Law Commons^™

Mass Tort Litigation And Inquisitorial Justice, Howard M. Erichson

Faculty Scholarship

In the past decade, settlement class actions have become increasingly popular in mass tort litigation, having been used successfully in cases such as the Dalkon Shield litigation, the Bjork-Shiley heart valve litigation, and the orthopedic bone screw litigation. Although the Supreme Court's opinion in Amchem has engendered some confusion over the continued viability of mass tort settlement class actions, it appears that such settlements remain a dominant approach to resolving mass tort lawsuits. With increasing frequency, plaintiffs and defendants come to court holding hands, and courts must launch their own vigorous inquiries into the merits of the parties' proffered settlement. …

Toward The Proper Role For Mass Tort Class Actions, Mary J. Davis

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article seeks to advance the use of mass tort class actions and proposes that they are not only appropriate, but desirable, when evaluated against the backdrop of substantive tort law policies. Moreover, the substantive goals of tort law as applied in the mass tort context support the conclusion that the individualized case-by-case adjudication standard, as applied through our adversary system as it is presently constituted, fails to further the search for fairness as well as truth in the mass tort context, and therefore, does not achieve the fairness or justice that we seek through our judicial process.

The guiding …

Conflicts Consent And Allocation After Amchem Products – Or Why Attorneys Still Need Consent To Give Away Their Clients' Money, John C. Coffee Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

If it was the goal of Silver and Baker to write a provocative article, they have succeeded. They ask probing questions; they are appropriately scornful of superficial answers; and they seek to relate their view of legal ethics to what they perceive to be the prevailing standards in the legal marketplace. All this is good. They also usefully focus on an underappreciated dichotomy: the ethical rules governing aggregated settlements in consensual litigation versus the rules applicable in aggregated nonconsensual litigation (i.e., class actions). Essentially, they argue that the rules in both contexts should be the same or very similar, the …