Quinn V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 5 (Feb. 8, 2018) (En Banc), 2018 University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law
Quinn V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 5 (Feb. 8, 2018) (En Banc), Shaneka J. Malloyd
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) a writ of mandamus/prohibition is appropriate when a party does not have an adequate relief in the ordinary course of the law and it is necessary to prevent improper disclosure of privileged and confidential information; (2) a Nevada district court has no authority to compel an out-of-state non-party to appear in Nevada for a deposition; and (3) specifically, a Nevada district court does not have subpoena power over a non-resident attorney that has practiced law in Nevada.
Expert Testimony And Professional Licensing Boards: What Is Good, What Is Necessary, And The Myth Of The Majority-Minority Split, 2018 University of Maine School of Law
Expert Testimony And Professional Licensing Boards: What Is Good, What Is Necessary, And The Myth Of The Majority-Minority Split, Timothy P. Mccormack
Maine Law Review
Defendants regularly argue that a Review Board's decision must be overturned because it is not supported by expert testimony. Boards counter that they are qualified, by virtue of their role as the guardians of the standards for their profession, to determine the appropriateness of a defendant's conduct without the assistance of expert testimony. When courts address these arguments, they routinely ask if expert testimony is necessary to establish the standard of care in disciplinary hearings before a professional licensing board. Courts answer this question differently. In fact there is a seeming schism among the states about the importance ...
Personal Jurisdiction And The Web, 2018 University of Maine School of Law
Personal Jurisdiction And The Web, Joseph S. Burns, Richard A. Bales
Maine Law Review
Courts have struggled in determining precisely when a defendant should be subject to suit in a particular forum based on his or her Web activity. Although most jurisdictions have applied some form of the “minimum contacts” test, the test has been applied inconsistently. A new standard is needed to resolve personal jurisdiction disputes arising out of Web activity. This Article examines the ways in which modern courts have attempted to resolve personal jurisdiction issues based on Web activity, as well as the inconsistencies that have resulted from the inherent difficulty in conceptualizing the Web.
How The Law Court Uses Duty To Limit The Scope Of Negligence Liability, 2018 University of Maine School of Law
How The Law Court Uses Duty To Limit The Scope Of Negligence Liability, Paul F. Macri
Maine Law Review
The element of duty is the least understood and most amorphous element of negligence. One reason that duty is not well understood is that duty analysis combines consideration of fact-specific issues of foreseeability of harm, relationship between the parties, and seriousness of injury with analysis of the public policy implications of finding a duty in the specific case, including the burden that will be placed on defendants by imposing a duty. This is a delicate balancing act for most courts. Over the last eleven years, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, has employed duty analysis in ...
Inferences From Litigated Cases, 2018 USC Law School
Inferences From Litigated Cases, Daniel M. Klerman, Yoon-Ho Alex Lee
University of Southern California Legal Studies Working Paper Series
Priest and Klein (1984) argued that, because of selection effects, the percentage of litigated cases won by plaintiffs will not vary with the legal standard. Many researchers thereafter concluded that one could not make valid inferences about the character of the law from the percentage of cases plaintiffs won, nor could one measure legal change by observing changes in that percentage. This article argues that, even taking selection effects into account, one may be able to make valid inferences from the percentage of plaintiff trial victories. First, it analyzes selection effects under asymmetric information models. It shows that, under a ...
Mdl V. Trump: The Puzzle Of Public Law In Multidistrict Litigation, 2018 Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
Mdl V. Trump: The Puzzle Of Public Law In Multidistrict Litigation, Andrew D. Bradt, Zachary D. Clopton
Northwestern University Law Review
Litigation against the Trump Administration has proliferated rapidly since the inauguration. As cases challenging executive actions, such as the “travel ban,” multiply in federal courts around the country, an important procedural question has so far not been considered—Should these sets of cases be consolidated in a single court under the Multidistrict Litigation Act? Multidistrict litigation, or MDL, has become one of the most prominent parts of federal litigation and offers substantial benefits by coordinating litigation pending in geographically dispersed federal courts. Arguably, those benefits would also accrue if “public law” cases were given MDL treatment. There also are some ...
Castillo V. United Fed. Credit Union, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 3 (Feb. 1, 2018), 2018 University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law
Castillo V. United Fed. Credit Union, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 3 (Feb. 1, 2018), Jocelyn Murphy
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) in a class action suit parties may not aggregate putative class member claims to reach the statutorily required jurisdictional amount for subject matter jurisdiction; (2) NRS § 104.9625(3)(b) permits an individual to combine the amount of sought statutory damages with the proposed deficiency amount in consumer transactions to obtain the jurisdictional amount for subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) district courts possess original jurisdiction over all claims for injunctive relief, even those that fail to meet the jurisdictional amount.
Class Action Settlement Residue And Cy Pres Awards: Emerging Problems And Practical Solutions, 2018 McDermott Will & Emery LLP
Class Action Settlement Residue And Cy Pres Awards: Emerging Problems And Practical Solutions, Wilber H. Boies, Latonia Haney Keith
Latonia Haney Keith
Class action settlements often present the court and parties with the practical problem of disposing of residual funds that remain after distributions to class members. The cy pres doctrine is a well-recognized device that permits the court to designate suitable organizations to receive such funds. Recently, academics, judges, practitioners, and professional objectors have mounted a multi-faceted attack on this device, ranging from constitutional and ethical concerns to appeals challenging specific awards. This Article first describes the use of cy pres awards in class action settlements and explains why the constitutional, statutory, and ethical objections are unfounded. This Article then addresses ...
California V. United States Bureau Of Land Management, 2018 Alexander Blewett III School of Law at the University of Montana
California V. United States Bureau Of Land Management, Molly M. Kelly
Public Land and Resources Law Review
After President Trump’s Executive Order No. 13783 encouraging relaxing regulatory burdens on energy production, the Bureau of Land Management reevaluated its 2016 “Waste Prevention Rule” which addressed waste of natural gas from venting, flaring, or other leaks resulting from oil and natural gas production activities. The BLM sought to postpone the Rule’s compliance date to give the agency time to promulgate a new rule—effectively overruling the 2016 Rule. Plaintiffs challenged the agency’s compliance under the Administrative Procedures Act, and the court found the BLM did not properly follow APA requirements.
Rwu First Amendment Blog: Diana Hassel's Blog: How Will Supreme Court Slice Wedding Cake Case 01-11-2018, 2018 Roger Williams University School of Law
Rwu First Amendment Blog: Diana Hassel's Blog: How Will Supreme Court Slice Wedding Cake Case 01-11-2018, Diana Hassel
Law School Blogs
No abstract provided.
Discouraging Frivolous Copyright Infringement Claims: Fee Shifting Under Rule 11 Or 28 U.S.C. § 1927 As An Alternative To Awarding Attorney’S Fees Under Section 505 Of The Copyright Act, 2018 University of Georgia School of Law
Discouraging Frivolous Copyright Infringement Claims: Fee Shifting Under Rule 11 Or 28 U.S.C. § 1927 As An Alternative To Awarding Attorney’S Fees Under Section 505 Of The Copyright Act, David E. Shipley
Journal of Intellectual Property Law
The United States Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons resolved a disagreement over when it is appropriate to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant under section 505 of the Copyright Act, and ended a perceived venue advantage for losing plaintiffs in some jurisdictions. The Court ruled unanimously that courts are correct to give substantial weight to the question of whether the losing side had a reasonable case to fight, but that the objective reasonableness of that side’s position does not give rise to a presumption against fee shifting. It made clear that ...
Dorothy Moser Medlin Papers - Accession 1049, 2018 Winthrop University
Dorothy Moser Medlin Papers - Accession 1049, Dorothy Moser Medlin
(The Dorothy Moser Medlin Papers are currently in processing.)
This collection contains most of the records of Dorothy Medlin’s work and correspondence and also includes reference materials, notes, microfilm, photographic negatives related both to her professional and personal life. Additions include a FLES Handbook, co-authored by Dorothy Medlin and a decorative mirror belonging to Dorothy Medlin.
Major series in this collection include: some original 18th century writings and ephemera and primary source material of André Morellet, extensive collection of secondary material on André Morellet's writings and translations, Winthrop related files, literary manuscripts and notes by Dorothy Medlin (1966-2011 ...
Federal Rule 26(A)(2) Expert Witness Disclosures: Strategies For Composing And Attacking Expert Disclosures, 2018 Stites & Harbison, PLLC
Federal Rule 26(A)(2) Expert Witness Disclosures: Strategies For Composing And Attacking Expert Disclosures, Douglas B. Bates, Chelsea R. Stanley, James L. Burt Iii
Journal of Air Law and Commerce
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(A)(2) governs disclosure of expert testimony. The rule purports to create a clear delineation between experts that must provide a written report and those that do not. The rule then outlines the disclosure requirements that must be satisfied as to each type of expert. This article focuses on the implications of Rule 26(A)(2) in practice, with an emphasis on the field of aviation litigation. The article begins by discussing the general difference between non-retained experts and retained experts and the disclosure requirements associated with each. The article then progresses into a ...
Extending Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 4 (K) (2): A Way To (Partially) Clean Up The Personal Jurisdiction Mess, 2018 Creighton University School of Law
Extending Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 4 (K) (2): A Way To (Partially) Clean Up The Personal Jurisdiction Mess, Patrick J. Borchers
American University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Waiver, Work Product, And Worry: A Case For Clarifying The Waiver Doctrine In Oklahoma, 2018 University of Oklahoma College of Law
Waiver, Work Product, And Worry: A Case For Clarifying The Waiver Doctrine In Oklahoma, Mitchell B. Bryant
Oklahoma Law Review
No abstract provided.
Civil Procedure: You've Been Served . . . Or Have You?—Jaeger V. Palladium Holdings, 2018 Mitchell Hamline School of Law
Civil Procedure: You've Been Served . . . Or Have You?—Jaeger V. Palladium Holdings, Gus Cochran
Mitchell Hamline Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Logic And Limits Of Event Studies In Securities Fraud Litigation, 2018 University of Pennsylvania Law School
The Logic And Limits Of Event Studies In Securities Fraud Litigation, Jill E. Fisch, Jonah B. Gelbach, Jonathan Klick
Event studies have become increasingly important in securities fraud litigation after the Supreme Court’s decision in Halliburton II. Litigants have used event study methodology, which empirically analyzes the relationship between the disclosure of corporate information and the issuer’s stock price, to provide evidence in the evaluation of key elements of federal securities fraud, including materiality, reliance, causation, and damages. As the use of event studies grows and they increasingly serve a gatekeeping function in determining whether litigation will proceed beyond a preliminary stage, it will be critical for courts to use them correctly.
This Article explores an array ...
Ousted: The New Dynamics Of Privatized Procedure And Judicial Discretion, 2018 Brooklyn Law School
Ousted: The New Dynamics Of Privatized Procedure And Judicial Discretion, Robin Effron
No abstract provided.
Hogan Vs. Gawker Ii: A Statutory Solution To Fraudulent Joinder, 2018 Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University
Hogan Vs. Gawker Ii: A Statutory Solution To Fraudulent Joinder, Michelle S. Simon
Pace Law Faculty Publications
This Article will first review the intersection of federal jurisdiction and litigation strategy by examining the requirements for diversity jurisdiction in federal court as well as the circumstances that must be present to allow a defendant to remove a case from state court to federal court. The Article will then review the history of the court-created doctrine of fraudulent joinder, and will examine the various tests currently in use by the lower federal courts. The Article will then address whether it makes more sense to create a statutory solution, and will examine and analyze the Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act of ...
Defining The Limits To Abuse Of Process: Lim Geok Lin Andy V Yap Jin Meng Bryan, 2018 Singapore Management University
Defining The Limits To Abuse Of Process: Lim Geok Lin Andy V Yap Jin Meng Bryan, Dorcas Quek Anderson
Research Collection School Of Law
The abuse of process jurisdiction, which forms part of the doctrine of res judicata, is meant to uphold finality of litigation and prevent abusive litigation. While the jurisdiction has been applied to the original parties of earlier court proceedings, it could also prevent a person who was not part of earlier court proceedings from litigating his claim. In such circumstances, the abuse of process doctrine has to be cognisant of the commercial realities and motivations driving choices to advance separate rather than consolidated proceedings, while also protecting litigants from repeated litigation. A recent Singapore Court of Appeal decision imposed constraints ...