Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Litigation (7)
- Depositions (4)
- Etc.) (4)
- Litigation (Trial practice (4)
- Courts (2)
-
- Dispute resolution (2)
- Due Process of Law (2)
- Joinder and Severance (2)
- United States. Supreme Court (2)
- BMW of North America (1)
- Data (1)
- Discovery (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Federal policy (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Fingerprints (1)
- Foreign states (1)
- Forum non conveniens (1)
- Inc. v. Gore 517 U.S. 559 (1996) (1)
- International (1)
- International relations (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Legal education (1)
- Negotiation (1)
- Personal Jurisdiction (1)
- Prosecution Misconduct (1)
- Punitive damages (1)
- Settlement (1)
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (1)
- United States Constitution. 10th Amendment (1)
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
Due Process And Punitive Damages: The Error Of Federal Excessiveness Jurisprudence, A. Benjamin Spencer
Due Process And Punitive Damages: The Error Of Federal Excessiveness Jurisprudence, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
The Supreme Court, in a line of several cases over the past decade, has established a rigorous federal constitutional excessiveness review for punitive damages awards based on the Due Process Clause. As a matter of substantive due process, says the Court, punitive awards must be evaluated by three "guideposts" set forth in BMW of North America v. Gore: the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, the ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, and a comparison of the amount of punitive damages to any "civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct." Following up on this pronouncement …
Jurisdiction To Adjudicate: A Revised Analysis, A. Benjamin Spencer
Jurisdiction To Adjudicate: A Revised Analysis, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Personal jurisdiction doctrine as articulated by the Supreme Court is in disarray. As a constitutional doctrine whose contours remain imprecise, the law of personal jurisdiction has generated confusion, unpredictability, and extensive satellite litigation over what should be an uncomplicated preliminary issue. Many commentators have long lamented these defects, making suggestions for how the doctrine could be improved. Although many of these proposals have had much to offer, they generally have failed to articulate (or adequately justify or explain) a simple and sound approach to jurisdiction that the Supreme Court can embrace. This Article revises the law of personal jurisdiction by …
Joinder & Severance Of Offenses, Paul C. Giannelli
Joinder & Severance Of Offenses, Paul C. Giannelli
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Closing Argument: Prosecution Misconduct, Paul C. Giannelli
Closing Argument: Prosecution Misconduct, Paul C. Giannelli
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Joinder & Severance Of Defendants, Paul C. Giannelli
Joinder & Severance Of Defendants, Paul C. Giannelli
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Introduction To Vanishing Trial Symposium, John M. Lande
Introduction To Vanishing Trial Symposium, John M. Lande
Faculty Publications
This symposium shows that "vanishing trial" phenomena touch an extremely broad range of issues including transformations of society, courts, dispute resolution procedures, and even the nature of knowledge. These phenomena relate to decisions by litigants in particular cases, court systems, national policy, and international relations. This subject is too large and complex for any symposium to analyze fully, especially at this early stage of analysis. This symposium makes an important contribution to this study, with theories and evidence about the existence, nature, and extent of reductions in trials and similar proceedings. It elaborates a range of theories about possible causes …
Daubert Challenges To Fingerprints, Paul C. Giannelli
Daubert Challenges To Fingerprints, Paul C. Giannelli
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Appellate Review Of Discovery Orders In Federal Court: A Suggested Approach For Handling Privilege Claims, Cassandra Burke Robertson
Appellate Review Of Discovery Orders In Federal Court: A Suggested Approach For Handling Privilege Claims, Cassandra Burke Robertson
Faculty Publications
The federal circuit courts of appeals have generally recognized that a party suffers real hardship when the district court erroneously orders it to disclose privileged information. Review of the disclosure order after final judgment is usually an insufficient remedy; once the information has been disclosed, it can never again be fully confidential. Consequently, the courts have struggled to provide a mechanism by which such orders can be immediately appealed. However, privilege orders presenting novel questions of law or issues of first impression do not clearly fit within the doctrinal requirements of the most common methods of interlocutory review. Appellate courts …
How Much Justice Can We Afford?: Defining The Courts' Roles And Deciding The Appropriate Number Of Trials, Settlement Signals, And Other Elements Needed To Administer Justice, John M. Lande
Faculty Publications
This article discusses how the U.S. court system can function optimally given declining trial rates and the limited resources available. The question of how much justice we can afford is a challenge that becomes more difficult as budgets fall behind the increasing demand for and cost of court services. Presumably most analysts would agree that courts should try cases when appropriate - and help litigants find just resolutions without trial when it is not needed. The courts' ability to provide trials in some cases is possible only if the vast majority of other cases are not tried.This article provides background …
Enforcement Of Arbitral Awards Against Foreign States Or State Agencies, S. I. Strong
Enforcement Of Arbitral Awards Against Foreign States Or State Agencies, S. I. Strong
Faculty Publications
Britain's Lord Denning once said that “as a moth is drawn to the light, so is a litigant drawn to the United States.” Certainly, as a pro-arbitration state and a signatory to various international conventions concerning the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the United States seems a natural place to bring an action to enforce an arbitral award against a foreign state or state agency. However, suing a sovereign has not traditionally been a simple task in the United States or elsewhere. Most nations grant foreign states the presumption of immunity, thus denying that their domestic courts have jurisdiction to …