Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Should State Corporate Law Define Successor Liability - The Demise Of Cercla's Federal Common Law, Bradford Mank
Should State Corporate Law Define Successor Liability - The Demise Of Cercla's Federal Common Law, Bradford Mank
Faculty Articles and Other Publications
During the 1980s and early 1990s, a series of decisions broadly interpreting the liability provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCIA) appeared destined to transform corporate law practice. CERCIA does not directly address successor liability, but the statute's complex and contradictory legislative history arguably implies that Congress wanted federal courts to apply broad liability principles to achieve the statute's fundamental remedial goal of making polluters and their successors pay for cleaning up hazardous substances.
Notably, a number of courts rejected state corporate law principles that usually limit the liability of successor corporations and instead …
Due Process And Fundamental Rights, Martin A. Schwartz
Due Process And Fundamental Rights, Martin A. Schwartz
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz
Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
Towards A More Perfect Union: Some Thoughts On Amending The Constitution, Thomas E. Baker
Towards A More Perfect Union: Some Thoughts On Amending The Constitution, Thomas E. Baker
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
When The Wall Has Fallen: Decades Of Failure In The Supervision Of Capital Juries, José F. Anderson
When The Wall Has Fallen: Decades Of Failure In The Supervision Of Capital Juries, José F. Anderson
All Faculty Scholarship
Since the return of capital punishment after Furman v. Georgia nearly three decades ago, the Supreme Court of the United States has struggled to control the administration of capital punishment when those decisions are made or recommended by a citizen jury. Although there is no constitutional requirement that a jury participate in the death penalty process, most states do provide, through their capital punishment statutes, that a jury will participate in the decision. The preference for jury sentencing in these circumstances reflects a reluctance to leave power over life solely in the hands of one judge. Still, some scholars have …
The Section 5 Mystique, Morrison, And The Future Of Federal Antidiscrimination Law, Margaret H. Lemos, Samuel Estreicher
The Section 5 Mystique, Morrison, And The Future Of Federal Antidiscrimination Law, Margaret H. Lemos, Samuel Estreicher
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Sovereign Immunity, Due Process, And The Alden Trilogy, Carlos Manuel Vázquez
Sovereign Immunity, Due Process, And The Alden Trilogy, Carlos Manuel Vázquez
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In Alden v. Maine, the Court held that the principle of sovereign immunity protects states from being sued without their consent in their own courts by private parties seeking damages for the states' violation of federal law. The Court thus rejected the "forum allocation" interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment, under which the Amendment serves merely to channel suits against the states based on federal law into the state courts, which are required by the Supremacy Clause to entertain such suits. The Court held instead that the Eleventh Amendment protects the states from being subjected to private damage liability by …
Damage Control? A Comment On Professor Neuman’S Reading Of Reno V. Aadc, David Cole
Damage Control? A Comment On Professor Neuman’S Reading Of Reno V. Aadc, David Cole
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
This comment responds to an article by Professor Gerald Neuman on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC). The Court in AADC rejected a selective prosecution claim by immigrants targeted for deportation based on First Amendment-protected activities, finding that Congress had stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction over such claims, and that in any event the Constitution does not recognize a selective prosecution objection to a deportation proceeding. Professor Neuman argues that the decision should not be read as implying that aliens have less First Amendment protection than citizens, and that the decision can …
Does The Solicitor General Advantage Thwart The Rule Of Law In The Administrative State?, Jim Rossi
Does The Solicitor General Advantage Thwart The Rule Of Law In The Administrative State?, Jim Rossi
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
Linda Cohen and Matthew Spitzer's study, "The Government Litigant Advantage," sheds important light on how the Solicitor General's litigation behavior may impact the Supreme Court's decision making agenda and outcomes for regulatory and administrative law cases. By emphasizing how the Solicitor General affects cases that the Supreme Court decides, Cohen and Spitzer's findings confirm that administrative law's emphasis on lower appellate court decisions is not misplaced. Some say that D.C. Circuit cases carry equal-if not more-precedential weight than Supreme Court decisions in resolving administrative law issues. Cohen and Spitzer use positive political theory to provide a novel explanation for some …