Law Commons^™

Calculating Damages In An Uncertain World, John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

There is a rule in the world of remedies that has always struck me as unfair. The rule, generally speaking, is that damages are not available unless they can be proven with certainty. For example, suppose that I own a pub and hire a karaoke DJ for Friday night. Karaoke is popular in my town and I advertise the event widely. On Friday afternoon, however, the DJ breaches and I’m left without entertainment. During the night, patrons show up and ask about the DJ. Many of them express disappointment; some decide to remain and have a couple drinks but some …

A Further Note On Federal Causes Of Action, John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

In the article, I argue that federal causes of action ought to be treated as (1) distinct from substantive rights, (2) synonymous with the availability of a remedy (but not whether a remedy will in fact issue) and (3) distinct from subject matter jurisdiction (unless Congress instructs otherwise). This thesis is built principally on a historical recounting of the cause of action from eighteenth century England to twenty-first century America. In taking an historical approach, I did not mean to argue that federal courts are bound to adhere to centuries-old conceptions of the cause of action. I merely used history …

How The Federal Cause Of Action Relates To Rights, Remedies, And Jurisdiction, John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

Time and again, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that the federal cause of action is "analytically distinct" from rights, remedies, and jurisdiction. Yet, just pages away in the U.S. Reports are other cases in which rights, remedies, and jurisdiction all hinge on the existence of a cause of action. What, then, is the proper relationship between these concepts?

The goal of this Article is to articulate that relationship. This Article traces the history of the cause of action from eighteenth-century England to its modem usage in the federal courts. This history demonstrates that the federal cause of action is …

The Ghost That Slayed The Mandate, Kevin C. Walsh

Law Faculty Publications

Virginia v. Sebelius is a federal lawsuit in which Virginia has challenged President Obama's signature legislative initiative of health care reform. Virginia has sought declaratory and injunctive relief to vindicate a state statute declaring that no Virginia resident shall be required to buy health insurance. To defend this state law from the preemptive effect of federal law, Virginia has contended that the federal legislation's individual mandate to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. Virginia's lawsuit has been one of the most closely followed and politically salient federal cases in recent times. Yet the very features of the case that have contributed …

It's About Time, David Frisch

Law Faculty Publications

This Article critically evaluates the view widely held by courts that contract claims for lost leisure or personal time do not justify compensation. The thesis of this Article is that while the conventional judicial wisdom may be correct about some forms of nonpecuniary loss, it is entirely wrong regarding lost time. After setting aside assumptions, I show that traditional arguments against this form of recovery are deeply flawed Most importantly, I rely on the recognition of hedonic damages by forensic economists to debunk the myth that loss of time is no more than an everyday aspect of life not worthy …

The Process Is The Problem: Lessons Learned From United States Drug Sentencing Reform, Erik S. Siebert

Law Student Publications

This paper serves to fill that gap, using the history, players, and processes involved as a means to refocus sentencing reform. Part II provides a historical overview of drug sentencing from its conception to its current state. Part III looks at drug sentencing reforms, identifying the players involved and explaining their diverse motivations. Part IV presents lessons learned and proposes a moderate set of normative remedies.

The Limits Of Multiple Rights And Remedies: A Call For Revisiting The Law Of The Workplace, Ann C. Hodges

Law Faculty Publications

The IBM decision illustrates two major problems with current workplace regulation. First, there are two distinct but overlapping systems - the individual and the collective - which often collide. The result is, at best, an imperfect realization of rights under both systems, and perhaps more often, the sacrifice of rights under one to rights under the other. Second, the multitude of forums available for litigation results in multiple claims arising out of the same action, as well as tribunals deciding issues outside their expertise. After analyzing the IBM decision, I will consider the costs and benefits of the current regulatory …