Litigation Commons^™

“Fair Enough”? Revising The Yellowstone Injunction To Fit New York’S Commercial Leasing Landscape And Promote Judicial Economy, Gabriel W. Block

Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law

The Yellowstone injunction is an equitable remedy that tolls any applicable cure period and gives tenants a better opportunity to maintain their leasehold when they have defaulted under their lease. The remedy is available to commercial tenants in New York City and to commercial and residential tenants throughout the State. This Note examines the Yellowstone injunction in the context of New York City’s commercial tenants, who employ it most frequently and benefit most from its protections. This Note examines the development and application of the Yellowstone injunction and proposes changing the doctrine to exclude cases of monetary defaults and expired …

Back To The Future: The Revival Of Pennoyer In Personal Jurisdiction Doctrine And The Demise Of International Shoe, Robert M. Bloom, Janine A. Hanrahan

San Diego Law Review

This Article argues that the Court’s recent decisions have effectively revived Pennoyer’s focus on physical presence and status, at the expense of the fairness and contact considerations set forth in International Shoe, as the bases for asserting personal jurisdiction. Part II details the jurisdictional analysis under both Pennoyer and International Shoe. Part III discusses the evolution of personal jurisdiction doctrine under International Shoe. Part IV demonstrates that the Court’s recent decisions have revitalized Pennoyer’s territorially based regime, and consequently diminished the thrust of International Shoe.

Death Be Not Strange. The Montreal Convention’S Mislabeling Of Human Remains As Cargo And Its Near Unbreakable Liability Limits, Christopher Ogolla

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This article discusses Article 22 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (“The Montreal Convention”) and its impact on the transportation of human remains. The Convention limits carrier liability to a sum of 19 Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) per kilogram in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay of part of the cargo or of any object contained therein. Transportation of human remains falls under Article 22 which forecloses any recovery for pain and suffering unaccompanied by physical injury. This Article finds fault with this liability limit. The Article notes that if …

Expanding Third-Party Standing In Custody Actions: How The Opioid Crisis Has Impacted Lgbtq Parental Rights In Pennsylvania, Jill C. Gorman

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Declared a public health emergency by the federal government, the opioid crisis often places children in foster care when parents fatally succumb to their addictions. To unburden the foster care system and to accommodate family members who want to care for these children, Pennsylvania enacted Act No. 21 on July 3, 2018, to expand custody standing to include certain third parties. However, because the legislature has not expanded the legal definition of “parent,” Act No. 21 poses a threat to the legal rights of nonbiological LGBTQ parents.

This Comment begins by explaining how the opioid crisis motivated the Pennsylvania legislature …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Deceptively Simple: The Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Margaret E. Rushing

Arkansas Law Review

In the 2017 legislative session, the Arkansas General Assembly significantly changed the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“ADTPA”). These changes now prohibit private class actions under the ADTPA and require plaintiffs to prove additional elements of reliance and actual financial loss when bringing a claim. The changes appear to limit the ability of a consumer to bring a private action under the ADPTA. With these changes, Arkansas joins a minority of jurisdictions with deceptive trade practices acts that increase a plaintiff’s burden and restrict private class actions.

Department Of Insurance, Sarah Marie Burgh, Joseph Cheng, J. D. Fellmeth

California Regulatory Law Reporter

No abstract provided.

Due Process Supreme Court Rockland County

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process Pringle V. Wolfe (Decided 28, 1996)

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996)

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process Court Of Appeals

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Queens County

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Shelby County And Local Governments: A Case Study Of Local Texas Governments Diluting Minority Votes, Sydnee Fielkow

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

No abstract provided.

Department Of Insurance, Sarah Marie Burgh, Joseph Cheng, Debra Jorgensen

California Regulatory Law Reporter

No abstract provided.

Bureau Of Cannabis Control, Nicole Cohen, Guinness Castello, R. C. Fellmeth

California Regulatory Law Reporter

No abstract provided.

Offshore Drilling: Combating Regulatory Uncertainty With Contract Law Protection, Jordan M. Steele

Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law

Offshore drilling accounts for billions of dollars in tax revenue every year. It is a pillar of the energy industry and is crucial to the economy. A recent flurry of deregulation, accelerating with the arrival of the Trump administration, highlights the tremendous impact politics has upon the profitability of this sector. The Secretary of the Interior, under the direction of the President, wields the power to regulate and make determinations into where, when, and how private companies can drill offshore. These private companies have contracts with the government for the opportunity to produce and develop oil or gas on the …

States Empowering Plaintiff Cities, Eli Savit

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Across the country, cities are becoming major players in plaintiff’s-side litigation. With increasing frequency, cities, counties, and other municipalities are filing lawsuits to vindicate the public interest. Cities’ aggressive use of lawsuits, however, has been met with some skepticism from both scholars and states. At times, states have taken action—both legislative and via litigation—to preempt city-initiated suits.

This Article contends that states should welcome city-initiated public-interest lawsuits. Such litigation, this Article demonstrates, vindicates the principles of local control that cities exist to facilitate. What is more, a motivated plaintiff city can accomplish public-policy goals that are important not just to …

Too Plain To Be Misunderstood: Sovereign Immunity Under The Arkansas Constitution, Robert C. Dalby

Arkansas Law Review

The framers of the constitution certainly knew that instances of hardship would result from the prohibition of suits against the State, but they nevertheless elected to write that immunity into the constitution. The language is too plain to be misunderstood, and it is our duty to give effect to it. Given the fluid nature of the law, time is often the greatest enemy of clarity in court precedent. From law students to experienced judges, anyone who has tried to research the doctrine of sovereign immunity under the Arkansas Constitution has surely struggled with that enemy as they sift through the …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

State Standing And Cooperative Federalism, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

State lawsuits challenging federal policy generally encounter arguments that the states lack standing to sue, either under Article III’s “case or controversy” clause or under various prudential standing doctrines. These arguments have often taken novel forms—such as claims that states’ injuries are “self-inflicted” or offset by other benefits of federal policies—that have few precedents or analogs in the standing jurisprudence governing suits by private individuals. The United States has taken the position, in other words, that states should have special disabilities in filing lawsuits that would not apply to ordinary litigants. Likewise, prominent academics have argued that uniquely narrow standing …

Judges Do It Better: Why Judges Can (And Should) Decide Life Or Death, Andrew R. Ford

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Following its decision in Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court of the United States has attempted to standardize procedures that states use to subject offenders to the ultimate penalty. In practice, this attempt at standardization has divided capital sentencing into two distinct parts: the death eligibility decision and the death selection decision. The eligibility decision addresses whether the sentencer may impose the death penalty, while the selection decision determines who among that limited subset of eligible offenders is sentenced to death. In Ring v. Arizona, the Court held for the first time that the Sixth Amendment right to …

Unintended Consequences, Loopholes, And Gibberish: Why There Are Still Securities Act Class Actions In State Courts, Brian Elzweig

Texas A&M Law Review

This Article examines Congress’s decades-long attempt to ensure that securities class action lawsuits of national importance are litigated in federal courts. The intent is limiting strike suits. Congress attempted to curtail strike suits through the enactment of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”). The PSLRA required heightened pleading requirements to ensure the validity of federal securities class actions. Instead of solving the dilemma, plaintiffs circumvented the PSLRA by bringing fraud cases as state law claims. To combat the circumvention of the PSLRA, Congress enacted the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (“SLUSA”). SLUSA federally preempted state law claims based on …