Law Commons^™

How Bad Law Made A Hard Case Easy: Nevada V. Hicks And The Subject Matter Jurisdiction Of Tribal Courts, Catherine T. Struve

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Catalyst Calamity: Post-Buckhannon Fee-Shifting In Environmental Litigation And A Proposal For Congressional Action, Lucia A. Silecchia

Scholarly Articles

Acknowledging the importance of citizen suits in giving teeth to environmental laws, and recognizing the often prohibitive costs of such litigation, Congress often included fee-shifting provisions in most environmental citizen suit statutes. It is well established that plaintiffs who win a judicial ruling in their favor qualify for the benefits of such fee-shifting. What is less clear is whether those parties whose successes come outside the courtroom - as is often true in the environmental context - can also recover fees. In the past, the so-called “catalyst theory” answered this question affirmatively. However, in 2001, the catalyst theory was dealt …

Expert Information And Expert Evidence: A Preliminary Taxonomy, Samuel R. Gross, Jennifer L. Mnookin

Articles

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 speaks in very general terms. It governs every situation in which "scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact," and provides that, in that situation, "a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise . . . .' In 2000, following a trio of Supreme Court cases interpreting Rule 702, the Rule was amended to include a third requirement, in addition to the helpfulness of the testimony and the qualifications of the witness: reliability. Under Rule 702 …

Musical Courts: Plaintiff Picks A Court But Can Defendant Trump The Choice? An Analysis Of Breuer V. Jim's Concrete Of Brevard, Inc., Barbara J. Fick

Journal Articles

This article previews the Supreme Court case Brewer v. Jim's Concrete of Brevard, 538 U.S. 691 (2003). The author expected the Court to address the issue of whether the language of the Fair Labor Standards Act providing that "an action . . . may be maintained in any federal or state court" constitutes an express provision prohibiting removal to federal court when the plaintiff has chosen to maintain its lawsuit in state court.

Symposium Introduction: Perspectives On Dispute Resolution In The Twenty-First Century, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Is Citizen Suit Notice Jurisdictional And Why Does It Matter?, Karl S. Coplan

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The question of whether notice is jurisdictional or not has important ramifications for citizen suit litigation. The characterization of the notice requirement as “jurisdictional” implicates the proper procedure for raising notice objections, the means of curing notice defects, the question of waiver of notice objections, and the timing of raising notice objections. This article will conduct a brief review of the case law concerning the jurisdictional nature (or not) of the notice requirement, a consideration of the as-yet unnoticed impact of Steel Co. on the issue, and a discussion of the procedural and litigation ramifications of characterizing the notice element …

Secret Settlements And Practice Restrictions Aid Lawyer Cartels And Cause Other Harms, Susan P. Koniak, David Dana

Faculty Scholarship

In this article, the authors argue that the use of secrecy agreements and practice restrictions in settlement contracts should be prohibited not only by the ethics rules, but also by criminal and civil law. The authors begin by discrediting four arguments that are traditionally employed to support the use of secrecy agreements and practice restrictions. They then argue that the use of secrecy agreements and practice restrictions generate substantial costs, but do not secure any legitimate benefits that could not be attained by other, less costly means. The authors also explain how the problems caused by secrecy agreements and practice …

The Civil Rights Era: A Look Back By Those Who Lived And Litigated Through It, Stephen Wermiel

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

No abstract provided.

Litigation Narratives: Why Jensen V. Ellerth Didn't Change Sexual Harassment Law, But Still Has A Story Worth Telling, Melissa Hart

Publications

No abstract provided.

An Overview Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act And Its Implications For Attorneys, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

On July 30, 2002, President Bush signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, H.R. 3763, well-publicized in the press as a legislative response to the perceived excesses of corporate America: Enron; WorldCom; Tyco; Global Crossing, etc.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 contains an array of provisions affecting lawyers as professionals serving businesses and contains one provision that will clearly impact corporate counsel in the ethical discharge of their duties. Section 307 of the Act and the recently released Proposed Roles of the Securities Exchange Commission regarding lawyer duties and implementation of Section 307 require counsel to go "up the ladder," to …

Defeating Class Certification In Securities Fraud Actions, Kermit Roosevelt Iii

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Is There A Role For Lawyers In Preventing Future Enrons?, Jill E. Fisch, Kenneth M. Rosen

All Faculty Scholarship

Following the collapse of the Enron Corporation, the ethical obligations of corporate attorneys have received increased scrutiny. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, enacted in response to calls for corporate reform, specifically requires the Securities and Exchange Commission to address the lawyer’s role by requiring covered attorneys to “report up” evidence of corporate wrongdoing to key corporate officers, and, in some circumstances, to the board of directors. Failure to “report up” subjects a lawyer to liability under federal law.

This Article argues that the reporting up requirement reflects a second-best approach to corporate governance reform. Rather than focusing on the actors …

A Taxing Settlement, Hanoch Dagan, James J. White

Articles

The following essay is based on the talk "Government, Citizens, and Injurious Industries: A Case Study of the Tobacco Litigation," delivered by Hanoch Dagan last May to the Detroit Chapter of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, and on the article "Governments, Citizens, and Injurious Industries," by Dagan and James J. White, '62, which appeared in 75.2 New York University Law Review 254-428 (May 2000). The authors hold conflicting view on the underlying issue of this topic: tobacco company product liability. Professor Dagan holds the position that tobacco companies are liable for harm done by their products; Professor …

Mixed Up About Mixed Motive: What Will Trigger A "Mixed Motive" Analysis In Title Vii Cases? An Analysis Of Desert Palace, Inc. V. Costa, Barbara J. Fick

Journal Articles

This article previews the Supreme Court case Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 2003. The author expected the Court to clarify and define the circumstances in which it is appropriate to use the "mixed-motive model" to prove a violation of Title VII under the disparate treatment theory.

New Opportunities For Obtaining And Using Litigation Reserves And Disclosures, Matthew J. Barrett

Journal Articles

Following the publication of Opportunities for Obtaining and Using Litigation Reserves and Disclosures, which highlighted the helpful information about litigation reserves that a litigator can often detect or discover from an opponent's financial statements, accounting books and records, tax returns, public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC), and auditor, two important regulatory developments occurred in early 2003 that create additional opportunities to obtain information about an opponent's assessments of (i) expected liability in the underlying case or (ii) obligations or settlements in similar cases. First, pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the SEC issued final regulations …

Nullificatory Juries, Kaimipono David Wenger, David A. Hoffman

All Faculty Scholarship

In this Article, we argue that current debates on the legitimacy of punitive damages would benefit from a comparison with jury nullification in criminal trials. We discuss critiques of punitive damages and of jury nullification, noting the surprising similarities in the arguments scholars use to attack these (superficially) distinct outcomes of the jury guarantee. Not only are the criticisms alike, the institutions of punitive damages and jury nullification also turn out to have many similarities: both are, we suggest, examples of what we call "nullificatory juries." We discuss the features of such juries, and consider recent behavioral data relating to …

Assessing Sovereign Interests In Cross-Border Discovery Disputes: Lessons From Aerospatiale, Hannah Buxbaum

Articles by Maurer Faculty

The Hague Evidence Convention addresses a particular kind of jurisdictional conflict: the conflict between one nation's issuance of extraterritorial discovery orders and another nation's right to govern discovery activity taking place within its territory. The particular mechanisms that the Convention establishes for use in cross-border discovery proceedings, and the compromises between civil-law and common-law procedures for evidence gathering that it embodies, were effected with that system goal in mind. In Aerospatiale, the Supreme Court considered the scope of the Convention's application, addressing the interaction of Convention procedures and pre-existing federal rules on evidence gathering. As portions of the decision make …

Anticompetitive Settlement Of Intellectual Property Disputes, Mark D. Janis, Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Mark A. Lemley

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

David Feller, Senior Partner, Michael H. Gottesman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

While in law school, in the late 1950's, I decided that I wanted a career in labor law, representing unions. I asked my labor law professor what firms I should consider. He told me there was one firm nationwide that stood out from all the rest: Goldberg, Feller and Bredhoff. He warned, though, that the firm was very small, and the chances of getting a job there remote. I did some research and discovered that the firm had only four lawyers: three partners (Arthur Goldberg, Dave Feller, and Elliot Bredhoft), and one associate (Jerry Anker). The firm was General Counsel …

Rex E. Lee Conference On The Office Of The Solicitor General Of The United States: Panel For Former Solicitors General, Seth P. Waxman, Walter E. Dellinger Iii, Kenneth W. Starr, Charles Fried, Drew S. Days Iii

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

I agree entirely that the chain of command is clear and that the Framers managed to make it all the way through all the articles of the Constitution without even conceiving of a solicitor general, let alone bothering to mention an attorney general. It is important nonetheless to distinguish between those things the solicitor general does pursuant to the longstanding notice-and-comment regulation, and the other things a solicitor general may do pursuant to his (and, someday, her!) statutory obligation to be of general assistance to the attorney general.

Civil Rights Litigation: The Current Paradox, David Rudovsky

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Anticompetitive Settlement Of Intellectual Property Disputes, Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Mark D. Janis, Mark A. Lemley

All Faculty Scholarship

The overwhelming majority of intellectual property lawsuits settle before trial. These settlements involve agreements between the patentee and the accused infringer, parties who are often competitors before the lawsuit. Because these competitors may agree to stop competing, to regulate the price each charges, and to exchange information about products and prices, settlements of intellectual property disputes naturally raise antitrust concerns. In this paper, we suggest a way to reconcile the interests of intellectual property law and antitrust law in evaluating intellectual property settlements. In Part I, we provide background on the issue. Part II argues that in most cases courts …

Some Steps Between Attitudes And Verdicts, Phoebe C. Ellsworth

Book Chapters

Most research that has attempted to predict verdict preferences on the basis of stable juror characteristics, such as attitudes and personality traits, has found that individual differences among jurors are not very useful predictors, accounting for only a small proportion of the variance in verdict choices. Some commentators have therefore concluded that verdicts are overwhelmingly accounted for by "the weight of the evidence," and that differences among jurors have negligible effects. But there is a paradox here: In most cases the weight of the evidence is insufficient to produce firstballot unanimity in the jury (Hans & Vidmar, 1986; Hastie, Penrod, …

Turf Struggles: Land, Sovereignty, And Sovereign Immunity, Catherine T. Struve

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Exhaustion Under The Prison Litigation Reform Act: The Consequence Of Procedural Error, Kermit Roosevelt Iii

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Joseph Hodges Choate (1832-1917), Janet Butler Munch

Publications and Research

Joseph Hodges Choate (1832-1917) was a trial lawyer and diplomat.

Clear Sailing Agreements: A Special Form Of Collusion In Class Action Settlements, William D. Henderson

Articles by Maurer Faculty

A clear sailing agreement (or clause) is a compromise in which a class action defendant agrees not to contest the class lawyer's petition for attorneys' fees. This Article argues that clear sailing provisions often facilitate collusive settlements in cases involving non-pecuniary relief or claims-made common funds that return all unclaimed monies to the defendant. Because these types of settlements present difficult valuation problems, trial courts lack a clear benchmark for calculating attorneys' fees. Defendants and class can exploit this uncertainty by presenting an inflated settlement value to the court (to justify higher attorneys' fees) while simultaneously reducing the true cost …

The Reliability Of The Administrative Office Of The U.S. Courts Database: An Initial Empirical Analysis, Theodore Eisenberg, Margo Schlanger

Articles

Researchers have long used federal court data assembled by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) and the Federal Judicial Center (FJC). The data include information about every case filed in federal district court and every appeal filed in the twelve nonspecialized federal appellate courts. Much research using the AO data spans subject matter areas, and includes articles on appeals, caseloads and case-processing times, case outcomes, the relation between demographics and case outcomes, class actions, diversity jurisdiction, and litigation generally. Other research using the AO data covers particular subject matter areas, such as inmate cases, contract cases, corporate litigation, …

Rex E. Lee Conference On The Office Of The Solicitor General Of The United States: Clinton Ii Panel, Seth P. Waxman, Walter E. Dellinger Iii, Barbara D. Underwood, Michael R. Dreeben

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

I will say a few words about Dickerson, both because Michael has made it impossible not to and also because in some ways it represents the very best about how all of the wonderful, tried-and-true processes of the SG's Office ought to work. Dickerson was very much like the other case that Michael talked about (which is one of, I think, two significant privilege controversies which the Independent Counsel laid on our doorstep). These cases may have appeared to the outside world as paradigmatically cases in which we would be hearing from the White House, or talking to the White …

Taking Out The Adversary: The Assault On Progressive Public Interest Lawyers, David Luban

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This Essay concerns laws and doctrines, some very recent, that undermine the capacity of progressive public-interest lawyers to bring cases. It asks a simple-sounding question: how just is the adversary system if one side is not adequately represented in it? And it defends a simple-sounding answer: It is not just at all. As we shall see, however, neither the question nor the answer is quite as simple as it sounds.