Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Measuring A Civil-Discovery Sanction For Failure To Turn Over Requested Material: Goodyear Tire V. Haeger (15-1406), Doug Rendleman
Measuring A Civil-Discovery Sanction For Failure To Turn Over Requested Material: Goodyear Tire V. Haeger (15-1406), Doug Rendleman
Scholarly Articles
A sanction that is unrelated to misconduct is criminal and requires criminal instead of civil procedure. In a product liability lawsuit, the respondent, Goodyear, failed to turn over important tests before the parties settled. The petitioners, the Haegers—a couple who alleged Goodyear’s tires caused injuries—sought approval of a sanction based on their attorney fees. Complex and technical civil procedural rules and statutes, contempt, and the court’s inherent power will govern the Supreme Court’s decision. The issue before the Court is the specificity of the causal link between Goodyear’s misconduct and the amount of the civil sanction.
Leidos And The Roberts Court's Improvident Securities Law Docket, Matthew C. Turk, Karen E. Woody
Leidos And The Roberts Court's Improvident Securities Law Docket, Matthew C. Turk, Karen E. Woody
Scholarly Articles
For its October 2017 term, the U.S. Supreme Court took up a noteworthy securities law case, Leidos, Inc. v. Indiana Public Retirement System. The legal question presented in Leidos was whether a failure to comply with a regulation issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Item 303 of Regulation S-K (Item 303), can be grounds for a securities fraud claim pursuant to Rule 10b-5 and the related Section 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. Leidos teed up a significant set of issues because Item 303 concerns one of the more controversial corporate disclosures mandated by the SEC—an …