Law Commons^™

Nonmutual Collateral Estoppel In Federal Tax Litigation, Samuel E. Long, Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

First, the Note briefly traces the demise of the mutuality rule in nontax cases. Second, the Note discusses the cases examining the rule in tax disputes and argues that courts should not require mutuality as an absolute rule before collateral estoppel can apply.Finally, the Note proposes a framework within which courts should analyze nonmutual estoppel claims in federal tax cases...

This Note has argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Parklane Hosiery and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Starker v. United States have sounded the death knell for the mutuality rule in its final stronghold-federal tax litigation. Courts can apply …

Defining The Government's Duty Under The Federal Tort Claims Act, Thomas A. Varlan

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Recent Development traces the Supreme Court's development of the analogous private liability test and examines the recent cases applying this test. The Recent Development then analyzes the divergent approaches taken in these cases and attempts to determine when an actionable duty arises under the Act.

On Product "Design Defects" And Their Actionability, John W. Wade

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article has tried to explain and discuss these developments, to evaluate them, to show their relationship to the general state of the law, and to make suggestions on how far they should affect its future development. At present, the question of "design defects" and the determination of when a product is actionable because of the nature of its design appears to be the most agitated and controversial question before the courts in the field of products liability. I hope that this Article can be of some help to the courts in seeking to develop the most suitable answer to …

Reconsidering Plaintiff's Fault In Product Liability Litigation: The Proposed Conscious Design Choice Exception, Vincent S. Walkowiak

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Uniform Comparative Fault Act, drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, was approved by the Commissioners in 1977. Dean John W. Wade was Chairman of the special committee that drafted the Act. The Act is a comparative-fault, rather than a comparative-negligence, act; it applies to all nonintentional torts, including products liability actions, whether they are based on negligence, breach of warranty,or strict tort liability. The Act seeks to address the problem of the relationship between the doctrines of comparative negligence and strict liability for products by permitting plaintiff's fault to effect a proportional reduction in …

Unmasking The Test For Design Defect: From Negligence [To Warranty] To Strict Liability To Negligence, Sheila L. Birnbaum

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article will consider the problems engendered by imprecise judicial analysis of the notion of design defect. The central issues informing this investigation are as follows: (1) Can the notion of manufacturer fault or negligence be rationally eliminated in a design defect case? and (2) Should the term "unreasonably dangerous" be retained in the definition of defect in a design case, and if so, how should it be defined?