Law Commons^™

The "Directive" Prong: Adding To The Allied-Signal Framework For Remand Without Vacatur, T. Alex B. Folkerth

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

“Remand without vacatur” is an administrative law remedy that allows courts reviewing agency actions with minor legal defects to leave the action in place while the agency fixes the defect. Courts use a two-prong test from the 1993 D.C. Circuit case Allied-Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to determine whether or not to vacate the action pending remand. Allied-Signal’s “deficiency” prong directs the court to consider how bad the defect is. The “disruption” prong directs the court to consider how much havoc will be wreaked by the vacation of the action while the agency is fixing the defect. …

Reflections On The Effects Of Federalism On Opioid Policy, Matthew B. Lawrence

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

No abstract provided.

The Opioid Litigation: The Fda Is Mia, Catherine M. Sharkey

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

It is readily agreed that federal preemption of state tort law alters the balance between federal and state power. Federal preemption is a high-profile defense in almost all modern products liability cases. It is thus surprising to see how little attention has been given to federal preemption by courts and commentators in the opioid litigation. Opioid litigation provides a lens through which I explore the role of state and federal courts and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in striking the right balance of power. My purpose here is not to resolve the divide among the few courts that have …

Personal Jurisdiction And National Sovereignty, Ray Worthy Campbell

Washington and Lee Law Review

State sovereignty, once seemingly sidelined in personal jurisdiction analysis, has returned with a vengeance. Driven by the idea that states must not offend rival states in their jurisdictional reach, some justices have looked for specific targeting of individual states as individual states by the defendant in order to justify an assertion of personal jurisdiction. To allow cases to proceed based on national targeting alone, they argue, would diminish the sovereignty of any state that the defendant had specifically targeted.

This Article looks for the first time at how this emphasis on state sovereignty limits national sovereignty, especially where alien defendants …

The Arms Dealer Who Cries, :“First Amendment”, Gustave Passanante

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.