Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
The (Misunderstood) Genius Of American Corporate Law, Robert B. Ahdieh
The (Misunderstood) Genius Of American Corporate Law, Robert B. Ahdieh
Faculty Scholarship
In this Reply, I respond to comments by Bill Bratton, Larry Cunningham, and Todd Henderson on my recent paper - Trapped in a Metaphor: The Limited Implications of Federalism for Corporate Governance. I begin by reiterating my basic thesis - that state competition should be understood to have little consequence for corporate governance, if (as charter competition's advocates assume) capital-market-driven managerial competition is also at work. I then consider some of the thoughtful critiques of this claim, before suggesting ways in which the comments highlight just the kind of comparative institutional analysis my paper counsels. Rather than a stark choice …
Trapped In A Metaphor: The Limited Implications Of Federalism For Corporate Governance, Robert B. Ahdieh
Trapped In A Metaphor: The Limited Implications Of Federalism For Corporate Governance, Robert B. Ahdieh
Faculty Scholarship
Trapped in a metaphor articulated at the founding of modern corporate law, the study of corporate governance has - for some thirty years - been asking the wrong questions. Rather than a singular race among states, whether to the bottom or the top, the synthesis of William Cary and Ralph Winter’s famous exchange is better understood as two competitions, each serving distinct normative ends. Managerial competition advances the project that has motivated corporate law since Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means - effective regulation of the separation of ownership and control. State competition, by contrast, does not promote a race to …
From Conflict To Cooperation: State And Tribal Court Relations In The Era Of Self-Determination, Aliza Organick, Tonya Kowalski
From Conflict To Cooperation: State And Tribal Court Relations In The Era Of Self-Determination, Aliza Organick, Tonya Kowalski
Faculty Scholarship
State and Tribal sovereigns have historically had a tense relationship, beginning in colonial times, when states vied with the federal government for trading rights and for control of Indian lands. Today, that tension still expresses itself in matters such as gaming compacts, criminal and civil jurisdiction, and taxation, to name just a few. While different sovereigns within a federal system may always vie for resources and power to some extent, it is time for states and Tribes to focus on what a more mutually supportive relationship with Tribal communities has to offer. This Essay explores the history of the two …
Federalization Snowballs: The Need For National Action In Medical Malpractice Reform, Abigail Moncrieff
Federalization Snowballs: The Need For National Action In Medical Malpractice Reform, Abigail Moncrieff
Faculty Scholarship
Because tort law generally and healthcare regulation specifically are traditional state functions and because medical, legal, and insurance practices are highly localized, legal scholars have long believed that medical malpractice falls within the states' exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty. Indeed, this view is so widely held that modern legal scholarship takes it for granted. Articles on general federalism issues use medical malpractice as an easy example of a policy in which federal intervention lacks functional justification, and articles that focus on federalization of other tort reforms use medical malpractice as an easy foil, pointing out that the uniformity interest that justifies …
Geier V. American Honda Motor Co.: A Story Of Statutes, Regulation And The Common Law, Peter L. Strauss
Geier V. American Honda Motor Co.: A Story Of Statutes, Regulation And The Common Law, Peter L. Strauss
Faculty Scholarship
This essay was written as a contribution to one of Foundation's "Story" series. In Geier, a lawsuit had been brought on behalf of a teenager whose injuries from an accident might have been lessened if her car had contained an airbag. Plaintiffs sued on the straightforward basis that the design choice to omit a safety device of proven merit made the car unreasonably hazardous. Federal safety regulations had required the maker of her car to install some such device as an airbag in at least 10% of the cars it made the year it made her car – but her …