Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Administrative Office of the United States Courts (1)
- Americans with Disabilities Act (1)
- Assets (1)
- Attorneys general (1)
- Bias (1)
-
- Book reviews (1)
- Brown v. Board of Education (1)
- Burdens of proof (1)
- Campaign finance (1)
- Catch and kill jurisdiction (1)
- Certainty (1)
- Civil Rights Act of 1964 (1)
- Class Action Fairness Act (1)
- Clean Air Act (1)
- Court access (1)
- Damage (1)
- Damage award (1)
- Declaratory judgement action (1)
- Defendant gamesmanship (1)
- Deregulation (1)
- Expert evidence (1)
- Fact finding (1)
- Federal statutes (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Fossil fuels (1)
- Gamesmanship (1)
- Infringement (1)
- Institutional reform litigation (1)
- Jose P. v. Ambach (1)
- Judicial discretion (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Mooting Unilateral Mootness, Scott T. Macguidwin
Mooting Unilateral Mootness, Scott T. Macguidwin
Michigan Law Review
Several situations cause a case to be moot. These include settlement agreements, party collusion, changes in litigant status, and extrinsic circumstances thwarting the court from granting any relief. The final reason is unilateral mootness—when a defendant ends a lawsuit against a plaintiff’s wishes by giving them everything for which they ask. In practice, this allows defendants to strategically stop lawsuits when it is clear they are not going to win. By doing so, they prevent the court from handing down adverse precedent and preserve the opportunity to engage in similar behavior with impunity. Courts have established a series of mootness …
Catch And Kill Jurisdiction, Zachary D. Clopton
Catch And Kill Jurisdiction, Zachary D. Clopton
Michigan Law Review
In catch and kill journalism, a tabloid buys a story that could be published elsewhere and then deliberately declines to publish it. In catch and kill jurisdiction, a federal court assumes jurisdiction over a case that could be litigated in state court and then declines to hear the merits through a nonmerits dismissal. Catch and kill journalism undermines the free flow of information. Catch and kill jurisdiction undermines the enforcement of substantive rights. And, importantly, because catch and kill jurisdiction relies on jurisdictional and procedural law, it is often able to achieve ends that would be politically unpalatable by other …
The New Front In The Clean Air Wars: Fossil-Fuel Influence Over State Attorneys General- And How It Might Be Checked, Eli Savit
Michigan Law Review
Review of Struggling for Air: Power and the "War On Coal" by Richard L. Revesz and Jack Leinke, and Federalism on Trial: State Attorneys General and National Policymaking in Contemporary America by Paul Nolette.
A Simple Theory Of Complex Valuation, Anthony J. Casey, Julia Simon-Kerr
A Simple Theory Of Complex Valuation, Anthony J. Casey, Julia Simon-Kerr
Michigan Law Review
Complex valuations of assets, companies, government programs, damages, and the like cannot be done without expertise, yet judges routinely pick an arbitrary value that falls somewhere between the extreme numbers suggested by competing experts. This creates costly uncertainty and undermines the legitimacy of the court. Proposals to remedy this well-recognized difficulty have become increasingly convoluted. As a result, no solution has been effectively adopted and the problem persists. This Article suggests that the valuation dilemma stems from a misconception of the inquiry involved. Courts have treated valuation as its own special type of inquiry distinct from traditional fact-finding. We show …
What's A Judge To Do? Remedying The Remedy In Institutional Reform Litigation, Susan Poser
What's A Judge To Do? Remedying The Remedy In Institutional Reform Litigation, Susan Poser
Michigan Law Review
Democracy by Decree is the latest contribution to a scholarly literature, now nearly thirty-years old, which questions whether judges have the legitimacy and the capacity to oversee the remedial phase of institutional reform litigation. Previous contributors to this literature have come out on one side or the other of the legitimacy and capacity debate. Abram Chayes, Owen Fiss, and more recently, Malcolm Feeley and Edward Rubin, have all argued that the proper role of judges is to remedy rights violations and that judges possess the legitimate institutional authority to order structural injunctions. Lon Fuller, Donald Horowitz, William Fletcher, and Gerald …
Judges, Juries, And Patent Cases - An Emprical Peek Inside The Black Box, Kimberly A. Moore
Judges, Juries, And Patent Cases - An Emprical Peek Inside The Black Box, Kimberly A. Moore
Michigan Law Review
The frequency with which juries participate in patent litigation has skyrocketed recently. At the same time, there is a popular perception that the increasing complexity of technology being patented (especially in the electronic, computer software, biological and chemical fields) has made patent trials extremely difficult for lay juries to understand. These developments have sparked extensive scholarly debate and increasing skepticism regarding the role of juries in patent cases. Juries have participated in some aspects of patent litigation since the enactment of the first patent statute in 1790, which provided for "such damages as shall be assessed by a jury." The …
Judicial Discretion: Is One More Of A Good Thing Too Much?, David B. Sentelle
Judicial Discretion: Is One More Of A Good Thing Too Much?, David B. Sentelle
Michigan Law Review
A Review of Judicial Discretion by Aharon Barak