Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Class Arbitration Waivers Cannot Be Found Unconscionable: A Pervasive And Common "Mis-Concepcion", Emma Silberstein
Class Arbitration Waivers Cannot Be Found Unconscionable: A Pervasive And Common "Mis-Concepcion", Emma Silberstein
Northwestern University Law Review
In 1925, Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) as a means of quelling judicial hostility towards arbitration agreements, providing a mechanism for the enforcement of such agreements. The Supreme Court’s treatment and application of the FAA has evolved over time, and in recent decades the FAA has been massively extended to cover not only arm’s-length commercial transactions, but consumer and employment contracts as well. The Supreme Court, its previous hostile stance long forgotten, has created a policy of favoring arbitration and striking down many an argument that may interfere with that policy. In particular, the Court solidified its position …
Class Dismissed: The Conservative Class Action Revolution Of The Texas Supreme Court., Russell T. Brown
Class Dismissed: The Conservative Class Action Revolution Of The Texas Supreme Court., Russell T. Brown
St. Mary's Law Journal
Historically, Texas plaintiffs enjoyed tremendous flexibility in gaining certification for class action lawsuits because of a liberal approach employed by Texas trial courts. Because certification assignment occurred early in the judicial proceedings, Texas case law encouraged trial courts to grant certification of a class. Putative classes chose to seek relief in state court because of the state’s lax view regarding class actions, particularly when compared to federal courts. Concerns arose throughout Texas about the growing liberal methodology courts used to evaluate putative classes during certification. Federal influence, state lobbies, and legislative pressure led the Texas judiciary, through application of the …
Nonparties To Employment Discrimination Consent Decrees May Attack, In A Collateral Lawsuit, Decisions Made Pursuant To The Decrees., Michael T. Larkin
Nonparties To Employment Discrimination Consent Decrees May Attack, In A Collateral Lawsuit, Decisions Made Pursuant To The Decrees., Michael T. Larkin
St. Mary's Law Journal
In Martin v. Wilks, the United States Supreme Court held nonparties to employment discrimination consent decrees may attack, in a collateral lawsuit, decisions made pursuant to the decrees. A consent decree is a voluntary judgment between parties which facilitates settlement of litigation by providing one party with equitable relief. Courts retain jurisdiction over parties to a consent decree, and they can issue contempt orders to parties violating the terms of the decree. Unlike judgments, the parties cannot challenge the consent decrees, except in limited circumstances. Recently, federal courts have widened the scope of preclusion law by defining the term “claim” …
Availability Of A New York Class Action For Railroad Commuters: David V. Goliath, Maura E. O'Sullivan
Availability Of A New York Class Action For Railroad Commuters: David V. Goliath, Maura E. O'Sullivan
Fordham Urban Law Journal
A class action brought under the New York statute (modeled after Federal Rule 23 of Civil Procedure) is an appropriate procedural device for remedying the continual breaches of the commuter carriage contract. In Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Puritan Coal Mining Co., the Supreme Court held that the common law mandates that common carriers treat passengers reasonably. Additionally, in the contract carriage, the carrier impliedly guarantees that the vehicle is in sound and proper order. Individual suits, unfortunately, have little effect on the actions of the common carriers; only nominal damages have been awarded in commuter actions against railroads for equipment …