Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Due process (2)
- Eminent domain (2)
- Justice Holmes (2)
- Mahon (2)
- Property rights (2)
-
- Public interest (2)
- Supreme Court (2)
- Takings Clause (2)
- 6th Amendment (1)
- Antitrust (1)
- Assigned counsel (1)
- Campaign finance (1)
- Corruption (1)
- Cost-benefit analysis (1)
- Criminal courts (1)
- Economic dragooning (1)
- Education (1)
- Federal education funding (1)
- Government contracts (1)
- Jury (1)
- Legal standard (1)
- Mergers (1)
- Negligence (1)
- Pay-to-play (1)
- Products liability (1)
- Quid pro quo (1)
- Regulation (1)
- Remedies (1)
- Right to counsel (1)
- Spending clause (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law and Economics
Differentiating Strict Products Liability’S Cost-Benefit Analysis From Negligence, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman
Differentiating Strict Products Liability’S Cost-Benefit Analysis From Negligence, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Dangerous products may give rise to colossal liability for commercial actors. Indeed, in 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Johnson & Johnson v. Ingham, permitting a more than two billion dollar products liability damages award to stand. In his dissenting opinion in another recent products liability case, Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries, Justice Gorsuch declared that “[t]ort law is supposed to be about aligning liability with responsibility.” However, in the products liability context, there have been ongoing debates concerning how best to set legal rules and standards on tort liability. Are general principles of …
Judges For Sale: The Effect Of Campaign Contributions On State Criminal Courts, Arturo Romero Yáñez, Neel U. Sukhatme
Judges For Sale: The Effect Of Campaign Contributions On State Criminal Courts, Arturo Romero Yáñez, Neel U. Sukhatme
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Do campaign contributions impact democratic processes? Using donation data from Texas, we show that criminal defense attorneys who contribute to a district judge’s electoral campaign are preferentially assigned by that judge to indigent defense cases, i.e., public contracts in which the state pays private attorneys to represent poor defendants.
We estimate that attorney donors receive twice as many cases as non-donors during the month of their campaign contribution. Nearly two-thirds of this increase is explained by the contribution itself, with the remainder attributable to shared preferences within attorney-judge pairs, such as those based on professional, ideological, political, or personal ties. …
Fixing "Litigating The Fix", Steven C. Salop, Jennifer E. Sturiale
Fixing "Litigating The Fix", Steven C. Salop, Jennifer E. Sturiale
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Merging firms have increasingly been asking trial courts to adjudicate their merger “as remedied” by a voluntary “fix.” These are remedies that have been rejected by (or never proposed to) the agency. This procedure is known as Litigating-the-Fix” (“LTF”). This article proposes a judicial procedure for managing cases in which the merging parties attempt to LTF. Our recommendations flow from a decision theory approach informed by the relevant LTF case law, the merger enforcement record, the language and goals of Section 7, and an economic analysis of the incentives of the parties and agencies created by LTF. Our recommendation addresses …
Conditional Spending After Nfib V. Sebelius: The Example Of Federal Education Law, Eloise Pasachoff
Conditional Spending After Nfib V. Sebelius: The Example Of Federal Education Law, Eloise Pasachoff
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court’s recent case addressing the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the Court concluded that the expansion of Medicaid in that Act was unconstitutionally coercive and therefore exceeded the scope of Congress’s authority under the Spending Clause. This was the first time that the Court treated coercion as an issue of more than mere theoretical possibility under the Spending Clause. In the wake of the Court’s decision, commentators have expressed either the concern or the hope that NFIB’s coercion analysis may lead to the undoing of much of the federal regulatory state, …
Understanding Mahon In Historical Context, William Michael Treanor
Understanding Mahon In Historical Context, William Michael Treanor
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Despite its enormous influence on constitutional law, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon is just such an opinion; the primary purpose of the author’s article Jam for Justice Holmes: Reassessing the Significance of Mahon is to clarify Holmes's intent by placing the opinion in historical context and in the context of Holmes's other opinions. While other scholars have also sought to place Mahon in context, his account differs in large part because of its recognition, as part of the background of Mahon, of a separate line of cases involving businesses affected with a public interest.
The author argues that at …
Jam For Justice Holmes: Reassessing The Significance Of Mahon, William Michael Treanor
Jam For Justice Holmes: Reassessing The Significance Of Mahon, William Michael Treanor
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
When courts and commentators discuss Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, they use the same word with remarkable regularity: famous. Mahon has achieved this fame in part because it was the occasion for conflict between judicial giants, and because the result seems ironic. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.--the great Lochner dissenter and a jurist generally considered a champion of judicial deference to legislatures in the sphere of economic decision-making--wrote the opinion striking down a Pennsylvania statute barring coal mining that could cause the surface to cave-in. Sharply dissenting from Holmes's opinion was his consistent ally on the Court, Justice Louis …