Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Climate Change And The Public Law Model Of Torts: Reinvigorating Judicial Restraint Doctrines, Donald G. Gifford
Climate Change And The Public Law Model Of Torts: Reinvigorating Judicial Restraint Doctrines, Donald G. Gifford
Donald G Gifford
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 …
Back To The Future: Discovery Cost Allocation And Modern Procedural Theory, Martin H. Redish, Colleen Mcnamara
Back To The Future: Discovery Cost Allocation And Modern Procedural Theory, Martin H. Redish, Colleen Mcnamara
Martin H Redish
It has long been established that as a general rule, discovery costs are to remain with the party from whom discovery has been sought. While courts have authority to "shift" costs in an individual instance, the presumption against such an alteration in traditional practice is quite strong. Yet at no point did the drafters of the original Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ever make an explicit decision to allocate discovery costs in this manner. Nor, apparently, did they (or anyone since) ever explain why such an allocation choice is to be made in the first place. As a result, our …
Pearson, Iqbal, And Procedural Judicial Activism, Goutam U. Jois
Pearson, Iqbal, And Procedural Judicial Activism, Goutam U. Jois
Goutam U Jois
In its most recent term, the Supreme Court decided Pearson v. Callahan and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, two cases that, even at this early date, can safely be called “game-changers.” What is fairly well known is that Iqbal and Pearson, on their own terms, will hurt civil rights plaintiffs. A point that has not been explored is how the interaction between Iqbal and Pearson will also hurt civil rights plaintiffs. First, the cases threaten to catch plaintiffs on the horns of a dilemma: Iqbal says, in effect, that greater detail is required to get allegations past the motion to dismiss stage. …