Law Commons^™

Antitrust Liability For False Advertising: A Response To Carrier & Tushnet, Susannah Gagnon, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

This reply briefly considers when false advertising can give rise to antitrust liability. The biggest difference between tort and antitrust liability is that the latter requires harm to the market, which is critically dependent on actual consumer response. As a result, the biggest hurdle a private plaintiff faces in turning an act of false advertising into an antitrust offense is proof of causation – to what extent can a decline in purchase volume or other market rejection be specifically attributed to the defendant’s false claims? That requirement dooms the great majority of false advertising claims attacked as violations of the …

Antitrust Harm And Causation, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

How should plaintiffs show harm from antitrust violations? The inquiry naturally breaks into two issues: first, what is the nature of the harm? and second, what does proof of causation require? The best criterion for assessing harm is likely or reasonably anticipated output effects. Antitrust’s goal should be output as high as is consistent with sustainable competition.

The standard for proof of causation then depends on two things: the identity of the enforcer and the remedy that the plaintiff is seeking. It does not necessarily depend on which antitrust statute the plaintiff is seeking to enforce. For public agencies, enforcement …

Seeking Economic Justice In The Face Of Enduring Racism, Deseriee A. Kennedy

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Causation And "Legal Certainty" In Legal Malpractice Law, Vincent R. Johnson

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

A line of California cases holds that causation of damages in legal malpractice actions must be proven with “legal certainty.” This Article argues that judicial references to legal certainty are ambiguous and threaten to undermine the fairness of legal malpractice litigation as a means for resolving lawyer-client disputes. Courts should eschew the language of legal certainty and plainly state that damages are recoverable if a legal malpractice plaintiff proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that those losses were factually and proximately caused by the defendant’s breach of duty.

Data Breaches, Identity Theft And Article Iii Standing: Will The Supreme Court Resolve The Split In The Circuits, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

In data breach cases, the lower federal courts have split on the question of whether the plaintiffs meet Article III standing requirements for injury and causation. In its 2013 decision Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, the Supreme Court, in a case involving alleged electronic surveillance by the U.S. government’s National Security Agency, declared that a plaintiff alleging that it will suffer future injuries from a defendant’s allegedly improper conduct must show that such injuries are “certainly impending.” Since the Clapper decision, a majority of the lower federal courts addressing “lost data” or potential identity theft cases in which there is …

Medical Malpractice: The Right To Recover For The Loss Of A Chance Of Survival, Patricia L. Andel

Pepperdine Law Review

Traditionally, a plaintiff suffering from misdiagnosis has been precluded from recovery unless he could show that "but for" the misdiagnosis he would have had a better-than-even chance of recovery. While many courts have attempted to avoid this doctrine by reducing the standard of causation, this has led to inconsistent results. The better approach is to recognize that a "chance" of recovery has a compensable value in and of itself This comment will explore the concept of loss of a chance and trace its development as it relates to medical malpractice actions.

An Inconvenient Lie: Big Tobacco Was Put On Trial For Denying The Effects Of Smoking; Is Climate Change Denial Off-Limits?, Elizabeth Dubats

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

Plaintiffs have made several notable attempts to bring nuisance, trespass, and negligence suits against major sources of greenhouse gas emissions for climate change related injuries. While climate change is a widely recognized environmental issue, courts have refused to recognize it as a basis for a valid cause of action in tort, finding either petitioners lack standing to bring the claim, or that the claim raises political questions that should not be addressed by the judiciary. Some more recent climate change tort claims have also included allegations of fraud on the part of the hydrocarbon industry for actively perpetuating misinformation about …

Bayes' Law, Sequential Uncertainties, And Evidence Of Causation In Toxic Tort Cases, Neal C. Stout, Peter A. Valberg

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Judges are the gatekeepers of evidence. Arguably, the most difficult duty for a judicial gatekeeper is to screen the reliability of expert opinions in scientific fields such as medicine that are beyond the ken of most judges. Yet, judges have a duty to scrutinize such expert opinion evidence to determine its reliability and admissibility. In toxic tort cases, the issue of causation-whether the alleged exposures actually caused the plaintiffs injury-is nearly always the central dispute, and determining admissibility of expert causation opinion is a daunting challenge for most judges. We present a comprehensive review of the courts' struggles with the …

An Essay On Texas V. Lesage, Christina B. Whitman

Articles

When I was invited to participate in this symposium, I was asked to discuss whether the causation defense developed in Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle applied to cases challenging state action under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As I argue below, it seems clear that Mt. Healthy does apply to equal protection cases. The Supreme Court explicitly so held last November in Texas v. Lesage. But the implications of Lesage go beyond questions of causation. The opinion suggests that the Court may be rethinking (or ignoring) its promise in Carey v. Piphus …

Justice, Liability, And Blame: Community Views And The Criminal Law, Paul H. Robinson, John M. Darley

All Faculty Scholarship

This book reports empirical studies on 18 different areas of substantive criminal law in which the study results showing ordinary people’s judgments of justice are compared to the governing legal doctrine to highlight points of agreement and disagreement. The book also identifies trends and patterns in agreement and disagreement and discusses the implications for the formulation of criminal law. The chapters include:

Chapter 1. Community Views and the Criminal Law (Introduction; An Overview; Why Community Views Should Matter; Research Methods)

Chapter 2. Doctrines of Criminalization: What Conduct Should Be Criminal? (Objective Requirements of Attempt (Study 1); Creating a Criminal Risk …

Procedural And Substantive Problems In Complex Litigation Arising From Disasters, Jack B. Weinstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Allen V. The United States Of America: The “Substantial” Connection Between Nuclear Fallout And Cancer, Daniel Swartzman, Tom Christoffel

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.