Law Commons^™

The Merits Of Third-Party Standing, Brian Charles Lea

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

When can a litigant assert someone else’s rights in federal court? The courts currently purport to adhere to a “prudential” justiciability rule barring such “thirdparty standing.” But the Supreme Court has devised exceptions—jus tertii standing and First Amendment overbreadth—under which courts can ignore that rule. The Court has never explained the source of that remarkable judicial power to choose what rights litigants can assert. The doctrine of third-party standing is, in short, an undertheorized muddle. Thankfully, the Court suggested in its 2014 decision in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., that it might soon try to bring order …

The "Test"--Or Lack Thereof--For Issuance Of Virginia Temporary Injunctions: The Current Uncertainty And A Recommended Approach Based On Federal Preliminary Injunction Law, Hon. David W. Lannetti

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Civil Practice And Procedure, John R. Walker, Jaime B. Wisegarver

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 55: Why Broadly Interpreting "Otherwise Defend" Protects A Diligent Party's Rights And Encourages An Orderly And Efficient Judicial System, Jessica Ruoff

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note argues that a uniform interpretation of "otherwise defend" is needed. Part I of this Note discusses the history and purpose of Rule 55, the procedure for entries of default and default judgment, and other alternatives to Rule 55 default judgments. Part II of this Note examines how the language "otherwise defend" has been interpreted differently by the federal circuit courts. Part III of this Note argues that the majority's broad interpretation of "otherwise defend" should be adopted as the uniform interpretation because it is supported by statutory interpretation and the underlying purpose of Rule 55.

Broader Is Better: How Courts Should Determine Whether Or Not An Allegation Of Fraud Falls Under The Preemption Provision Of The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, Jennifer Rose Roeske

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note argues that the correct approach for interpreting the scope of SLUSA's preemption language is the "literalist" approach taken by the Sixth Circuit. Part I of this Note lays out the legal framework of the Reform Act of 1995, Congress's intent in enacting the legislation, and the unintended consequences that flowed from the PSLRA's heightened pleading requirements. Part I also discusses SLUSA, what led to its passage, and its preemption language. Additionally, it looks at the Supreme Court's interpretation of preemption statutes generally, as well as the Supreme Court's broad interpretation of SLUSA in Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner …

The Shortcomings Of New York's Long-Arm Statute: Defamation In The Age Of Technology, Robert D. Nussbaum

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note suggests that the New York legislature amend New York's long-arm statute so that it no longer excludes the tort of defamation as a basis for long-arm jurisdiction. Part I provides a brief background and history of jurisdiction and longarm statutes in general. It also focuses on New York's statute more specifically. Part II focuses on the arguments for excluding acts of defamation from long-arm jurisdiction and compares New York's statute to those of other states. Finally, Part III examines the different policy reasons for changing the statute and argues that such a change will not offend Due …

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 …

The Electronic Document Retention System Ate My Homework: Gross Negligence And The Rebuttable Presumption Of Prejudice Within The Doctrine Of Spoliation In Federal Courts, Tristan Evans-Wilent

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note argues against imposing such a rebuttable presumption where the spoliating party acted with gross negligence. Part I provides a general background of the doctrine of spoliation and its application to electronic information. Part II examines the three different approaches taken by the federal circuits to whether gross negligence should trigger a rebuttable presumption that the spoliated evidence was prejudicial to the spoliating party. Finally, Part III argues that courts should not allow gross negligence to trigger a rebuttable presumption that the spoliated evidence was prejudicial to the spoliating party.

Preservation Rules In The Federal Courts Of Appeals, Ian S. Speir, Nima H. Mohebbi

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Rule 26(B)(1) Proportionality Amendment: Three Outcomes Will Be Contrary To The Advisory Committee's Stated Intent, Including Who Bears The Burden Of Proving Proportionality, Amii N. Castle

North Carolina Central Law Review

No abstract provided.

Erie And Preemption: Killing One Bird With Two Stones, Jeffrey Rensberger

Indiana Law Journal

The Supreme Court has developed a standard account of the Erie doctrine. The Court has directed different analyses of Erie cases depending upon whether the federal law in question is in the form of a federal rule (or statute) or is instead a judge-made law. But the cases applying the doctrine are difficult to explain using the standard account. Although the Court and commentators have noted that Erie is a type of preemption, they provide little, if any, rigorous analysis of Erie in light of preemption doctrines. This Article attempts to fill that void, offering an extended analysis of Erie …

Procedural Triage, Matthew J.B. Lawrence

Fordham Law Review

Prior scholarship has assumed that the inherent value of a "day in court" is the same for all claimants, so that when procedural resources (like a jury trial or a hearing) are scarce, they should be rationed the same way for all claimants. That is incorrect. This Article shows that the inherent value of a "day in court" can be far greater for some claimants, such as first-time filers, than for others, such as corporate entities and that it can be both desirable and feasible to take this variation into account in doling out scarce procedural protections. In other words, …

"A Distinction Without A Difference"?: Bartlett Going Forward, Steven A. Schwartz

Fordham Law Review

This Note addresses the question of whether federal law preempts state design defect claims against generic drug manufacturers regardless of which test state law uses to determine whether a drug is defective. This issue, arising out of the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of preemption jurisprudence and fundamental tort law as stated in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, is significant because it plays a large role in determining to what extent generic drug manufacturers are immune to civil liability arising out of injuries caused by their generic drugs. In an age of rising medical costs and jury awards, both plaintiff …

The Admissibility Of Hearsay Evidence In New York State Sex Offender Civil Commitment Hearings After State V. Floyd Y.: Finding A Balance Between Promoting The General Welfare Of Sexual Assault Victims And Providing Due Process Of Law, Brittany K. Dryer

Fordham Law Review

In twenty states throughout the country, the government may petition for the civil commitment of detained sex offenders after they are released from prison. Although processes differ among the states, the government must generally show at a court proceeding that a detained sex offender both suffers from a mental abnormality and is dangerous and that this combination makes a detained sex offender likely to reoffend. At such court proceedings, both the government and the respondent will present evidence to either the court or the jury on these issues. As in most court proceedings, hearsay evidence is inadmissible at sex offender …

The Discovery Sombrero And Other Metaphors For Litigation, William H. J. Hubbard

Catholic University Law Review

Little is known about discovery costs in civil litigation, particularly in regard to preservation—the duty to preserve relevant information when litigation is reasonably anticipated. This article is one of the first to present and analyze empirical evidence on the nature and costs of preservation and discovery. Using this data, the author proposes three new metaphors for civil litigation: the discovery sombrero, the preservation iceberg, and the long tail of litigation costs. These metaphors help demonstrate the sometimes surprising ways that the Erie doctrine, the role of technology in litigation, and the Federal Rules’ commitment to transsubstantivity interact with current challenges …

Walk A Mile In The Shoes Of A Copyright Troll: Analyzing And Overcoming The Joinder Issue In Bittorrent Lawsuits, Kristina Unanyan

The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law

This Comment analyzes the issues surrounding joinder of copyright infringers who use BitTorrent, explores how joinder can be used and limited to create a more viable solution for copyright holders and consumers, as well as, supplements the sparse regulations that encompass joinder to create a rule that accommodates this technological era. Part II explains Copyright Law and the procedural aspects of a copyright infringement suit and joinder of defendants. Part III delves into the history of peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing lawsuits and provides an illustration of where case law rests today regarding P2P networks. Part IV describes the BitTorrent network and …

Keep On Truckin', Uber: Using The Dormant Commerce Clause To Challenge Regulatory Roadblocks To Tncs, Boris Bindman

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

No abstract provided.

Suspicious Person Ordinances - Due Process Standards; Columbus V. Thompson, Joel R. Campbell

Akron Law Review

In the absence of circumstances involving First Amendment rights, we are left without guidelines as to the conduct which may be made criminal by local suspicious person ordinances. Because of this lack of adequate standards, a case by case determination of criminal conduct under the various ordinances is necessary. In Thompson the defendant's conduct was questionable and the court found the ordinance unconstitutionally vague. We can only hope that this decision has a sufficient impact upon law enforcement officials and local courts to minimize the injury resulting from vagueness.

The Ohio Rules Of Civil Procedure And Their Effect On Real Property Titles, Alvin W. Lasher

Akron Law Review

T HE REVOLUTION IS HERE! It has come quietly, almost without a murmur of opposition or civil discord. Indeed, many who will be most profoundly affected by it were not-are not even now, perhaps-aware of its coming. But it is here, nevertheless. The revolution in question, of course, relates not to some massive proletarian uprising which many today profess to see upon the horizon, but to the revolution in Ohio procedural law which became effective on July 1, 1970. For a revolution indeed it is, bringing changes so sweeping in their nature that the procedural law, both statutory and judge-made, …

The Ohio Rules Of Civil Procedure And Their Effect On Real Property Titles, Alvin W. Lasher

Akron Law Review

The revolution is here! It has come quietly, almost without a murmur of opposition or civil discord. Indeed, many who will be most profoundly affected by it were not-are not even now, perhaps-aware of its coming. But it is here, nevertheless. The revolution in question, of course, relates not to some massive proletarian uprising which many today profess to see upon the horizon, but to the revolution in Ohio procedural law which became effective on July 1, 1970. For a revolution indeed it is, bringing changes so sweeping in their nature that the procedural law, both statutory and judge-made, which …

Voir Dire: Strategy And Tactics In The Defense Of Social And Political Activists, Murray R. Bowes

Akron Law Review

With the courts increasingly being the forum for legal disputes between those who demand change in the superstructure and those who represent (or are) the structure, a rather unfortunate by-product has evolved: a feeling that the courts can no longer adequately dispense justice.8 This manifests itself in beliefs that if one is prosecuted for activities that were designed to advance social change, either in violation of the law or not, that the individual will not be afforded a fair trial; 9 a reflection that the social or political activist will not be judged by an impartial jury….For the purposes of …

Pleading Patents: Predicting The Outcome Of Statutorily Heightening Pleading Standards, Arjun Rangarajan

Duke Law & Technology Review

The tension between an extremely barebones Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Form 18 for patent infringement lawsuits and Supreme Court case law through Twombly and Iqbal has made it difficult for courts to dismiss frivolous patent litigation at the complaint stage. In this article, I look at the Federal Circuit’s treatment of Twombly and Iqbal, empirically evaluate 12(b)(6) motions from various district courts, and summarize local patent rules from the Eastern District of Texas. I conclude that the biggest likely impact of statutorily heightening and defining patent pleading standards through the proposed Innovation Act would be to provide much-needed uniformity …

The Prevailing Party Should Recover Counsel Fees, Michael F. Mayer, Wayne Stix

Akron Law Review

THE TIME HAS COME when our judicial system should make compensation to the prevailing party for expenses incurred in litigation a meaningful right, as opposed to a valueless gesture. In brief, this means that in the bulk of civil cases a successful party should no longer have to bear the full burden of his own counsel fees, and conversely those who take to our courts in vain should no longer be permitted to avoid the justice of substantial participation in the costs they have occasioned. To do this requires considerable alteration of the present cost structure applied by our rules …

Standing; Assertion Of Jus Tertii; Sex Discrimination; Equal Protection; Twenty-First Amendment; Craig V. Boren, Anthony Sadowski

Akron Law Review

"A PPELLANTS brought an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The complaint charged that the operation of two Oklahoma statutes, which prohibited the sale of 3.2% beer to males under the age of 21 while allowing females over the age of 18 to purchase the commodity, violated the fourteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution. The three-judge court held that the gender-based classification did not violate the equal protection clause. In Craig v. Boren, on direct appeal, the United States Supreme Court reversed, finding that the gender-based classification could …

Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure; Statute Of Limitations; State Policy; Relation Back; Marshall V. Mulrenin, Gary I. Kruger

Akron Law Review

Some federal courts have followed the rule that amendments to correct misnomer or misdescription of a defendant will relate back where the proper defendant is in court. An amendment which substitutes or adds a new party, however, creates a new cause of action, and under such circumstances, there is normally no relation back to original filing for purposes of limitations.' Since the 1966 amendment of rule 15(c), however, a number of courts have permitted amendments substituting defendants after the statute of limitations has run.

Town Of Barnstable V. O’Connor, Taylor R. Thompson

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The United States Circuit Court of the First Circuit’s decision in Town of Barnstable v. O’Connor reignites a hotly debated offshore wind plant proposal. The First Circuit held that the Ex parte Young exception to the Eleventh Amendment applied because the complaint alleged an ongoing violation of federal law and the relief sought was prospective. The court did not discuss the merits of the claim, so the fight against the proposed wind plant powers on.

In Rem Jurisdiction; Due Process; Minimum Contacts; State Statutes; Shaffer V. Heitner, Richard S. Milligan

Akron Law Review

The decision of Shaffer v. Heitner marks a significant departure from established principles concerning in rem jurisdiction. No longer may a court take jurisdiction of a lawsuit merely by sequestering any property of the defendant that happens to be located in that state.

In Rem Jurisdiction; Attachment Of Insurance Debts; State Statutes; O'Connorv. Lee-Hy Paving Corp., Eloise Lubbinge Mackus

Akron Law Review

The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in O'Connor v. Lee-Hy Paving Corp., upheld New York's insurance attachment procedure which serves as a vehicle for gaining personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants in causes of action that arise outside of New York. The court thereby determined that New York federal courts, in applying the procedures, had not violated defendant's due process because the minimum contacts requirement of the recent United Stated Supreme Court case, Shaffer v. Heitner, had been met.

Quasi In Rem Jurisdication; Minimum Contacts; State Statutes; Intermeat, Inc. V. American Poultry, Inc., John D. Frisby Jr.

Akron Law Review

"The decision of Intermeat, Inc. v. American Poultry, Inc. is the first decision rendered by a federal appeals court based on the United States Supreme Court decision of Shaffer v. Heitner. The Shaffer Court handed down a landmark decision in 1977 that appeared at first light to aim the principles of quasi in rem jurisdiction in a new direction. From the date of the decision it appeared that a court could no longer take jurisdiction of a lawsuit based merely on the fact that property of the defendant was located in the state in which the suit was filed. However, …