Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Claims (2)
- Class action (2)
- Aggregate settlement (1)
- Aggregate settlements (1)
- Class members (1)
-
- Collateral order doctrine (1)
- Complex litigation (1)
- Federal court (1)
- Fees (1)
- Final judgment rule (1)
- Forced medication (1)
- Lawyer-client conflict (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Mass tort (1)
- Mass tort litigation (1)
- Mass tort plaintiffs' practice (1)
- Multiparty litigation (1)
- Representation (1)
- Section 1983 (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Why Do Plaintiffs Sue Private Parties Under Section 1983, Jack M. Beermann
Why Do Plaintiffs Sue Private Parties Under Section 1983, Jack M. Beermann
Faculty Scholarship
The subject of this article is why people make federal cases, under section 1983,' out of claims they have against private parties. Section 1983 provides a cause of action against "any person" who, while acting "under color of' state law, subjects or causes the plaintiff to be subjected to a violation of federal constitutional or statutory rights. The requirement that the defendant act under color of law means that the typical section 1983 claim is brought against state and local government officials or entities, not against private individuals or entities. However, there are situations in which a private party (i.e. …
How Like A Winter? The Plight Of Absent Class Members Denied Adequate Representation, Susan P. Koniak
How Like A Winter? The Plight Of Absent Class Members Denied Adequate Representation, Susan P. Koniak
Faculty Scholarship
Class actions assume absent class members. 2 Notices in class actions tell class members that they need not show up in the courthouse, although they may if they choose.3 Class members are told that class counsel and the named class representatives will look out for them, although if they choose to hire their own lawyer, she may appear on their behalf.4 They are also routinely told that once the decision in the class action becomes final they will be bound by it, losing any and all right to protest the resolution of their claims by the class action …
Doing Good, Doing Well Symposium, Howard M. Erichson
Doing Good, Doing Well Symposium, Howard M. Erichson
Faculty Scholarship
Rather than focusing on the differences between tort lawyers and activists as they ally with each other, this Article focuses on the motivations and explanations of the tort lawyers themselves. Positioned at the intersection of big-money practice and social change litigation, mass torts provide a useful study in multiple motivations. While financial incentives for plaintiffs' lawyers explain much of what happens in mass torts, policy objectives come into play as well, at least in the lawyers' rhetoric. Despite the obvious difficulty distinguishing reasons from rhetoric and rationalization, it is worth exploring the significance of mixed motives for lawyers who are …
Typology Of Aggregate Settlements, A , Howard M. Erichson
Typology Of Aggregate Settlements, A , Howard M. Erichson
Faculty Scholarship
It is odd, considering how often lawyers engage in aggregate settlements, that no one seems able to explain what "aggregate settlement" means. It is one of the most important yet least defined terms in complex litigation. Lawyers and judges talk about aggregate settlements as though it were obvious what the term signifies and as though it describes a single thing. In fact, group settlements in multiparty litigation vary significantly. And they vary in ways that make it difficult to determine whether certain deals ought to be understood as collective settlements or simply as groups of individual settlements bundled together. This …
Important” And “Irreversible” But Maybe Not “Unreviewable”: The Dilemma Of Protecting Defendants’ Rights Through The Collateral Order Doctrine, Kristin B. Gerdy
Important” And “Irreversible” But Maybe Not “Unreviewable”: The Dilemma Of Protecting Defendants’ Rights Through The Collateral Order Doctrine, Kristin B. Gerdy
Faculty Scholarship
This articles addresses the collateral order doctrine beginning with its inception in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., and continuing through an overview of theCourt's civil collateral order jurisprudence illustrating the development of the "requirements" for attaining appellate review under the doctrine. It examines the role of "important rights" in the Court's collateral order cases and attempts to determine whether "importance" is an additional requirement of the collateral order test. The author seeks to define what the Court means by an "important" right or issue, and to explain the view that some rights are sufficiently "important" to outweigh costs of …