Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 13 of 13

Full-Text Articles in Law

Mediating Theft, Kaitlyn E. Tucker Aug 2013

Mediating Theft, Kaitlyn E. Tucker

Kaitlyn E Tucker

In the attached short article, I argue for a change in the punishment scheme in non-violent theft crimes. Specifically, I outline a new Victim-Offender Mediation program and then argue how and why it should integrate into the criminal justice system to advance restorative justice as a viable method for punishment in America. I describe restorative justice as a model for punishment and Victim-Offender Mediation specifically as a restorative technique. I then explain why our criminal justice system needs Victim-Offender Mediation. The nation faces unprecedented numbers of prisoners and costs to run prison facilities, in addition to the disparate number of ...


Mediating Theft, Kaitlyn E. Tucker Aug 2013

Mediating Theft, Kaitlyn E. Tucker

Kaitlyn E Tucker

In the attached short article, I argue for a change in the punishment scheme in non-violent theft crimes. Specifically, I outline a new Victim-Offender Mediation program and then argue how and why it should integrate into the criminal justice system to advance restorative justice as a viable method for punishment in America. I describe restorative justice as a model for punishment and Victim-Offender Mediation specifically as a restorative technique. I then explain why our criminal justice system needs Victim-Offender Mediation. The nation faces unprecedented numbers of prisoners and costs to run prison facilities, in addition to the disparate number of ...


Mediating Theftv, Kaitlyn E. Tucker Aug 2013

Mediating Theftv, Kaitlyn E. Tucker

Kaitlyn E Tucker

In the attached short article, I argue for a change in the punishment scheme in non-violent theft crimes. Specifically, I outline a new Victim-Offender Mediation program and then argue how and why it should integrate into the criminal justice system to advance restorative justice as a viable method for punishment in America. I describe restorative justice as a model for punishment and Victim-Offender Mediation specifically as a restorative technique. I then explain why our criminal justice system needs Victim-Offender Mediation. The nation faces unprecedented numbers of prisoners and costs to run prison facilities, in addition to the disparate number of ...


At&T V. Concepcion: The Problem Of A False Majority, Lisa Tripp, Evan R. Hanson Mar 2013

At&T V. Concepcion: The Problem Of A False Majority, Lisa Tripp, Evan R. Hanson

Lisa Tripp

The Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in AT&T v. Concepcion is the first case where the Supreme Court explores the interplay between state law unconscionability doctrine and the vast preemptive power of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Although it is considered by many to be a landmark decision which has the potential for greatly expanding the already impressive preemptive power of the FAA, something is amiss with Concepcion.

AT&T v. Concepcion is ostensibly a 5-4 majority decision with a concurring opinion. However, the differences in the majority and concurring opinions are so profound that it appears that Justice Thomas actually concurred in the judgment only, even though he joined the putative majority opinion. This raises serious philosophical questions about jurisprudence, what is necessary to create a rule of law in the American legal system, and the precedential value of Concepcion itself.

Justice Thomas joined the majority opinion and provided the fifth vote, but wrote a concurring opinion that explicitly rejected the legal reasoning of the majority opinion in its entirety. The putative majority opinion authored by Justice Scalia allows that unconscionability can be a valid defense to the enforcement of an agreement to arbitrate, but in Concepcion, allowing California to apply its unconscionability doctrine (the Discover Bank rule) would frustrate the purposes and objectives of Congress in enacting the FAA. For these reasons the Scalia opinion found the law was preempted.

Justice Thomas, in contrast, does not believe that unconscionability can ever be a basis to invalidate an agreement to arbitrate and he reaffirmed his emphatic position articulated in Wyeth v. Levine that “[t]his Court’s entire body of purposes and objectives preemption jurisprudence is inherently flawed. The cases improperly rely on legislative history, broad atextual notions of congressional purpose, and even congressional inaction in order to pre-empt state law.”

Justice Thomas’s conclusion that the law was preempted turned on the text of the statute which he interprets as not allowing unconscionability-based defenses to preemption. Justice Thomas has reaffirmed his rejection of purposes and objectives preemption in cases decided after Concepcion. This means, looking at the substance of the opinions, that there are but four votes for the deciding rationale articulated in the Scalia opinion and there is not a single common denominator that the Scalia and Thomas opinions share, except that they agree on the result.

The Concepcion Court is, in substance, equally divided. Four members found that California’s unconscionability doctrine frustrated the purposes and objectives of the FAA, four in the dissent thought the law did not frustrate the purposes and objectives of the FAA, and one found that the purposes and objectives of Congress were immaterial to the resolution of the case.

How should lower courts react to an equally divided court in this situation? Does a Justice’s decision to join an opinion create a governing rule of law under these unusual circumstances? Can governing rules of law be created in the absence of a majority for the deciding rationale? Is a Justice’s labeling of an opinion as a regular concurrence dispositive or does its substance dictate the precedential value it is given?

The authors’ argue that the Supreme Court provided the answer to these questions over 100 years ago in Hertz v. Woodman:

Under the precedents of this court, and, as seems justified by reason as well as by authority, an affirmance by an equally divided court is, as between the parties, a conclusive determination and adjudication of the matter adjudged; but the principles of law involved not having been agreed upon by a majority of the court sitting prevents the case from becoming an authority for the determination of other cases, either in this or in inferior courts.

Under any rational reading of the opinions, there can be no doubt that “the principles of law involved [have not] been agreed upon by a majority of the court sitting” and this should “prevent[] the case from becoming authority for the determination of other cases, either in [the Supreme Court] or in inferior courts ...


Much Ado About Nothing?: What The Numbers Tell Us About How State Courts Apply The Unconscionability Doctrine, Susan D. Landrum Mar 2013

Much Ado About Nothing?: What The Numbers Tell Us About How State Courts Apply The Unconscionability Doctrine, Susan D. Landrum

Susan Landrum

No abstract provided.


The Arbitration Clause As Super Contract, Richard Frankel Feb 2013

The Arbitration Clause As Super Contract, Richard Frankel

Richard Frankel

It is widely acknowledged that the purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act was to place arbitration clauses on equal footing with other contracts. Nonetheless, federal and state courts have turned arbitration clauses into “super contracts” by creating special interpretive rules for arbitration clauses that do not apply to other contracts. In doing so, they have relied extensively, and incorrectly, on the Supreme Court’s determination that the FAA embodies a federal policy favoring arbitration.

While many scholars have focused attention on the public policy rationales for and against arbitration, few have explored how arbitration clauses should be interpreted. This article ...


Parallel Justice: Creating Causes Of Action For Mandatory Mediation, Marie A. Failinger Feb 2013

Parallel Justice: Creating Causes Of Action For Mandatory Mediation, Marie A. Failinger

Marie A. Failinger

. This article proposes that the American common law system should adopt court-connected mandatory mediation as a parallel system of justice for some cases currently not justiciable, such as wrongs caused by constitutionally protected behavior. It describes systemic and ethical parallels between court-connected mediation and the rise of the equity courts, discusses practical objections to the idea of mandatory mediation, and tests the idea of "mandatory mediation-only" causes of action using constitutional hate speech and invasion of privacy examples.


Investment Dispute Resolution Under The Transpacific Partnership Agreement: Prelude To A Slippery Slope?, Leon E. Trakman Professor Feb 2013

Investment Dispute Resolution Under The Transpacific Partnership Agreement: Prelude To A Slippery Slope?, Leon E. Trakman Professor

Leon E Trakman Dean

Intense debate is currently brewing over the multistate negotiation of the Transpacific Partnership Agreement [TPPA], led by the United States. The TPPA will be the largest trade and investment agreement after the European Union, with trillions of investment dollars at stake. However, there is little understanding of the complex issues involved in regulating inbound and outbound investment. The negotiating of the TPPA is shrouded in both mystery and dissension among negotiating countries. NGOs, investor and legal interest groups heatedly debate how the TPPA ought to regulate international investment. However this dissension is resolved, it will have enormous economic, political and ...


International Money Laundering: The Need For Icc Investigative And Adjudicative Jurisdiction, Michael R. Anderson Feb 2013

International Money Laundering: The Need For Icc Investigative And Adjudicative Jurisdiction, Michael R. Anderson

Michael Anderson

Money laundering is one of the most pressing issues in the realm of international financial crimes. One of the biggest issues involved in international money laundering is the problem of adjudication. There is no international organization that currently hears these sorts of claims, forcing nations to adjudicate these crimes on their own, often without adequate resources to effectively investigate and enforce their money laundering statutes.

This article argues that, in order to more effectively prevent and adjudicate international money laundering offenses, the International Criminal Court should adopt an international money laundering statute designating these activities as a crime within the ...


Institutionalization Of Alternative Dispute Resolution By The State Of California , Bruce Monroe Jan 2013

Institutionalization Of Alternative Dispute Resolution By The State Of California , Bruce Monroe

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


Ending Judgment Arbitrage: Jurisdictional Competition And The Enforcement Of Foreign Money Judgments In The United States, Gregory Shill Jan 2013

Ending Judgment Arbitrage: Jurisdictional Competition And The Enforcement Of Foreign Money Judgments In The United States, Gregory Shill

Gregory Shill

Recent multi-billion-dollar damage awards issued by foreign courts against large American companies have focused attention on the once-obscure, patchwork system of enforcing foreign-country judgments in the United States. That system’s structural problems are even more serious than its critics have charged. However, the leading proposals for reform overlook the positive potential embedded in its design.

In the United States, no treaty or federal law controls the domestication of foreign judgments; the process is instead governed by state law. Although they are often conflated in practice, the procedure consists of two formally and conceptually distinct stages: foreign judgments must first ...


Shleifer's Failure, Jonathan Klick Jan 2013

Shleifer's Failure, Jonathan Klick

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

No abstract provided.


In Quest Of The Arbitration Trifecta, Or Closed Door Litigation?: The Delaware Arbitration Program, Thomas Stipanowich Dec 2012

In Quest Of The Arbitration Trifecta, Or Closed Door Litigation?: The Delaware Arbitration Program, Thomas Stipanowich

Thomas J. Stipanowich

The Delaware Arbitration Program established a procedure by which businesses can agree to have their disputes heard in an arbitration proceeding before a sitting judge of the state’s highly regarded Chancery Court. The Program arguably offers a veritable trifecta of procedural advantages for commercial parties, including expert adjudication, efficient case management and short cycle time and, above all, a proceeding cloaked in secrecy. It also may enhance the reputation of Delaware as the forum of choice for businesses. But the Program’s ambitious intermingling of public and private forums brings into play the longstanding tug-of-war between the traditional view ...