Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
Jury Nullification As A Spectrum, Richard Lorren Jolly
Jury Nullification As A Spectrum, Richard Lorren Jolly
Pepperdine Law Review
Jury nullification traditionally refers to the jury’s power to deliver a verdict that is deliberately contrary to the law’s clearly dictated outcome. A spirited scholarship is built around this conception, with some painting nullification as democratic and others as anarchic. But this debate is largely unmoored from experience. In practice, courts have formally eliminated the jury’s authority to review the law and have established procedures that make it easier to prevent and overturn seemingly nullificatory verdicts. Thus, outside of a jury’s verdict acquitting a criminal defendant, jury nullification as traditionally understood does not exist. In no other context is a …
Litigating In The 21st Century: Amending Challenges For Cause In Light Of Big Data, Andrew Kasabian
Litigating In The 21st Century: Amending Challenges For Cause In Light Of Big Data, Andrew Kasabian
Pepperdine Law Review
The amount of data generated daily is growing exponentially. The majority of this data is unstructured data. Big Data analytics provides the capability to analyze sets of unrelated data to find hidden and meaningful correlations and predict an individual’s future actions. Therefore, Big Data can alter trial preparation by opening up new sets of information for lawyers to analyze in the jury selection process. Privacy concerns may follow Big Data’s incorporation because Big Data aggregates an individual’s information and predicts future actions. This Comment details how Big Data will provide a net benefit to trial preparation. In order to protect …
The Universal Remedy For Attorney Abandonment: Why Holland V. Florida And Maples V. Thomas Give All Courts The Power To Vacate Civil Judgments Against Abandoned Clients By Way Of Rule 60(B)(6), Stephen White
Pepperdine Law Review
This Article argues that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) is the only remedy that courts can always rely on to enforce this power. The universal availability of this statutory rule, which states that courts can vacate judgments against parties “for any . . . reason that justifies relief,” ensures that courts can safeguard clients from the conduct of attorneys who have abandoned them. Part II of this Comment provides an overview of the distinct models the Supreme Court has utilized to evaluate attorney misconduct and the circumstances that bind clients to that misconduct. Part II also describes in detail …
The California Constitutional Right Of Privacy And Exclusion Of Evidence In Civil Proceedings, Jerry D. Mackey
The California Constitutional Right Of Privacy And Exclusion Of Evidence In Civil Proceedings, Jerry D. Mackey
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Allocation Of Responsibility After American Motorcycle Association V. Superior Court, Erwin E. Adler
Allocation Of Responsibility After American Motorcycle Association V. Superior Court, Erwin E. Adler
Pepperdine Law Review
In its landmark case of Li v. Yellow Cab Co., the California Supreme Court judicially adopted the doctrine of comparative negligence in an action involving a plaintiff and a single defendant. The court in Li specifically avoided making any decision concerning the numerous issues which would be involved in a multi-party action: the relationship of multiple defendants with one another, the right of one defendant to join others for the purpose of sharing payment of the judgment, the respective responsibilities of such parties for the judgment (including those insolvent, partially solvent or possessing an immunity), and the procedure for the …
World-Wide Volkswagen Corporation V. Woodson: Minimum Contacts In A Modern World, Craig H. Millet
World-Wide Volkswagen Corporation V. Woodson: Minimum Contacts In A Modern World, Craig H. Millet
Pepperdine Law Review
World Wide Volkswagen Corporation v. Woodson considers the problem of modifying in personam jurisdiction to comply with the changing nature of the American economy. Several lower courts had adjusted the "minimum contacts" test of International Shoe Co. v. Washington to allow for the differences in modern economic lifestyle, but a uniformity amongst the various approaches was lacking. Rather than synthesize a contemporary test for the assertion of in personam jurisdiction, the World- Wide Court chose to place state sovereignty above modern commercial realities and adhere to a more rigid application of the minimum contacts analysis. The author takes issue with …
The Sanction Provision Of The New California Civil Discovery Act, Section 2023: Will It Make A Difference Or Is It Just Another "Paper Tiger"? , Timothy Michael Donovan
The Sanction Provision Of The New California Civil Discovery Act, Section 2023: Will It Make A Difference Or Is It Just Another "Paper Tiger"? , Timothy Michael Donovan
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Addressing The "Elephantine Mass" Of Asbestos Cases: Consolidation Versus Inactive Dockets (Pleural Registries) And Case Management Plans That Defer Claims Filed By The Non-Sick, Victor E. Schwartz, Mark A, Behrens, Rochelle M. Tedesco
Addressing The "Elephantine Mass" Of Asbestos Cases: Consolidation Versus Inactive Dockets (Pleural Registries) And Case Management Plans That Defer Claims Filed By The Non-Sick, Victor E. Schwartz, Mark A, Behrens, Rochelle M. Tedesco
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Merging Roles: Mass Tort Lawyers As Agents And Trustees, Charles Silver
Merging Roles: Mass Tort Lawyers As Agents And Trustees, Charles Silver
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Twombly Revolution?, Douglas G.. Smith
The Twombly Revolution?, Douglas G.. Smith
Pepperdine Law Review
In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the Supreme Court issued a decision that has been described as nothing less than "startling". In a 7-2 decision, the Court provided an interpretation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that has significantly increased the level of scrutiny that federal courts must apply in determining the sufficiency of the pleadings. While some have characterized the Court's decision as "vague" or poorly-reasoned, this article defends the Twombly decision as both a correct and welcome development in the law regarding the appropriate pleading standard under Rule 8(a). The article argues that the Court's decision is …