Let's Talk About Text: Contracts, Claims, And Judicial Philosophy At The Federal Circuit,
2012
Indiana University - Maurer School of Law, Bloomington, IN
Let's Talk About Text: Contracts, Claims, And Judicial Philosophy At The Federal Circuit, Andrew T. Langford
IP Theory
No abstract provided.
Newman, J., Dissenting: Another Vision Of The Federal Circuit,
2012
Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry LLP, Indianapolis, IN
Newman, J., Dissenting: Another Vision Of The Federal Circuit, Blake R. Hartz
IP Theory
No abstract provided.
Putting State Courts In The Constitutional Driver's Seat: State Taxpayer Standing After Cuno And Winn,
2012
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Putting State Courts In The Constitutional Driver's Seat: State Taxpayer Standing After Cuno And Winn, Edward A. Zelinsky
Articles
This article explores the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno and Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. In Cuno and Winn, the Court held that state taxpayers lacked standing in the federal courts. Because the states have more liberal taxpayer standing rules than do the federal courts, Cuno and Winn will not terminate taxpayers’ constitutional challenges to state taxes and expenditures, but will instead channel such challenges from the federal courts (where taxpayers do not have standing) to the state courts (where they do). Moreover, municipal taxpayer standing in the federal courts, which …
Erie, Swift, And Legal Positivism,
2012
William & Mary Law School
Erie, Swift, And Legal Positivism, Michael S. Green
Popular Media
No abstract provided.
Foreign Law Firms In India: An Economic Perspective On The War For Indian Legal Services Market?,
2012
Adyopant Legal Services
Foreign Law Firms In India: An Economic Perspective On The War For Indian Legal Services Market?, Maurya Vijay Chandra
Maurya Vijay Chandra
Entry of foreign law firms has been a hot topic in the legal fraternity in India for more than a decade now. Some have been looking for their arrival in India with great sense of anticipation and others have raised a queer pitch to keep them out. The formal battle lines are drawn along the legal possibility of foreign law firm's entry into India. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the Lawyers Collective Case held that it is illegal for the foreign law firms to open liaison offices in India, but recently, the ruling by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in …
Testing The Borders: The Boundaries Of State And Local Power To Regulate Illegal Immigration ,
2012
Pepperdine University
Testing The Borders: The Boundaries Of State And Local Power To Regulate Illegal Immigration , Brittney M. Lane
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Piracy Prosecutions In National Courts,
2012
Cornell Law School
Piracy Prosecutions In National Courts, Maggie Gardner
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
At least for the time being, the international community must rely on national courts to prosecute modern-day pirates. The first wave of domestic piracy prosecutions suggests, however, that domestic courts have yet to achieve the necessary consistency and expertise in resolving key questions of international law in these cases. This article evaluates how courts trying modern-day pirates have addressed common questions of international law regarding the exercise of universal jurisdiction, the elements of the crime of piracy, and the principle of nullum crimen sine lege. In doing so, it evaluates five decisions issued in 2010 by courts in Kenya, the …
Amicus Brief In Support Of Neither Party In Sebelius V. Auburn Reg. Med. Ctr., No. 11-1231,
2012
University of California Hastings College of Law
Amicus Brief In Support Of Neither Party In Sebelius V. Auburn Reg. Med. Ctr., No. 11-1231, Scott Dodson
Scott Dodson
This amicus brief in support of neither party in the merits case of Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, No. 11-1231, urges the Supreme Court to decide the question presented (whether 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(a)(3) permits equitable tolling) without resort to jurisdictional labels.
Redeeming Erie: A Response To Suzanna Sherry ,
2012
Pepperdine University
Redeeming Erie: A Response To Suzanna Sherry , Donald Earl Childress Iii
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Wrong, Out Of Step, And Pernicious: Erie As The Worst Decision Of All Time,
2012
Pepperdine University
Wrong, Out Of Step, And Pernicious: Erie As The Worst Decision Of All Time, Suzanna Sherry
Pepperdine Law Review
This essay was written for “Supreme Mistakes: Exploring the Most Maligned Decisions in Supreme Court History.” A symposium on the worst Supreme Court decision of all time risks becoming an exercise best described by Claude Rains’s memorable line in Casablanca: “Round up the usual suspects.” Two things saved this symposium from that fate. First, each of the usual suspects was appointed defense counsel, which made things more interesting. Second, a new face found its way into the line-up: Erie Railroad v. Tompkins. My goal in this essay is to explain why Erie is in fact guiltier than all of the …
Democracy And Disenfranchisement In Washington, D.C.,
2012
American University Washington College of Law
Democracy And Disenfranchisement In Washington, D.C., Jamin B. Raskin, Cathleen Caron
Jamin Raskin
No abstract provided.
Hypothetical Jurisdiction And Interjurisdictional Preclusion: A "Comity" Of Errors,
2012
Pepperdine University
Hypothetical Jurisdiction And Interjurisdictional Preclusion: A "Comity" Of Errors, Ely Todd Chayet
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Post-Iqbal State Of Pleading: An Argument Opposing A Uniform National Pleading Regime,
2012
University of Miami Law School
The Post-Iqbal State Of Pleading: An Argument Opposing A Uniform National Pleading Regime, Mark W. Payne
University of Miami Business Law Review
The U.S. Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal placed a squeeze on the once touted liberal Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by requiring judges to consider the veracity of potential plaintiffs' federal claims in light of Iqbal's new heightened pleading standard. This article examines post-Iqbal pleading standards across United States jurisdictions and argues that states should exert caution before choosing to adopt Iqbal's new "plausibility" standard, and if they elect to modify their pleading standards in light of the Iqbal decision, they should also carefully contemplate their method of adoption.
Embracing Tribal Sovereignty To Eliminate Criminal Jurisdiction Chaos,
2012
University of Michigan Law School
Embracing Tribal Sovereignty To Eliminate Criminal Jurisdiction Chaos, Lindsey Trainor Golden
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Note argues that the current federal laws regarding tribal criminal jurisdiction are contrary to existing policies that recognize inherent tribal sovereignty, and that to fully restore tribal sovereignty and reduce reservation crime rates, Congress should revise the MCA and the TLOA to comprehensively address the legal barriers that adversely affect tribes' ability to prosecute crimes committed within their geographic borders. Part I outlines the historical progression of laws addressing criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country and identifies the problems with the law's disregard and displacement of tribal sovereignty. Part II examines the current state of criminal jurisdiction on reservations-focusing on …
Does The Judge Matter? Exploiting Random Assignment On A Court Of Last Resort To Assess Judge And Case Selection Effects,
2012
Cornell Law School
Does The Judge Matter? Exploiting Random Assignment On A Court Of Last Resort To Assess Judge And Case Selection Effects, Theodore Eisenberg, Talia Fisher, Issi Rosen-Zvi
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
We study 1,410 mandatory jurisdiction and 48 discretionary jurisdiction criminal law case outcomes in cases appealed to the Israel Supreme Court in 2006 and 2007 to assess influences on case outcomes. A methodological innovation is accounting for factors - case specialization, seniority, and workload - that modify random case assignment. To the extent one accounts for nonrandom assignment, one can infer that case outcome differences are judge effects. In mandatory jurisdiction cases, individual justices cast 3,986 votes and differed by as much as 15 percent in the probability of casting a vote favoring defendants. Female justices were about 2 to …
Revisiting Extraterritoriality After Al-Skeini: The Echr And Its Lessons,
2012
UC Davis School of Law
Revisiting Extraterritoriality After Al-Skeini: The Echr And Its Lessons, Barbara Miltner
Michigan Journal of International Law
On July 7, 2011, the European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber, handed down two long-awaited judgments on the subject of the extraterritorial reach and scope of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In both Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom and Al-Jedda v. United Kingdom, the underlying issue was whether or not the United Kingdom was bound by its treaty obligations under the ECHR with regard to its military presence in Iraq. Al-Skeini involved the joined claims of six Iraqi nationals whose relatives were killed while allegedly under U.K. jurisdiction in Iraq; they claimed a lack of …
Pitfalls And Promises Of Social Media And Mobile Lawyering,
2012
Touro Law Center
Pitfalls And Promises Of Social Media And Mobile Lawyering, Jonathan I. Ezor
Jonathan I. Ezor
No abstract provided.
Judicial Re-Use:«Codification» Or Return Of Hegelism? The Comparative Arguments In The “South” Of The World,
2012
University of Salento
Judicial Re-Use:«Codification» Or Return Of Hegelism? The Comparative Arguments In The “South” Of The World, Prof. Michele Carducci
Michele Carducci Prof.
No abstract provided.
Traveling To The Hague In A Worn-Out Shoe,
2012
Pepperdine University
Traveling To The Hague In A Worn-Out Shoe, Friedrich K. Juenger
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
De-Frauding The System: Sham Plaintiffs And The Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine,
2012
University of Michigan Law School
De-Frauding The System: Sham Plaintiffs And The Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine, Matthew C. Monahan
Michigan Law Review
Playing off the strict requirements of federal diversity jurisdiction, plaintiffs can structure their suits to prevent removal to federal court. A common way to preclude removability is to join a nondiverse party. Although plaintiffs have a great deal of flexibility, they may include only those parties that have a stake in the lawsuit. Put another way, a court will not permit a plaintiff to join a party to a lawsuit when that party is being joined solely to prevent removal. The most useful tool federal courts employ to prevent this form of jurisdictional manipulation is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure …
