Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Administration (1)
- Administrative (1)
- Administrative Law (1)
- Agency (1)
- Civil procedure (1)
-
- Collateral Estoppel (1)
- Criminal procedure (1)
- Day in court (1)
- Defective drugs (1)
- Drugs (1)
- FDA (1)
- First time filers (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Justice (1)
- Liability (1)
- Medicare (1)
- Preemption (1)
- Procedural triage (1)
- Procedure (1)
- Quid pro quo; Hobbs Act; federal funds bribery; corruption; state officials; local officials (1)
- Tort (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure
Who Put The Quo In Quid Pro Quo?: Why Courts Should Apply Mcdonnell ’S “Official Act” Definition Narrowly, Adam F. Minchew
Who Put The Quo In Quid Pro Quo?: Why Courts Should Apply Mcdonnell ’S “Official Act” Definition Narrowly, Adam F. Minchew
Fordham Law Review
Federal prosecutors have several tools at their disposal to bring criminal charges against state and local officials for their engagement in corrupt activity. Section 666 federal funds bribery and § 1951 Hobbs Act extortion, two such statuary tools, have coexisted for the past thirty-six years, during which time § 666 has seen an increasing share of total prosecutions while the Hobbs Act’s share of prosecutions has fallen commensurately. In the summer of 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided McDonnell v. United States—a decision that threatens to quicken the demise of Hobbs Act extortion in favor of § 666. If …
Collateral Damage: When Should The Determinations Of Administrative Adjudications Have Collateral Estoppel Effect In Subsequent Adjudications?, Matthew Faust
Fordham Law Review
Collateral estoppel is an equitable doctrine under which a court gives issue-preclusive effect to findings of fact or law made in previous proceedings. The U.S. Supreme Court has recently held that under certain circumstances, the determinations of administrative adjudications have collateral estoppel effect in federal court. The Court, however, did not address under which circumstances the determinations of administrative adjudications should have collateral estoppel effect in subsequent administrative adjudications. There has been little clear and consistent reasoning in lower federal courts about when collateral estoppel should apply in administrative adjudications, and administrative agencies vary widely in their application of collateral …
Procedural Triage, Matthew J.B. Lawrence
Procedural Triage, Matthew J.B. Lawrence
Fordham Law Review
Prior scholarship has assumed that the inherent value of a "day in court" is the same for all claimants, so that when procedural resources (like a jury trial or a hearing) are scarce, they should be rationed the same way for all claimants. That is incorrect. This Article shows that the inherent value of a "day in court" can be far greater for some claimants, such as first-time filers, than for others, such as corporate entities and that it can be both desirable and feasible to take this variation into account in doling out scarce procedural protections. In other words, …
"A Distinction Without A Difference"?: Bartlett Going Forward, Steven A. Schwartz
"A Distinction Without A Difference"?: Bartlett Going Forward, Steven A. Schwartz
Fordham Law Review
This Note addresses the question of whether federal law preempts state design defect claims against generic drug manufacturers regardless of which test state law uses to determine whether a drug is defective. This issue, arising out of the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of preemption jurisprudence and fundamental tort law as stated in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, is significant because it plays a large role in determining to what extent generic drug manufacturers are immune to civil liability arising out of injuries caused by their generic drugs. In an age of rising medical costs and jury awards, both plaintiff …