Litigation Commons^™

How Much Do Expert Opinions Matter? An Empirical Investigation Of Selection Bias, Adversarial Bias, And Judicial Deference In Chinese Medical, Chunyan Ding

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

This article investigates the nature of the operation and the role of expert opinions in Chinese medical negligence litigation, drawing on content analysis of 3,619 medical negligence cases and an in-depth survey of judges with experience of adjudicating medical negligence cases. It offers three major findings: first, that both parties to medical negligence disputes show significant selection bias of medical opinions, as do courts when selecting court-appointed experts; second, expert opinions in medical negligence litigation demonstrate substantial adversarial bias; third, courts display very strong judicial deference to expert opinions in determining medical negligence liability. This article fills the methodological gap …

Increasing Lapses In Data Security: The Need For A Common Answer To What Constitutes Standing In A Data Breach Context, Aaron Benjamin Edelman

Journal of Law and Policy

As the number of data breaches continues to rise in the United States, so does the amount of data breach litigation. Many potential plaintiffs who suffered as victims of data breaches, however, find themselves in limbo regarding the issue of standing before a court because of a significant split on standing determinations amongst the federal circuit courts. Thus, while victims of data breaches oftentimes have their personal information fall into the hands of nefarious characters who intend to use the information to a victim’s detriment, that may not be enough to provide victims a right to sue in federal court …

Follow The Money? A Proposed Approach For Disclosure Of Litigation Finance Agreements, Maya Steinitz

Faculty Scholarship

Litigation finance is the new and fast-growing practice by which a non-party funds a plaintiff’s litigation either for-profit or for some other motivation. Some estimates placed the size of the litigation finance market at 50–100 billion dollars. Both proponents and opponents of this newly -emergent phenomenon are in agreement that the it is the most important development in civil justice of this era. Litigation finance is already transforming civil litigation at the level of the single case as well as, incrementally, at the level of the civil justice system as a whole. It is also beginning to transform the way …

Snapback, Version 2.0: The Best Solution To The Problem Of Snap Removal, Arthur D. Hellman

Testimony

The forum defendant rule, embodied in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), prohibits removal of civil actions based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction “if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” Pointing to the phrase “properly joined and served,” defendants have argued that § 1441(b)(2) does not bar removal of a diversity action if a citizen of the forum state has been joined as a defendant but has not yet been served. The stratagem of removing before service to avoid the prohibition of § 1441(b)(2) …

Snapback! A Narrowly Tailored Legislative Solution To The Problem Of Snap Removal, Arthur D. Hellman

Testimony

“Snap removal” is a stratagem used by defendants in civil litigation as an end run around the forum defendant rule. That rule, embodied in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), prohibits removal of civil actions based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction “if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” Focusing on the phrase “properly joined and served,” defendants have argued that § 1441(b)(2) allows removal of a diversity action when a citizen of the forum state has been joined as a defendant but has not …

The Defamation Injunction Meets The Prior Restraint Doctrine, Doug Rendleman

San Diego Law Review

This article maintains that, under defined circumstances, a judge should be able to grant an injunction that forbids the defendant’s proved defamation. It analyzes the common law of defamation, the constitutional prior restraint doctrine, the constitutional protection for defamation that stems from New York Times v. Sullivan, and injunctions and their enforcement.

In Near v. Minnesota, the Supreme Court expanded protection for expression by adding an injunction to executive licensing as a prior restraint. Although the Near court circumscribed the injunction as a prior restraint, it approved criminal sanctions and damages judgment for defamation. An injunction that forbids the defendant’s …

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 …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The United Nations Compensation Commission: Mass Reparations Apotheosis, Gregory Townsend

Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rehabilitating The Nuisance Injunction To Protect The Environment, Doug Rendleman

Washington and Lee Law Review

The Trump Administration has reversed the federal government’s role of protecting the environment. The reversal focuses attention on states’ environmental capacity. This Article advocates more vigorous state environmental tort remedies for nuisance and trespass. An injunction is the superior remedy in most successful environmental litigation because it orders correction and improvement. Two anachronistic barriers to an environmental injunction are the New York Court of Appeals’ decision, Boomer v. Atlantic Cement, and Calabresi and Melamed’s early and iconic law-and-economics article, One View of the Cathedral. This Article examines and criticizes both because, by subordinating the injunction to money damages, they undervalue …

The Demise Of § 1983 Malicious Prosecution: Separating Tort Law From The Fourth Amendment, Erin E. Mcmannon

Notre Dame Law Review

The common-law tort of malicious prosecution originally developed to provide a remedy for plaintiffs who were unjustly prosecuted in a criminal proceeding. Today, malicious prosecution actions can be brought to redress wrongful civil actions as well. The “central thrust” of an action for malicious prosecution is a right not to be involved in an unjustified litigation.

This Note suggests that the confusion in this area of law derives from the use of the language of malicious prosecution tort law to describe what really amounts to a Fourth Amendment seizure claim under § 1983. There is no constitutional right to be …

Champions For Justice & Public Interest Auction 2019, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Public Interest Auction

No abstract provided.

Nevor V. Moneypenny Holdings, Llc: Availability Of Prejudgment Interest For Mixed Maritime Law And Jones Act Claims, Adam S. Bohanan

Ocean and Coastal Law Journal

In maritime personal injury cases, courts have traditionally seen prejudgment interest as part of the compensation due to a prevailing plaintiff. The goal of ensuring the fullest compensation possible has long been recognized as a basic principle of admiralty law. However, federal appellate courts are split over whether to award prejudgment interest on a mixed claim under general maritime law and the Jones Act. This Note explores this issue in Nevor v. Moneypenny Holdings, LLC, which was the first time the question had been raised in the First Circuit. The Fifth and Sixth Circuits have held that because prejudgment interest …

Let’S Be Reasonable: The Consumer Expectations Test Is Simply Not Viable To Determine Design Defect For Complex Autonomous Vehicle Technology, Emily Frascaroli, John Isaac Southerland, Elizabeth Davis, Woods Parker

Journal of Law and Mobility

Although highly automated vehicles (“HAVs”) have potential to reduce deaths and injuries from traffic crashes, product liability litigation for design defects in vehicles incorporating autonomous technology is inevitable. During the early stages of implementation, courts and juries will be forced to grapple with the application of traditional product liability principles to a never before experienced category of highly technical products. Recent decisions limiting the use of the consumer expectations test in cases involving complex products prompted the authors to examine more closely the history behind and the future viability of the consumer expectations test in HAV litigation.

"Sorry" Is Never Enough: How State Apology Laws Fail To Reduce Medical Malpractice Liability Risk, W. Kip Viscusi, Benjamin J. Mcmichael, R. Lawrence Van Horn

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Based on case studies indicating that apologies from physicians to patients can promote healing, understanding, and dispute resolution, 38 states have sought to reduce litigation and medical malpractice liability by enacting apology laws. Apology laws facilitate apologies by making them inadmissible in subsequent malpractice trials.

The underlying assumption regarding the potential efficacy of these laws is that, after receiving an apology, patients will be less likely to pursue a malpractice claim and will be more likely to settle those claims that are filed. However, once a patient has been made aware that the physician has committed a medical error, the …

Res Ipsa Loquitur: Reducing Confusion Of Creating Bias?, Jeffrey H. Kahn, John E. Lopatka

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Effects Of Comparable‐Case Guidance On Awards For Pain And Suffering And Punitive Damages: Evidence From A Randomized Controlled Trial, Hillel J. Bavli, Reagan Mozer

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Damage awards for pain and suffering and punitive damages are notoriously unpredictable. Courts provide minimal, if any, guidance to jurors determining these awards, and apply similarly minimal standards in reviewing them. Lawmakers have enacted crude measures, such as damage caps, aimed at curbing award unpredictability, while ignoring less drastic alternatives that involve guiding jurors with information regarding damage awards in comparable cases (“comparable‐case guidance” or “prior‐award information”). The primary objections to the latter approach are based on the argument that, because prior‐award information uses information regarding awards in distinct cases, it introduces the possibility of biasing the award, or distorting …

Catholic Dioceses In Bankruptcy, Marie T. Reilly

Catholic Dioceses in Bankruptcy

The Catholic Church is coping with mass tort liability for sexual abuse of children by priests. Since 2004, eighteen Catholic organizations have filed for relief in bankruptcy. Fifteen debtors emerged from bankruptcy after settling with sexual abuse claimants and insurers. During settlement negotiations, sexual abuse claimants and debtors clashed over the extent of the debtors’ property and ability to pay claims. Although such disputes are common in chapter 11 plan negotiations, the Catholic cases required the parties and bankruptcy courts to account for unique religious attributes of Catholic debtors. This article reviews the arguments and outcomes on property issues based …

Private Law Statutory Interpretation, Shyamkrishna Balganesh

Faculty Scholarship

While scholars routinely question the normative significance of the distinction between public law and private law, few – if any – question its conceptual basis. Put in simple terms, private law refers to bodies of legal doctrine that govern the horizontal interaction between actors, be they individuals, corporate entities, or on occasion the state acting in its private capacity. Public law on the other hand refers to doctrinal areas that deal with vertical interaction between the state and non-state actors, wherein the state exerts a direct and overbearing influence on the shape and course of the law. The latter is …