Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Ad hoc discretionary review (1)
- Appellate procedure (1)
- Calder v Jones (1)
- Child-welfare (1)
- Civil procedure (1)
-
- Class action (1)
- Collective redress (1)
- Commerce and communication (1)
- Communication (1)
- Comparative law (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Constitutional rights of the accused (1)
- Dispute resolution (1)
- Due process (1)
- Effects test doctrine (1)
- Ethical obligations of defense counsel (1)
- European Union (1)
- European law (1)
- Experts (1)
- Federal Evidence Rule 73 (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
- File maintenance (1)
- Forensic Science (1)
- Forensic science (1)
- Forum non conveniens (1)
- Forum selection (1)
- Free speech (1)
- Global class action (1)
- Inextricable merits (1)
- Interlocutory review (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
Rejecting Sovereign Immunity In Public Law Litigation, Howard M. Wasserman
Rejecting Sovereign Immunity In Public Law Litigation, Howard M. Wasserman
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Regulatory Litigation In The European Union: Does The U.S. Class Action Have A New Analogue?, S. I. Strong
Regulatory Litigation In The European Union: Does The U.S. Class Action Have A New Analogue?, S. I. Strong
Faculty Publications
This article is the first to consider the European resolution from a regulatory perspective, using a combination of new governance theory and equivalence functionalism to determine whether the European Union has adopted or is in the process of adopting a form of regulatory litigation. In so doing, the article considers a number of issues, including the basic definition of regulatory litigation, how class and collective relief can act as a regulatory mechanism and the special problems that arise when regulatory litigation is used in the transnational context. The article also includes a normative element, providing a number of suggestions on …
Five Mistakes For New Child-Welfare Lawyers To Avoid, Jennifer Baum
Five Mistakes For New Child-Welfare Lawyers To Avoid, Jennifer Baum
Faculty Publications
(Excerpt)
You’ve graduated, passed the bar, and started your first legal job working with children and families. Perhaps you work for an institutional provider of legal services for children or as a prosecutor of dependency cases, or perhaps you are defending such cases. Perhaps, still, you are in private practice, and this is your first pro bono experience working on a family or juvenile court matter. Whatever your role, your job is the same: to represent your client and seek as favorable an outcome as possible.
But you are new—you don’t know the ropes or who the players are, you …
Does The Lawyer Make A Difference? Public Defender V. Appointed Counsel, Peter A. Joy, Kevin C. Mcmunigal
Does The Lawyer Make A Difference? Public Defender V. Appointed Counsel, Peter A. Joy, Kevin C. Mcmunigal
Faculty Publications
A recent study found that poor criminal defendants in Philadelphia who were represented by court-appointed private lawyers were more often found guilty and sentenced to more time in prison than similarly situated defendants represented by public defenders. In this column, we review the details of the study, its findings, and its ethical and constitutional implications.
The Inextricable Merits Problem In Personal Jurisdiction, Cassandra Burke Robertson
The Inextricable Merits Problem In Personal Jurisdiction, Cassandra Burke Robertson
Faculty Publications
In 1984, Hollywood star Shirley Jones convinced the Supreme Court to adopt an effects-based test for personal jurisdiction when she brought suit in California against a Florida defendant for defaming her reputation. After adopting the test in Calder v. Jones, the Court never returned to the issue, and in fact avoided personal jurisdiction questions entirely for more than two decades. This past spring, however, the Supreme Court not only revisited the personal jurisdiction doctrine but also signaled an intention to return to personal jurisdiction issues in the near future, with two justices calling specifically for development of the doctrine in …
The 2009 Nas Forensic Science Report: A Literature Review, Paul C. Giannelli
The 2009 Nas Forensic Science Report: A Literature Review, Paul C. Giannelli
Faculty Publications
In February 29, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released its report on forensic science: Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (29). The popular press immediately trumpeted the report’s release, with headlines such as (1) “Report Urges Overhaul of Crime Lab System,” (2) “Real-life Police Forensics Don’t Resemble ‘CSI’: Reliability is ‘Low or Non-existent,’ Report Finds” and (3) “Science Found Wanting in Nation’s Crime Labs.”
Within three months of its publication, Justice Scalia cited the report in a Supreme Court decision, writing: “Forensic evidence is not uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation. . . Serious …
Forum Non Conveniens On Appeal: The Case For Interlocutory Review, Cassandra Burke Robertson
Forum Non Conveniens On Appeal: The Case For Interlocutory Review, Cassandra Burke Robertson
Faculty Publications
Court-access doctrine in transnational litigation is plagued by uncertainty. Without a national court-access policy, federal courts often reach inconsistent forum non conveniens decisions even on very similar facts. This inconsistency is compounded by the district court’s largely unreviewable discretion in making those forum-access decisions, which precludes effective resolution of these conflicts through the appellate process. As a result, the law underlying the forum non conveniens doctrine remains unsettled, creating systemic inefficiency both in litigation procedure and in regulatory policy.
This article, prepared for the symposium “Our Courts and the World: Transnational Litigation and Civil Procedure,” argues that expanding appellate review …
Confrontation, Experts, And Rule 703, Paul C. Giannelli
Confrontation, Experts, And Rule 703, Paul C. Giannelli
Faculty Publications
The United States Supreme Court has decided several cases concerning expert testimony and the Confrontation Clause. This essay argues that confrontation issues are complicated by Federal Evidence Rules 73 and 75, which changed the common law rules. Altering the common law made sense in civil cases because civil rules of procedure provide extensive discovery, which ensures basic fairness. In contrast, discovery in criminal cases is quite limited, which undercuts an accused’s ability to meaningfully confront prosecution experts at trial.