Law Commons^™

Restriction Of Tort Remedies And The Constraints Of Due Process: The Right To An Adequate Remedy, Tracy A. Thomas

Akron Law Faculty Publications

In the recent proliferation of tort reform statutes, the dangerous clause of remedial jurisdiction stripping has sneaked into the law. Reminiscent of federal statutes in other areas of the law, these jurisdictional provisions strip courts of all power to award punitive or non-pecuniary damages in excess of legislative limits. Many states have acted to restrict frivolous claims and excessive recoveries by cabining “McTorts” and “runaway juries.” Regardless of the merits of these policy questions, the use of the simple expedient of remedial jurisdiction to accomplish these purposes raises significant concerns. By arbitrarily restricting an individual’s right to a meaningful remedy, …

Soboba Band Of Luiseño Indians Settlement Agreement, Soboba Band Of Luiseño Indians Et Al

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Settlement Agreement: Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians Settlement Agreement of June 7, 2006, (final signatures Oct. 18, 2008) Parties: Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, US, Eastern Municipal Water District, Lake Hemet Municipal Water District and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The Tribe is entitled to 9K acre-feet annually (afy) as a prior and paramount right. The districts agree to supply the Tribe water to the extent that it is not able to produce that amount. However, the Tribe agrees to limit its exercise of the right to 4,100 afy for 50 years. The Tribe may use water made available …

Five Myths About Antitrust Damages, Robert H. Lande

All Faculty Scholarship

This article examines five common beliefs about antitrust damages and shows they all are untrue.

Myth #1. Antitrust violations give rise to treble damages.

Myth #2. There is "duplication" of antitrust damages because many defendants pay six-fold or more damages.

Myth #3. Courts should go easy on defendants when formulating liability rules or calculating overcharges because the awarded damages from a finding of an antitrust violation are so severe.

Myth #4. The size of the harms caused by antitrust violations, even by such "hardcore" violations as naked cartels, is relatively modest, and criminal penalties resulting from violations are out of …

Let The Damages Fit The Wrong: An Immodest Proposal For Reforming Personal Injury Damages, Elaine W. Shoben

Scholarly Works

The modern legislative approach to tort reform has been a piecemeal process of altering single rules rather than reconsidering the fundamental principle of compensatory damages--the goal of making victims whole. When some aspect of damage doctrine has become disfavored, such as joint and several liability, legislatures and sometimes courts have made a change in that one rule. Lawmakers have focused little on the overall remedial scheme in tort and even less on the basic premise of compensatory damages and whether it is still justifiable.

Rather than comment on the wisdom of piecemeal reform, this article questions the premise of compensatory …

Contracting Out Of Article 2: Minimizing The Obligation Of Performance & Liability For Breach, Sarah Howard Jenkins

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Second Best Damage Action Deterrence, Margo Schlanger

Articles

Potential defendants faced with the prospect of tort or tort-like damage actions can reduce their liability exposure in a number of ways. Prior scholarship has dwelled primarily on the possibility that they may respond to the threat of liability by augmenting the amount of care they take.1 Defendants (I limit myself to defendants for simplicity) will increase their expenditures on care, so the theory goes, when those expenditures yield sufficient liability-reducing dividends; more care decreases liability exposure by simultaneously making it less likely that the actors will be found to have behaved tortiously in the event of an accident and …