Law Commons^™

Judicial Lobbying, Jonas Anderson

J. Jonas Anderson

Comparison Excluding Commitments: Incommensurability, Adjudication, And The Unnoticed Example Of Trade Disputes, Sungjoon Cho, Richard Warner

Sungjoon Cho

The Role Of Courts In Improving The Legislative Process, Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov

Dr. Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov

Hollow Hopes, Flypaper, And Metaphors, Malcolm M. Feeley

Malcolm Feeley

No abstract provided.

Two Models Of The Criminal Justice System: An Organizational Perspective, Malcolm M. Feeley

Malcolm Feeley

Systematic studies of the administration of justice in the United States have stressed either the rational-goal model or the functional-systems model. The former model emphasizes problems with the justice system's formal rules of operation and appears to be the dominant view of appellate judges, lawyers, and law students, while the latter model is concerned with the identification and adaptation of action to the environment and the interests of action within the system.

Earning Deference: Reflections On The Merger Of Environmental And Land-Use Law, Michael Allan Wolf

Michael A Wolf

The bedrock notion that courts should, in the overwhelming majority of cases, defer to lawmakers is currently under attack in the nation's courts, commentary and classrooms. Leading the way are several United States Supreme Court Justices who, in cases involving the Commerce Clause, the Takings Clause and Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, are much more willing than their immediate predecessors to second-guess the motives and tactics of elected and appointed officials at all levels of government. Given this new juris-political reality, it is more important than ever that local government officials--who are often (though, certainly, not always justifiably) viewed …

Judicial Treatment Of The Antitrust Treatise, Hillary Greene, D. Daniel Sokol

D. Daniel Sokol

This essay examines Herbert Hovenkamp's influence in antitrust law and policy in the courts. This essay focuses its attention primarily with the Treatise and primarily in the area of merger law – procedural with issues of antitrust injury and substantively with merger efficiencies. The essay provides a case count citation analysis of Hovenkamp's scholarship and compares Hovenkamp to other major figures in antitrust scholarship (Bork and Posner) and to the other antitrust treatises (Kintner and Sullivan) in the courts. Our meta-level findings show that Hovenkamp is far more cited than other treatise writers or scholars who have been recognized for …

Book Review: Justice In Robes By Ronald Dworkin (2006), Dan Priel

Dan Priel

Since the 1960's Ronald Dworkin has been arguing for a particular account of law that he believed was both explanatorily superior to the one offered by competing theories, and also the basis for normative arguments for producing right answers to legal questions. Justice in Robes collects Dworkin's most recent essays on this subject and thus provides the appropriate opportunity for assessing the legal theory of one of the more influential legal philosophers. In this Review I seek to offer a clearer account than appears in the book itself of Dworkin's project, and in this way offer a measured assessment of …

"The Hindrance Of A Law Degree": Justice Kagan On Law And Experience, Laura Krugman Ray

Laura K. Ray

No abstract provided.

Participation, Responsiveness, And The Consultative Process: An Essay For Lon Fuller, Melvin Aron Eisenberg

Melvin A. Eisenberg

In this essay, Professor Eisenberg identifies three norms of the adjudicative process put forth by Professor Fuller in The Forms and Limits of Adjudication--attention by the decision-maker, explanation of the decision, and responsiveness of the decision to the parties' proofs and arguments. Professor Eisenberg argues that there is a form of social ordering which, like adjudication, is characterized by assured participation, but which does not require that the decision be responsive to the parties' proofs and arguments. He explores some of the current and potential applications of this form of social ordering, which he terms the Consultative Process. He goes …

Impartiality And Independence: Misunderstood Cousins, James E. Moliterno

James E. Moliterno

No abstract provided.

The Rise Of Judicial Governance In The Supreme Court Of India, Manoj Mate

Manoj S. Mate

When Judges Have Reasons Not To Give Reasons: A Comparative Law Approach, Mathilde Cohen

Mathilde Cohen

Cheating Marriage: A Tragedy In Three Acts, John C. Eastman

John C. Eastman

In his dissenting opinion in United States v. Windsor, Justice Scalia accused the Court of “cheating,” because it decided an issue that properly belonged to the voters. But the cheating that went on in the case, and the parallel case involving Proposition 8 in California, was also of the vintage variety. This article tells the largely untold story about the many machinations by elected officials and judges to produce the end result in favor of same-sex marriage, from conflicts of interest, to collusion by nominally “opposing” counsel, and finally to an aggressive refusal by high-ranking government lawyers (including one who …

Juror Bias, Voir Dire, And The Judge-Jury Relationship (Symposium), Nancy S. Marder

Nancy S. Marder

No abstract provided.

Talking Points, Alex Stein, Jef De Mot

Alex Stein

Our civil liability system affords numerous defenses against every single violation of the law. Against every single claim raised by the plaintiff, the defendant can assert two or more defenses each of which gives him an opportunity to win the case. As a result, when a court erroneously strikes out a meritorious defense, it might still keep the defendant out of harm’s way by granting him another defense. Rightful plaintiffs, on the other hand, must convince the court to deny each and every defense asserted by the defendant. Any rate of adjudicative errors—random and completely unbiased—consequently increases the prospect of …

The New Doctrinalism: Implications For Evidence Theory, Alex Stein

Alex Stein

This Article revisits and refines the organizing principles of evidence law: case specificity, cost minimization, and equal best. These three principles explain and justify all admissibility and sufficiency requirements of the law of evidence. The case-specificity principle requires that factfinders base their decisions on the relative plausibility of the stories describing the parties’ entitlement–accountability relationship. The cost-minimization principle demands that factfinders minimize the cost of errors and the cost of avoiding errors as a total sum. The equal-best principle mandates that factfinders afford every person the maximal feasible protection against risk of error while equalizing that protection across the board. …

Catalogs, Alex Stein, Gideon Parchomovsky

Alex Stein

It is a virtual axiom in the world of law that legal norms come in two prototypes: rules and standards. The accepted lore suggests that rules should be formulated to regulate recurrent and frequent behaviors, whose contours can be defined with sufficient precision. Standards, by contrast, should be employed to address complex, variegated, behaviors that require the weighing of multiple variables. Rules rely on an ex ante perspective and are therefore considered the domain of the legislator; standards embody a preference for ex post, ad-hoc, analysis and are therefore considered the domain of courts. The rules/standards dichotomy has become a …

Atlantic Marine And The Future Of Party Preference, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

In Atlantic Marine, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a prelitigation forum-selection agreement does not make an otherwise proper venue improper. Prominent civil procedure scholars have questioned the wisdom and accuracy of this holding. This paper is derived from my presentation at the symposium on Atlantic Marine held at UC Hastings College of the Law on September 19, 2014. In this paper, I defend Atlantic Marine as essentially correct based on what I have elsewhere called the principle of party subordinance. I go further, however, to argue that the principle underlying Atlantic Marine could affect the widespread private market for …

Xenophilia Or Xenophobia In American Courts? Before And After 9/11, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Kevin M. Clermont

This article revisits the controversy regarding how foreigners fare in U.S. courts. The available data, if taken in a sufficiently big sample from numerous case categories and a range of years, indicate that foreigners have fared better in the federal courts than their domestic counterparts have fared. Thus, the data offer no support for the existence of xenophobic bias in U.S. courts. Nor do they establish xenophilia, of course. What the data do show is that case selection drives the outcomes for foreigners. Foreigners' aversion to U.S. forums can elevate the foreigners' success rates, when measured as a percentage of …

Congress, The Federal Courts, And Forum Non Conveniens: Friction On The Frontier Of The Inherent Power, Elizabeth T. Lear

Elizabeth T Lear

The federal forum non conveniens regime has many flaws; its most serious, however, is its lack of constitutional support. Founded upon the inherent authority of Article III, the forum non conveniens doctrine is an outlier, residing in the area over which Congress retains plenary control. The Court has long treated the forum non conveniens dismissal power as the norm against which Congress legislates. This Article argues that the time has come to reconsider this interpretive approach. In the case of peripheral inherent power rules like forum non conveniens, the prevailing presumption should be reversed. The Court, rather than Congress, should …

Combating Terrorism With The Alien Terrorist Removal Court, Jonathan Yu

Jonathan Yu

No abstract provided.

Auctioning Class Settlements, Jay Tidmarsh

Jay Tidmarsh

Although they promise better deterrence at a lower cost, class actions are infected with problems that can keep them from delivering on this promise. One of these problems occurs when the agents for the class (the class representative and class counsel) advance their own interests at the expense of the class. Controlling agency cost, which often manifests itself at the time of settlement, has been the impetus behind a number of class-action reform proposals. This Article develops a proposal that, in conjunction with reforms in fee structure and opt-out rights, controls agency costs at the time of settlement. The idea …

Halliburton, Basic And Fraud On The Market: The Need For A New Paradigm, Charles W. Murdock

Charles W. Murdock

Summary: Halliburton, Basic and Fraud on the Market: The Need for a New Paradigm

If defrauded securities plaintiffs cannot bring a class-action lawsuit, there often will be no effective remedy since the amount at stake for individual plaintiffs is not sufficient to warrant the substantial costs of litigation. To surmount the problem of individualized reliance and establish commonality, federal courts for twenty-five years have been employing the Basic fraud-on-the-market theory which posits that, in an efficient market, investors rely on the integrity of the market price.

While class certification at one time was a matter of course, today it is …

Weeds, Seeds, & Deeds Redux: Natural And Legal Evolution In The U.S. Seed Wars, Rebecca Stewart

Rebecca K Stewart

Ever since the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office began issuing utility patents for plants, the United States has sat squarely on the frontlines of what have come to be known as the “seed wars.” In the last two decades, the majority of battles in the U.S. seed wars have been waged in the form of patent infringement lawsuits. Typically these suits are filed by biotechnology corporations such as Monsanto against farmers accused of saving and planting patented seed that self-replicates to produce progeny embodying—and thus infringing—the biotech corporations’ patented inventions.

Yet in recent years, the seed wars have begun to …

Antitrust Analysis After Actavis: Applying The Rule Of Reason To Reverse Payments, Benjamin Miller

Benjamin Miller

Abstract In F.T.C. v. Actavis, Inc. the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding the proper evaluation of reverse payment settlements under federal antitrust law, holding that they must be evaluated under a rule of reason analysis. However, the Court simultaneously created significant uncertainty by declaring that the lower courts were responsible for structuring the analysis. While a few cases are currently in the pre-trial phase, the only decisions relating to reverse payments since Actavis have been rulings on pre-trial motions—there have been no decisions on the merits. Given the intricate intersection between antitrust and intellectual property principles in these …

Cy Pres And The Optimal Class Action, Jay Tidmarsh

Jay Tidmarsh

Prepared for a symposium on class actions, this Article examines the problem of cy pres relief in class actions through the lens of optimal claim structure and class membership. It finds that the present cy pres doctrine does little to advance the creation of optimal class actions, and that it may do some harm to achieving that goal. The Article then proposes an alternative “nudge” to induce putative class counsel to structure class actions in an optimal way: setting attorneys’ fees so that counsel is compensated through a combination of an hourly market rate and a percentage of the net …

“Far From The Turbulent Space”: Considering The Adequacy Of Counsel In The Representation Of Individuals Accused Of Being Sexually Violent Predators, Michael L. Perlin, Heather Ellis Cucolo

Michael L Perlin

Abstract:

For the past thirty years, the US Supreme Court's standard of Strickland v. Washington has governed the question of adequacy of counsel in criminal trials. There, in a Sixth Amendment analysis, the Supreme Court acknowledged that simply having a lawyer assigned to a defendant was not constitutionally adequate, but that that lawyer must provide "effective assistance of counsel," effectiveness being defined, pallidly, as requiring simply that counsel's efforts be “reasonable” under the circumstances. The benchmark for judging an ineffectiveness claim is simply “whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper function of the adversarial process that the trial court cannot …

Tell Us A Story, But Don't Make It A Good One: Resolving The Confusion Regarding Emotional Stories And Federal Rule Of Evidence 403, Cathren Page

Cathren Page

Abstract: Tell Us a Story, But Don’t Make It A Good One: Resolving the Confusion Regarding Emotional Stories and Federal Rule of Evidence 403 by Cathren Koehlert-Page Courts need to reword their opinions regarding Rule 403 to address the tension between the advice to tell an emotionally evocative story at trial and the notion that evidence can be excluded if it is too emotional. In the murder mystery Mystic River, Dave Boyle is kidnapped in the beginning. The audience feels empathy for Dave who as an adult becomes one of the main suspects in the murder of his friend Jimmy’s …

Retroactivity And Prospectivity Of Judgments In American Law, Richard Kay

Richard Kay

In every American jurisdiction, new rules of law announced by a court are presumed to have retrospective effect—that is, they are presumed to apply to events occurring before the date of judgment. There are, however, exceptions in certain cases where a court believes that such application of the new rule will upset serious and reasonable reliance on the prior state of the law. This essay, a substantially abridged version of the United States Report on the subject, submitted at the Nineteenth International Congress of Comparative Law, summarizes these exceptional cases. It shows that the proper occasions for issuing exclusively or …