Law Commons^™

Non-Extraterritoriality, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The extraterritorial application of statutes has received a great deal of scholarly attention in recent years, but very little attention has been paid the non-extraterritoriality of statutes, by which I mean their effect on cases beyond their specified territorial reach. The question matters when a choice-of-law rule or a contractual choice-of-law clause directs application of a state’s law and the state has a statute that, because of a provision limiting its external reach, does not reach the case. On one view, the state has no law for cases beyond the reach of the statute. The territorial limitation is a choice-of-law …

Extraterritoriality As Choice Of Law, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The proper treatment of provisions that specify the extraterritorial scope of statutes has long been a matter of controversy in Conflict of Laws scholarship. This issue is a matter of considerable contemporary interest because the Third Restatement of Conflict of Laws proposes to address such provisions in a way that diverges from how they were treated in the Second Restatement. The Second Restatement treats such provisions—which I call geographic scope limitations—as choice-of-law rules, meaning, inter alia, that the courts will ordinarily disregard them when the forum’s choice-of-law rules or a contractual choice-of-law clause selects the law of a state as …

Choice Of Law As Extraterritoriality, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This contribution to Resolving Conflicts on the Law: Essays in Honour of Lea Brilmayer (published under the title Choice of Law as Geographic Scope Limitation) argues that the choice-of-law question commonly addressed by state and foreign courts is conceptually identical to the question addressed by federal courts in determining whether a federal statute applies to a dispute having foreign elements. The latter question is clearly understood today to relate to the statute’s territorial scope. State courts have long conceptualized the choice-of-law question in the same way. Faced with a state statute addressing the issue before it and phrased in …

The Structural Role Of Private Enforcement Mechanisms In Public Law, J. Maria Glover

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The American regulatory system is unique in that it expressly relies upon a diffuse set of regulators, including private parties, rather than upon a centralized bureaucracy, for the effectuation of its substantive aims. In contrast with more traditional conceptions of private enforcement as an ad hoc supplement to public law, this Article argues that private regulation through litigation is an integral part of the structure of the modern regulatory state. Private litigation and the mechanisms that enable it are not merely add-ons to our regulatory regime, much less are they fundamentally at odds with it.

Yet mechanisms of enforcement attendant …

The Federal Rules Of Civil Settlement, J. Maria Glover

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were originally based upon a straightforward model of adjudication: Resolve the merits of cases at trial and use pretrial procedures to facilitate accurate trial outcomes. Though appealing in principle, this model has little relevance today. As is now well known, the endpoint around which the Federal Rules were structured — trial — virtually never occurs. Today, the vast majority of civil cases terminate in settlement. This Article is the first to argue that the current litigation process needs a new regime of civil procedure for the world of settlement

This Article begins by providing …

What The Shutts Opt-Out Right Is And What It Ought To Be, Brian Wolfman, Alan B. Morrison

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This article discusses the ramifications of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985), regarding the right of an absent class member to opt out of a class action. The article addresses both the current prevailing understanding of Shutts, which is based on the personal jurisdiction strain of due process jurisprudence, and what the authors believe is a more useful understanding, based on the property rights strain of due process jurisprudence. As an addendum to the article, the authors propose a new civil procedure rule governing class actions that would implement …

Protecting Plaintiffs' Sexual Pasts: Coping With Preconceptions Through Discretion, Jane H. Aiken

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Part I of this Article traces the development of the civil application of Rule 412, the so-called “Rape Shield Rule”. Part II analyzes the inconsistencies within the cases decided under the new civil rule and links those inconsistencies to the language of the rule. It identifies the trends within the cases about what constitutes probative value for purposes of the rule and how courts assess prejudice. The Article concludes that rules of evidence designed to remedy bias of fact finders should not be cast as discretionary. Many of the problems that arise in the interpretation of Rule 412 could be …

Adrift On The Sea Of Indeterminacy, Michael H. Gottesman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Today's conflicts scholars no doubt consider themselves a diverse bunch, with widely differing views about how law should be chosen in multistate disputes. But from the trenches, most of them look alike. Each waxes eloquent about the search for the perfect solution-the most intellectually and morally satisfying choice of law for each dispute-and each ends the theorizing by embracing some proposition that will prove wholly indeterminate in practice.