Law Commons^™

Collateral Estoppel And Supreme Court Disposition Of Moot Cases, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

In response to the Government's novel proposal in Velsicol, this Note reconsiders the procedures by which the Supreme Court could dispose of moot cases. Section I examines the collateral estoppel effects of the Supreme Court's present procedure and the Government's proposal in Velsicol. Section II concludes that both procedures afford excessive protection from collateral estoppel because they misconceive the purpose of Supreme Court review. The Note suggests that, when faced with a moot federal petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court should either deny the petition or, if certiorari has already been granted, dismiss the case.

Personal Jurisdiction And Choice Of Law, James Martin

Michigan Law Review

The time has come for the Supreme Court to declare that a state may not apply its own law to a case unless it has the "minimum contacts" required by International Shoe for the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Although the present state of the law is less than certain, the Supreme Court has not yet required that a state show it has minimum contacts with a defendant before applying its law. As a result, in some cases where a state has obtained personal jurisdiction because of a defendant's contacts unrelated to the case - contacts such …

The Lawsuit Lottery: Only The Lawyers Win, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

A Book Notice about The Lawsuit Lottery: Only the Lawyers Win by Jeffrey O'Connell

The Use Of Collateral Estoppel By A Private Party In Suits Against Public Agency Defendants, John Kelly, David Rothenberg

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Collateral estoppel has been defined as "the facet of the doctrine of judicial finality that deals with a judgment's conclusive effect in a suit on another cause of action." It precludes relitigation of a previously decided issue when that same issue arises in the context of a subsequent suit based on a different claim.

Traditionally, a party seeking to assert collateral estoppel must establish three elements: (1) identity with an issue actually and necessarily litigated in the prior case, (2) mutuality of parties, that is, the same parties or their privies in the second case as in the first, and …

A Peek In Pandora's Box: Folding Carton And The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination In Civil Antitrust Actions, David D. Gregg

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The purpose of this article is to examine the dimensions of an individual's Fifth Amendment privilege in a civil antitrust action where the person has not yet been guaranteed that criminal prosecution is no longer possible. Two issues are apparent: first, under what conditions may a civil antitrust defendant properly invoke the privilege; second, if a civil antitrust plaintiff seeks to discover information privileged under the Fifth Amendment, what is the proper response to the problem? Folding Carton provides an excellent example of the process of antitrust litigation and demonstrates the tensions involved. Using that case as an example, the …

Foreign Nation Suits For Treble Damages Under The Clayton Act After Pfizer V. Government Of India, Marianne P. Gaertner

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

After summarizing the rationale behind Pfizer, this article will trace the ramifications of the decision on American foreign, economic, and antitrust policies. Second, a suggestion for a foreign sovereign antitrust bill will then be offered. Finally, an examination of present congressional proposals will show that these proposals fail to address fully the political and economic consequences of Pfizer.