that finances the party’s legal representation in return for a profit. Third-party funding is a controversial, dynamic, and evolving phenomenon. The practice has attracted national headlines and the attention of the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Advisory Committee). The Advisory Committee stated in a recent report that “judges currently have the power to obtain information about …

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.

Litigation: Time To Revisit Chevron Deference?, Jack M. Beerman, Charles J. Cooper, Thomas W. Merrill, Amy J. Wildermuth, Don R. Willett

Faculty Scholarship

This panel discussion took place on Thursday, November 13, 2014 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., prior to the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia's impact on the development of administrative law in the United States is unparalleled.

Lawyers, Power, And Strategic Expertise, Colleen F. Shanahan, Anna E. Carpenter, Alyx Mark

Faculty Scholarship

The only sound in a courtroom is the hum of the ventilation system. It feels as if everyone in the room is holding their breath …. Litigants are uneasy in the courthouse, plaintiffs and defendants alike. They fidget. They keep their coats on. They clutch their sheaves of paper-rent receipts and summonses, leases and bills. You can always tell the lawyers, because they claim the front row, take off their jackets, lay out their files. It's not just their ease with the language and the process that sets them apart. They dominate the space.

This empirical study analyzes the experience …

Climate Litigation Scores Successes In The Netherlands And Pakistan, Michael B. Gerrard

Faculty Scholarship

Most U.S. climate change litigation falls into one of two categories. The vast majority of cases — which receive the bulk of the attention — are based on the Clean Air Act and other statutes. These include Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007) and the current litigation over the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Clean Power Plan. The second category, and the focus of this article, comprises cases based on common law and the Constitution.

Corporate Darwinism: Disciplining Managers In A World With Weak Shareholder Litigation, James D. Cox, Randall S. Thomas

Faculty Scholarship

Because representative shareholder litigation has been constrained by numerous legal developments, the corporate governance system has developed new mechanisms as alternative means to address managerial agency costs. We posit that recent significant governance developments in the corporate world are the natural consequence of the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of shareholder suits to address certain genre of managerial agency costs. We thus argue that corporate governance responses evolve to fill voids caused by the inability of shareholder suits to monitor and discipline corporate managers.

We further claim that these new governance responses are themselves becoming stronger due in part to the rising …

Improving Predictability And Consistency In Class Action Tolling, Tanya Pierce

Faculty Scholarship

Class action tolling means that when parties in a suit allege federal treatment, the individual claims of putative class members are tolled federal courts while the class action is pending. Commonly referred to as American Pipe tolling, this rule prevents duplicative litigation that would result if plaintiffs were required to intervene or file independent lawsuits to protect their interests while the class action was pending. Federal courts have long settled the application of American Pipe tolling in scenarios involving later-filed individual actions. In other scenarios, however, the application of American Pipe tolling has caused considerable uncertainty. This Article examines the …

Panel 2: Types Of Litigation Funding, Geoffrey P. Miller, Maya Steinitz, Joshua Schwadron, Bradley Wendel, Michael Faure, Jef De Mot, Travis Lenkner

Faculty Scholarship

This is a transcript from the second panel of the 2015 NYU School of Law conference: Litigation Funding: The Basics and Beyond.

Panel Two

The second panel will build on the basics. Participants will explain and discuss different subcategories of funding, each of which may raise different conceptual, practical and/or regulatory concerns.

Panelists:

• Geoffrey Miller, New York University School of Law (Moderator)
• Maya Steinitz, University of Iowa College of Law
• Joshua Schwadron, Founder and CEO, Mighty
• Bradley Wendel, Cornell Law School
• Michael G. Faure, Maastricht University & Rotterdam University, the Netherlands
• Jef De Mot, Ghent University
• Travis Lenkner, Gerchen Keller …

Back To Basics: Public Adjudication Of Corporate Atrocities Torts, Maya Steinitz

Faculty Scholarship

The editors of this online symposium invited me to contribute to the subject of an argument I have recently advanced. This argument is that the world needs a permanent International Court of Civil Justice (ICCJ) to adjudicate cross-border mass torts. A common reaction to this proposal has been to suggest that the function of such an international court be assumed by one of the existing arbitration institutions or filled by a new one. I’d like to take this opportunity to argue against that idea.

Corporate atrocities, which are the symposium’s focus, may be crimes, but they also have a tort …