Law Commons^™

Pro Se Litigants In The U.S. Supreme Court: How Do They Fare?, Kyle Persaud

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Pioneers, Waves, And Random Walks Of Securities Law In The Supreme Court, Elizabeth Pollman

Seattle University Law Review

After the pioneers, waves, and random walks that have animated the history of securities laws in the U.S. Supreme Court, we might now be on the precipice of a new chapter. Pritchard and Thompson’s superb book, A History of Securities Law in the Supreme Court, illuminates with rich archival detail how the Court’s view of the securities laws and the SEC have changed over time and how individuals have influenced this history. The book provides an invaluable resource for understanding nearly a century’s worth of Supreme Court jurisprudence in the area of securities law and much needed context for …

Three Stories: A Comment On Pritchard & Thompson’S A History Of Securities Laws In The Supreme Court, Harwell Wells

Seattle University Law Review

Adam Pritchard and Robert Thompson’s A History of Securities Laws in the Supreme Court should stand for decades as the definitive work on the Federal securities laws’ career in the Supreme Court across the twentieth century.1 Like all good histories, it both tells a story and makes an argument. The story recounts how the Court dealt with the major securities laws, as well the agency charged with enforcing them, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the rules it promulgated, from the 1930s into the twenty-first century. But the book does not just string together a series of events, “one …

Students For Fair Admissions: Affirming Affirmative Action And Shapeshifting Towards Cognitive Diversity?, Steven A. Ramirez

Seattle University Law Review

The Roberts Court holds a well-earned reputation for overturning Supreme Court precedent regardless of the long-standing nature of the case. The Roberts Court knows how to overrule precedent. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), the Court’s majority opinion never intimates that it overrules Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court’s leading opinion permitting race-based affirmative action in college admissions. Instead, the Roberts Court applied Grutter as authoritative to hold certain affirmative action programs entailing racial preferences violative of the Constitution. These programs did not provide an end point, nor did they require assessment, review, periodic expiration, or revision for greater …

Doe V. Nestle, S.A.: Chocolate And The Prohibition On Child Slavery, Megan M. Coppa

Pace International Law Review

West Africa is presently home to approximately 1.5 million acres of cocoa farmland, which subsequently produces 70% of the world’s current chocolate supply. Côte d’Ivoire, also known as the Ivory Coast, is one of the largest cocoa producing countries within West Africa.

The increase of farmland and the need to control the deteriorating conditions have always created a demand for farm workers. Regrettably, more than 1.5 million cocoa farm workers in West Africa are currently children. These child workers are exposed to hazardous dust, flames, smoke, and chemicals, are required to utilize dangerous tools that they are not properly trained …

The Essentially-At-Home Requirement For General Jurisdiction: Some Embarrassing Cases, David Crump

Catholic University Law Review

In Daimler AG v. Baumann, the Supreme Court held that general jurisdiction does not exist unless the defendant is “essentially at home” in the forum. It offered two examples of places fitting this description but gave little further guidance or justification. A metaphor, such as essentially at home, is a bad way to express a legal standards, because the essence of a metaphor is that it substitutes one reality for another, creating a deliberate confusion. The Court also equated general jurisdiction with what it called all-purpose jurisdiction, which is wrong because it is easy to pose cases in which general …

Towards A New Role Of The Supreme Court As A Degree Of Litigation "The Supreme Court As Second Or Third Degree Of Litigation" "A Comparative Study" - Part (I), Prof. Mostafa El-Metwally Quandil

UAEU Law Journal

In principle, the Supreme Court must refer the reversed decision to the trial court for a new decision, because the role of the Supreme Court is to make a final determination on questions of law and not to hear a case. That being said, there is a recent tendency according to which the Supreme Court acts as a second or third degree court, competent to decide reviewed cases without referring to the trial court.

Towards A New Role Of The Supreme Court As A Degree Of Litigation "The Supreme Court As Second Or Third Degree Of Litigation" "A Comparative Study"- Part (Ii), Prof. Mostafa El-Metwally Quandil

UAEU Law Journal

In principle, the Court of Cassation refers the appealed judgment in which to transmit the merits of the case to the trial court (First Instance Court) to rule again, because its main role is to assess the legal provisions and not the subject of the disputes presented before it. However, this has been partially changed to the extent that it may be said that the Court of Cassation considered - in some cases and in some legislation – as second or third level of litigation; where - in this case - and then set aside the appealed judgment dismissal on …

An Appellate Solution To Nationwide Injunctions, Sam Heavenrich

Indiana Law Journal

District courts have issued an unprecedented number of nationwide injunctions during the Obama and Trump administrations, provoking criticism from the Supreme Court. This Article proposes a change to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that addresses the Justices’ concerns without taking the drastic step of eliminating nationwide injunctions entirely. Specifically, this Article recommends amending Rule 65 to allow only the appellate courts to issue injunctive relief that extends beyond the plaintiffs in cases challenging a federal law or policy. In addition to the proposed Rule change, this Article offers a categorization framework for existing proposals addressing nationwide injunctions, classifying them …

Why Do The Poor Not Have A Constitutional Right To File Civil Claims In Court Under Their First Amendment Right To Petition The Government For A Redress Of Grievances?, Henry Rose

Seattle University Law Review

Since 1963, the United States Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right for American groups, organizations, and persons to pursue civil litigation under the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. However, in three cases involving poor plaintiffs decided by the Supreme Court in the early 1970s—Boddie v. Connecticut,2 United States v. Kras,3 and Ortwein v. Schwab4—the Supreme Court rejected arguments that all persons have a constitutional right to access courts to pursue their civil legal claims.5 In the latter two cases, Kras and Ortwein, the Supreme Court concluded that poor persons were properly barred from …

Neither Safe, Nor Legal, Nor Rare: The D.C. Circuit’S Use Of The Doctrine Of Ratification To Shield Agency Action From Appointments Clause Challenges, Damien M. Schiff

Seattle University Law Review

Key to the constitutional design of the federal government is the separation of powers. An important support for that separation is the Appointments Clause, which governs how officers of the United States are installed in their positions. Although the separation of powers generally, and the Appointments Clause specifically, support democratically accountable government, they also protect individual citizens against abusive government power. But without a judicial remedy, such protection is ineffectual—a mere parchment barrier.

Such has become the fate of the Appointments Clause in the D.C. Circuit, thanks to that court’s adoption—and zealous employment—of the rule that agency action, otherwise unconstitutional …

Justice Ginsburg, Civil Procedure Professor And Champion Of Judicial Federalism, Rodger D. Citron

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rethinking Standards Of Appellate Review, Adam Steinman

Indiana Law Journal

Every appellate decision typically begins with the standard of appellate review. The Supreme Court has shown considerable interest in selecting the standard of appellate review for particular issues, frequently granting certiorari in order to decide whether de novo or deferential review governs certain trial court rulings. This Article critiques the Court's framework for making this choice and questions the desirability of assigning distinct standards of appellate review on an issue-by-issue basis. Rather, the core functions of appellate courts are better served by a single template for review that dispenses with the recurring uncertainty over which standard governs which trial court …

Fmc Corp. V. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Seth T. Bonilla

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In 1998, FMC Corporation agreed to submit to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ permitting processes, including the payment of fees, for clean-up work required as part of consent decree negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency. Then, in 2002, FMC refused to pay the Tribes under a permitting agreement entered into by both parties, even though the company continued to store hazardous waste on land within the Shoshone-Bannock Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho. FMC challenged the Tribes’ authority to enforce the $1.5 million permitting fees first in tribal court and later challenged the Tribes’ authority to exercise civil regulatory and adjudicatory jurisdiction over …

Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Civil Practice And Procedure, Christopher S. Dadak

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Is It Necessary For Corporations To Be Essentially At Home?: An Exploration Of Exceptional Cases, Priscilla Heinz

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Facts Are Stubborn Things": Protecting Due Process From Virulent Publicity, Benjamin Brafman, Darren Stakey

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Employment Discrimination Class Actions After Wal-Mart V. Dukes, Michael Selmi, Sylvia Tsakos

Akron Law Review

This Article explores the ramifications of Wal-Mart approximately five years after the case was decided. While five years hardly provides definitive data on how the case will be interpreted, it is possible to identify trends in the cases that have been decided to date—trends that are likely to provide insight into the future of class action claims. That future suggests that there will be fewer, and perhaps no, nationwide class actions in cases that do not involve a clear challenged practice (any such cases are likely to be disparate impact cases) and that the prospect for class certification will turn …

The Class Abides: Class Actions And The "Roberts Court", Elizabeth J. Cabraser

Akron Law Review

This Article does not delve deeply into the substantive issues of Wal-Mart, Concepcion, or Italian Colors...My focus is on how Rule 23 has fared, structurally and practically, in the aftermath of the “common answer” formulation of Wal-Mart; three other decisions of the Roberts Court, Dukes, Amgen, and Comcast; and three cases that the Roberts Court did not ultimately take in the wake of Amgen and Comcast: its denials of review in Whirlpool, Butler, and Deepwater. Also discussed is the newly intense debate on the use of cy pres, catalyzed by Chief Justice Roberts’ extraordinary “Statement” accompanying the denial of certiorari …

First Amendment Decisions - 2002 Term, Joel Gora

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is The Antidiscrimination Project Being Ended?, Michael J. Zimmer

Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality

No abstract provided.

The New Uniform Statute Of Limitations For Federal Securities Fraud Actions: Its Evolution, Its Impact, And A Call For Reform, Anthony Michael Sabino

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ashcroft V. Iqbal: Contempt For Rules, Statutes, The Constitution, And Elemental Fairness, Steve Subrin

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. V. Shute: The Titanic Of Worst Decisions, Linda S. Mullenix

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Lassiter V. Department Of Social Services: Why Is It Such A Lousy Case?, Brooke D. Coleman

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Tending To Potted Plants: The Professional Identity Vacuum In Garcetti V. Ceballos, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

What The Federal Circuit Can Learn From The Supreme Court-And Vice Versa, Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States V. Hatahley: A Legal Archaeology Case Study In Law And Racial Conflict, Debora L. Threedy

American Indian Law Review

This article is a case study of United States v. Hatahley using the methodology of "legal archaeology" to reconstruct the historical, social, and economic context of the litigation. In 1953, a group of individual Navajos brought suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the destruction of over one hundred horses and burros. The first section of the article presents two contrasting narratives for the case. The first relates what we know about the case from the reported opinions, while the second locates the litigated case within the larger social context by examining the parties, the history of incidents culminating …

Ascertaining The Burden Of Proof For An Award For Punitive Damages In New York? Consult Your Local Appellate Division, Leon D. Lazer, John R. Higgitt

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.