Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Making Privacy Injuries Concrete, Peter Ormerod

Washington and Lee Law Review

In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the doctrine of Article III standing deprives the federal courts of jurisdiction over some lawsuits involving intangible injuries. The lower federal courts are carrying out the Supreme Court’s instructions, and privacy injuries have borne the brunt of the Court’s directive. This Article identifies two incoherencies in the Court’s recent intangible injury decisions and builds on the work of privacy scholars to fashion a solution.

The first incoherency is a line-drawing problem: the Court has never explained why some intangible injuries create an Article III injury in fact while others …

Categorical Confusion In Personal Jurisdiction Law, Todd Peterson

Washington and Lee Law Review

In Part I, the Article discusses the history of the U.S. Supreme Court’s substantive due process limitations on personal jurisdiction and, in particular, the standards for corporate-activities-based jurisdiction before the Court’s recent cases on that issue. Part II discusses the Court’s failure to provide a convincing theoretical justification for imposing substantive due process limitations on personal jurisdiction. It also discusses the consequences of that failure in three doctrinal areas of personal jurisdiction law, the traditional basis of service on an individual in the forum state, specific jurisdiction and corporate-activities-based jurisdiction. Part III then analyzes in detail the four recent Supreme …

Measuring A Civil-Discovery Sanction For Failure To Turn Over Requested Material: Goodyear Tire V. Haeger (15-1406), Doug Rendleman

Scholarly Articles

A sanction that is unrelated to misconduct is criminal and requires criminal instead of civil procedure. In a product liability lawsuit, the respondent, Goodyear, failed to turn over important tests before the parties settled. The petitioners, the Haegers—a couple who alleged Goodyear’s tires caused injuries—sought approval of a sanction based on their attorney fees. Complex and technical civil procedural rules and statutes, contempt, and the court’s inherent power will govern the Supreme Court’s decision. The issue before the Court is the specificity of the causal link between Goodyear’s misconduct and the amount of the civil sanction.