Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Juries (2)
- Trials (2)
- Amchem Products Inc. v Windsor (1)
- Behavior (1)
- Bias (1)
-
- Bryan (William Jennings) (1)
- Business litigants (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Corporate jury trials (1)
- Corporate litigation (1)
- Damages (1)
- Damaska (Mirjan) (1)
- Darrow (Clarence) (1)
- Eighth Amendment (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Expert evidence (1)
- Fact-finding (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Fundamentalism (1)
- History (1)
- Judicial interpretation (1)
- Judicial oversight (1)
- Medical malpractice (1)
- Opioid crisis (1)
- Policymaking (1)
- Prison reform (1)
- Prisoners (1)
- Prisons (1)
- Punishment (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Mismatched Goals Of Bankruptcy And Mass Tort Litigation, Maureen Carroll
The Mismatched Goals Of Bankruptcy And Mass Tort Litigation, Maureen Carroll
Reviews
By the end of this Term, SCOTUS must decide what to do about the mammoth Purdue Pharma bankruptcy settlement. If allowed to go forward, the $10 billion deal will not only resolve claims against the company, it will shield the Sackler family—the company’s former owners—from any further liability for their role in the opioid crisis. The deal has generated a great deal of discussion, much of it focused on the legality and wisdom of that third-party release. The authors of Against Bankruptcy take a broader view, asking a set of critical questions about the proper role of bankruptcy in the …
"Business On Trial: The True Story." Review Of Business On Trial: The Civil Jury And Corporate Responsibility, Richard O. Lempert
"Business On Trial: The True Story." Review Of Business On Trial: The Civil Jury And Corporate Responsibility, Richard O. Lempert
Reviews
Jury trials are very much an affair of stories. Lawyers tell stories to juries. Evidence is more convincing when presented in story order. Jurors use stories to make sense of evidence. And litigants, particularly losing litigants, tell stories about juries. One of the favorite stories of losing business litigants, second only to the irrational jury story, is the Robin Hood story. Juries love to play Robin Hood, to steal from the rich (businesses and insurance companies) and to give to the poor (individual litigants, especially individual tort litigants). The storytellers see no mystery here. Jurors are "little guys," like the …
Beyond The Hero Judge: Institutional Reform Litigation As Litigation, Margo Schlanger
Beyond The Hero Judge: Institutional Reform Litigation As Litigation, Margo Schlanger
Reviews
In 1955, in its second decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court suggested that federal courts might be called upon to engage in long-term oversight of once-segregated schools. Through the 1960s, southern resistance pushed federal district and appellate judges to turn that possibility into a reality. The impact of this saga on litigation practice extended beyond school desegregation, and even beyond the struggle for African-American equality; through implementation of Brown, the nation’s litigants, lawyers, and judges grew accustomed both to issuance of permanent injunctions against state and local public institutions, and to extended court oversight of compliance. …
Liberalism Stumbles In Tennessee, Donald J. Herzog
Liberalism Stumbles In Tennessee, Donald J. Herzog
Reviews
The Scopes trial will never be the same. I mean the trial immortalized in Inherit the Wind,' with its Southerners clutching in vain to their cozy scientific illiteracy and mechanically literal faith in the Bible, its idiotic intolerant Southerners destined to fall to the gale winds of modernity, liberalism, secularism, and skepticism embodied by a heroic ACLU and the inimitable Clarence Darrow. So what if Scopes got convicted? Surely the trial made a laughingstock of everything Tennessee stood for in banning the teaching of evolution from the public schools. And in a touch worthy of a gruesome morality play, William …
Law In The Backwaters: A Comment Of Mirjan Damaška's Evidence Law Adrift, Samuel R. Gross
Law In The Backwaters: A Comment Of Mirjan Damaška's Evidence Law Adrift, Samuel R. Gross
Reviews
The most problematic part of Professor Mirjan Damaška's fine book is the title.' Professor Damaška does an excellent job of situating American evidence law in the procedural context in which American trials occur. He identifies three major procedural elements. First, juries are traditionally cited as the primary or sole explanation for our extensive set of exclusionary rules, which are said to express mistrust of lay adjudicators. Professor Damaška points out as well that lay juries permit a divided court, with a professional judge who has exclusive control over "questions of law," and that this division is necessary for the operation …
"Countering Stereotypes." Review Of Medical Malpractice And The American Jury: Confronting The Myths About Jury Incompetence, Deep Pockets, And Outrageous Damage Awards, By N. Vidmar, Samuel R. Gross
Reviews
The story of The Medical Malpractice Trial has a place in popular American legal culture, somewhere on the shelf with Killers Who Got Off on Technicalities. The plot is simple and tragic. The protagonist is the Doctor, a good man with a flaw: He tries too hard. In the process, he makes an innocent mistake or believes he can prevent the unpreventable. In any event, he fails and the Patient dies or is permanently injured. For this unintentional error the Doctor is crucified, by the vengeful anger of the Patient or her survivors, the avarice of the plaintiffs' lawyer, the …