Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (2)
- Consent decrees (2)
- Settlements (2)
- Trials (2)
- Access to justice (1)
-
- Access to the courts (1)
- Barbee v. Warden (1)
- Brady v. Maryland (1)
- Circuit splits (1)
- Class actions (1)
- Clients (1)
- Comparative Causation (1)
- Comparative negligence (1)
- Comparing Fault (1)
- Contributory Negligence (1)
- Cruse v. Aden (1)
- Discovery (1)
- Dram Shop Act (1)
- Drunk Driving (1)
- Employee Retirement Income Security Act (1)
- Enforcement (1)
- Equality (1)
- Federal Employers' Liability Act (1)
- Giglio v. United States (1)
- Grant v. Alldredge (1)
- Guardians (1)
- Hague Convention (1)
- Indigent litigants (1)
- Judicial review (1)
- Justice (1)
Articles 1 - 15 of 15
Full-Text Articles in Law
Abuse In Plaintiff Class Action Settlements: The Need For A Guardian During Pretrial Settlement Negotiations, Sylvia R. Lazos
Abuse In Plaintiff Class Action Settlements: The Need For A Guardian During Pretrial Settlement Negotiations, Sylvia R. Lazos
Michigan Law Review
This Note explores the problem of abuse of the class action device during the pretrial settlement process. Part I analyzes the underlying sources of potential abuse in pretrial settlement negotiations. Part II assesses the adequacy of the standards currently used by courts to detect collusive class action settlements. Part III concludes that the appointment of a neutral third-party guardian to oversee the pretrial negotiation process furthers the judicial policy of encouraging settlements while protecting the interests of the absentee class.
Erisa: To Sue Or Not To Sue-A Question Of Statutory Standing, Constance L. Bauer
Erisa: To Sue Or Not To Sue-A Question Of Statutory Standing, Constance L. Bauer
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Note examines the conflicting authority regarding the scope of section 502(a) of ERISA. There is a fundamental split among the United States Courts of Appeals concerning whether parties not specifically enumerated in section 502(a) have standing to bring civil actions to enforce ERISA's provisions. The Ninth Circuit has held consistently that non-enumerated parties are entitled to sue under ERISA. The Second Circuit, however, repeatedly has held that parties not explicitly specified in section 502(a). do not have standing to bring an action under the Act. This Note addresses the question of whether employers and pension funds, as non-enumerated parties, …
The Applicability Of The Antitrust Procedures And Penalties Act Of 1974 To Voluntary Dismissals, Jon B. Jacobs
The Applicability Of The Antitrust Procedures And Penalties Act Of 1974 To Voluntary Dismissals, Jon B. Jacobs
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Note argues that Congress should amend the APPA to require a judicial public interest determination prior to the entry of a voluntary dismissal in government-initiated civil antitrust actions. Part I of this Note briefly describes the APPA and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Part II asserts that APPA procedures do not currently apply to voluntary dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1). Part III concludes that the purposes underlying the APPA and general policy considerations support the legislative extension of the Act to dismissals. Part IV responds to objections to this proposal. Finally, Part V presents a specific amendment to the …
Modifications Of Antitrust Consent Decrees: Over A Double Barrel, John D. Anderson
Modifications Of Antitrust Consent Decrees: Over A Double Barrel, John D. Anderson
Michigan Law Review
This Note will attempt to determine the correct standard of review for all modifications of existing consent decrees. Part I. A. examines the current standards for modifications of consent decrees. It concludes that the APP A does not apply to such orders. Part I. B. then examines the differing standards that are currently applied to defendant-initiated modification motions without the government's consent, government-initiated modification motions without the defendant's consent, and consented-to modifications. Part II argues that these varying standards have little justification since the same substantive concerns exist in all modification cases. Part III explores the two major concerns - …
Comparing Fault, David C. Sobelsohn
Forcing Attorneys To Represent Indigent Civil Litigants: The Problems And Some Proposals, Greg Stevens
Forcing Attorneys To Represent Indigent Civil Litigants: The Problems And Some Proposals, Greg Stevens
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Note argues that uncompensated court appointments represent an unsatisfactory means to provide counsel for indigents. Part I discusses the policy arguments for and against forced, uncompensated court appointments. Part I concludes that the arguments against these appointments outweigh the arguments in favor of them. Part II argues that they violate the Constitution's prohibitions against uncompensated takings and involuntary servitude. Part III offers a proposal that would provide effective representation for indigent civil litigants, while avoiding infringement of attorneys' constitutional rights.
Measuring The Costs Of Civil Justice, Edward Brunet
Measuring The Costs Of Civil Justice, Edward Brunet
Michigan Law Review
A Review of Costs of the Civil Justice System: Court Expenditures for Various Types of Civil Cases by J.S. Kakalik and R.L. Ross
The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad: Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, Margaret T. Burns
The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad: Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, Margaret T. Burns
Michigan Journal of International Law
This note asserts that the Hague Convention is not the exclusive vehicle available to U.S. litigants for taking evidence abroad. It argues that in certain circumstances, U.S. courts should allow litigants to use the more liberal methods of the Federal Rules when seeking evidence from party litigants in other signatory nations.
Social Host Liability: Opening A Pandora's Box, Marc E. Odier
Social Host Liability: Opening A Pandora's Box, Marc E. Odier
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Offers Of Judgment And Rule 68: A Response To The Chief Justice, 18 J. Marshall L. Rev. 341 (1985), Lynn Sanders Branham
Offers Of Judgment And Rule 68: A Response To The Chief Justice, 18 J. Marshall L. Rev. 341 (1985), Lynn Sanders Branham
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Privacy Act After A Decade, 18 J. Marshall L. Rev. 829 (1985), Richard Ehlke
The Privacy Act After A Decade, 18 J. Marshall L. Rev. 829 (1985), Richard Ehlke
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Illinois Law In Distress: The Zone Of Danger And Physical Injury Rules In Emotional Distress Litigation, 19 J. Marshall L. Rev. 17 (1985), Edward A. Mccarthy
Illinois Law In Distress: The Zone Of Danger And Physical Injury Rules In Emotional Distress Litigation, 19 J. Marshall L. Rev. 17 (1985), Edward A. Mccarthy
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Whole Truth And Nothing But The Truth: Is The Trier Of Fact Entitled To Hear It?, Joseph M. Reisman
The Whole Truth And Nothing But The Truth: Is The Trier Of Fact Entitled To Hear It?, Joseph M. Reisman
University of Richmond Law Review
The fundamental goal of our adversarial system of litigation is to arrive at the truth through a fair presentation of the evidence. However, in a criminal proceeding material evidence is frequently not as available to the defense as it is to the prosecuting attorney. Consequently, rules have been developed which not only aid the defense in obtaining relevant information, but also assist the prosecution in fulfilling its ethical and constitutional obligations, chief among which is to see that justice and due process are upheld.
Mandatory Mass Tort Class Actions: Litigating Catastrophes Without Creating Litigation Catastrophes, 19 J. Marshall L. Rev. 91 (1985), Matthew K. Phillips
Mandatory Mass Tort Class Actions: Litigating Catastrophes Without Creating Litigation Catastrophes, 19 J. Marshall L. Rev. 91 (1985), Matthew K. Phillips
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Sadat V. American Motors Corporation: Limiting Consumer Remedies Under Magnuson-Moss And The New Car Buyer Protection Act, 19 J. Marshall L. Rev. 163 (1985), Mark D. Roth
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.