Legal History Commons^™

Patent Exhaustion And Federalism: A Historical Note, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

This essay, written as a response to John F. Duffy and Richard Hynes, Statutory Domain and the Commercial Law of Intellectual Property, 102 VA. L. REV. 1 (2016), argues that the patent exhaustion (first sale) doctrine developed as a creature of federalism, intended to divide the line between the law of patents, which by that time had become exclusively federal, and the law of patented things, which were governed by the states. Late nineteenth and early twentieth century courts were explicit on the point, in decisions stretching from the 1850s well into the twentieth century.

By the second half of …

From Chrysler And General Motors To Detroit, David A. Skeel Jr.

All Faculty Scholarship

In the past five years, three of the most remarkable bankruptcy cases in American history have come out of Detroit: the bankruptcies of Chrysler and General Motors in 2009, and of Detroit itself in 2012. The principal objective of this Article is simply to show that the Grand Bargain at the heart of the Detroit bankruptcy is the direct offspring of the bankruptcy sale transactions that were used to restructure Chrysler and GM. The proponents of Detroit’s “Grand Bargain” never would have dreamed up the transaction were it not for the federal government-engineered carmaker bankruptcies. The Article’s second objective, based …

Treaty Options: Towards A Behavioral Understanding Of Treaty Design, Jean Galbraith

All Faculty Scholarship

Rational choice theory is the dominant paradigm through which scholars of international law and international relations approach treaty design. In this Article, I suggest a different approach using a combination of empirical observations of state behavior and theoretical insights from behavioral economics. I focus on one aspect of multilateral treaty design: namely, treaty reservations and associated legal mechanisms which allow states to vary the degree of their formal commitments to treaties. I call these mechanisms “treaty options.” I argue that the framing of treaty options matters powerfully — and does so in ways inconsistent with rational choice theory, but consistent …

Preemption In The Rehnquist Court: A Preliminary Empirical Assessment, Michael S. Greve, Jonathan Klick

All Faculty Scholarship

The federal preemption of state law has emerged as a prominent field of study for legal scholars and political scientists. This rise to prominence of a technical and often dull field of jurisprudence is due to a number of developments-increasingly frequent federal statutory preemptions; the states' unprecedented aggressiveness in regulating business transactions, the expansion of corporate liability under state common law and the increased resort of corporate defendants to federal preemption defenses; and, not least, the Rehnquist Court's discovery of federalism and states' rights.

Unfortunately, the preemption debate has been marred by misperceptions and a lack of reliable data. Extravagant …

Preempting The People: The Judicial Role In Regulatory Concurrency And Its Implications For Popular Lawmaking, Theodore Ruger

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Managing Gerrymandering, Mitchell N. Berman

All Faculty Scholarship

Last spring, in Vieth v. Jubelirer, the Supreme Court addressed a claim of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering for the first time since having held such claims justiciable, 18 years earlier, in Davis v. Bandemer. Vieth was a fractured decision. All nine Justices agreed that partisan gerrymandering is of constitutional moment, a substantial majority declaring that excessive partisanship is unconstitutional. The Justices also united in rejecting the particular gerrymandering test advanced in Bandemer. There agreement ended. Four Justices proposed three tests to replace the unmeetable Bandemer standard. A four-member plurality would have overruled Bandemer more completely by holding that partisan gerrymandering claims …

Guillen And Gullibility: Piercing The Surface Of Commerce Clause Doctrine, Mitchell N. Berman

All Faculty Scholarship

In Pierce County v. Guillen, the Supreme Court's most recent Commerce Clause decision, the Court upheld a federal law that protects information compiled or collected by states and localities in connection with federal highway safety programs from being discovered or admitted into evidence in state or federal trials. A short and unanimous decision, Guillen has gone almost entirely unnoticed. This article aims to rectify that oversight. Very simply, Guillen is not the gimme that its length, tone, and reception all conspire to suggest. At the heart of the case is a puzzle. And attempts to unravel that puzzle may substantially …

Getting Off The Dole: Why The Court Should Abandon Its Spending Doctrine And How A Too-Clever Congress Could Provoke It To Do So, Mitchell N. Berman

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

State Accountability For Violations Of Intellectual Property Rights: How To "Fix" Florida Prepaid (And How Not To), Mitchell N. Berman

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Right To Privacy In The Pennsylvania Constitution, Seth F. Kreimer

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Religious Freedom And The Church-State Relationship In Maryland, Kenneth Lasson

All Faculty Scholarship

Maryland holds the unique and admirable distinction of having been the State whose early history most directly ensured, and whose citizenry was most directly affected by, the first amendment's grant of religious liberty. The Supreme Court's docket is still liberally sprinkled with petitions calling for renewed interpretation of the establishment clause, and Marylanders will soon vote upon a proposed new state constitution with a similar provision - hence, the opportuneness for tracing Maryland's contribution to the cause of toleration and to the principle of church-state separation.

The scope of this article will not extend beyond a sketch of the important …

Comments And Casenotes: To Kill A Mockingbird - Star Decisis And M'Naghten In Maryland, Kenneth Lasson

All Faculty Scholarship

There are certain pillars of jurisprudence which, despite the erosive elements of time and progress, remain sacred. After more than a century of judicial dialogue the venerable M'Naghten Rule survives as the prevailing test to determine criminal responsibility. The rule states: "To establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know …