Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Agenda: Arizona V. California At 50: The Legacy And Future Of Governance, Reserved Rights, And Water Transfers, University Of Colorado Boulder. Getches-Wilkinson Center For Natural Resources, Energy, And The Environment
Agenda: Arizona V. California At 50: The Legacy And Future Of Governance, Reserved Rights, And Water Transfers, University Of Colorado Boulder. Getches-Wilkinson Center For Natural Resources, Energy, And The Environment
Arizona v. California at 50: The Legacy and Future of Governance, Reserved Rights, and Water Transfers (Martz Summer Conference, August 15-16)
The Colorado River is an economic, environmental and cultural lifeline of the southwestern United States, and the allocation of its scarce waters are a source of ongoing controversy. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. California. While the case was an important landmark in the still-evolving relationship between these two Lower Basin states, it remains most relevant today by the way in which it clarified federal rights and responsibilities. This is especially true in the areas of federal (including tribal) reserved rights, the role of the Interior Secretary in Lower Basin water …
The Future Of Classwide Punitive Damages, Catherine M. Sharkey
The Future Of Classwide Punitive Damages, Catherine M. Sharkey
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Conventional wisdom holds that the punitive damages class action is susceptiblenot only to doctrinal restraints imposed on class actions but also to constitutionaldue process limitations placed on punitive damages. Thus, it would seem that theprospects for punitive damages classes are even grimmer than for class actionsgenerally.This conventional picture misunderstands the role of punitive damages and, inparticular, the relationship between class actions and punitive damages. It eitherignores or underestimates the distinctly societal element of punitive damages, whichmakes them especially conducive to aggregate treatment. Furthermore, punitivedamages classes offer a solution to the constitutional due process problem of juriesawarding "classwide" damages in a …
An Experiment In Law Reform: Amchem Products V. Windsor, Patrick M. Hanlon
An Experiment In Law Reform: Amchem Products V. Windsor, Patrick M. Hanlon
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
The Supreme Court's 1997 decision in Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor struck down the most ambitious settlement class action ever attempted. The settlement was, however, the logical outgrowth of the federal judiciary's efforts in the early 1990s to resolve a "disaster" of "critical proportions." Many factors, not least the Supreme Court's decision in Amchem, turned the tide against this trend. Ironically, however, the post-Amchem world has come to look a lot like Amchem. The settlement's central feature-deferral of unimpaired claims to assure the availability of resources to compensate the sick-was subsequently incorporated (either by statute or through judicial decision) into …
Standing's Expected Value, Jonathan Remy Nash
Standing's Expected Value, Jonathan Remy Nash
Michigan Law Review
This Article argues in favor of standing based on expected value of harm. Standing doctrine has been constructed in a way that is oblivious to the idea of expected value. If people have suffered a loss with a positive expected value, they have suffered an "injury in fact." The incorporation of expected value into standing doctrine casts doubt on many of the Supreme Court's decisions in which it denies standing because the relevant injury is too "speculative" or is not "likely" to be redressed by a decree in the plaintiff's favor. This Article addresses this shortcoming in standing jurisprudence by …
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. V. Curran: Establishing An Implied Private Right Of Action Under The Commodity Exchange Act, Howard E. Hamann
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. V. Curran: Establishing An Implied Private Right Of Action Under The Commodity Exchange Act, Howard E. Hamann
Pepperdine Law Review
In the case of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, the United States Supreme Court held that there is an implied private right of action under the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended. As a result of this holding, a private party may maintain an action for damages caused by a violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. In this article, the author examines the Supreme Court's analysis and explores the future impact of the decision in light of the role the judiciary has in legislative matters.
The Supreme Court Continues Its Journey Down The Ever Narrowing Paths Of Section 1983 And The Due Process Clause: An Analysis Of Parratt V. Taylor, Robert E. Palmer
The Supreme Court Continues Its Journey Down The Ever Narrowing Paths Of Section 1983 And The Due Process Clause: An Analysis Of Parratt V. Taylor, Robert E. Palmer
Pepperdine Law Review
After nearly a century of quiet slumber, the Supreme Court awoke the sleeping giant. In the past two decades, 42 U.S.C. §1983 has evolved into a judicial Frankenstein monster. Unable to control the beast, the Court has attempted to restrict the creature's movements by unnecessarily limiting its constitutional source. If followed to its logical conclusion, the Court's narrow reading of the Constitution may ultimately demote all due process violations to state tort remedies. This note traces the legislative and judicial evolution of section 1983 as well as the statute's present interaction with the due process clause. The vehicle for this …
Ruckleshaus V. Sierra Club: Muddying The Waters Of Fee-Shifting In Federal Environmental Litigation , Jeanne A. Taylor
Ruckleshaus V. Sierra Club: Muddying The Waters Of Fee-Shifting In Federal Environmental Litigation , Jeanne A. Taylor
Pepperdine Law Review
In numerous federal environmental statutes, Congress gave plaintiffs the right to recover attorneys' fees when the court finds them "appropriate." In Ruckleshaus v. Sierra Club, the United States Supreme Court held that it was only "appropriate" to grant attorneys' fees when the plaintiff had at least partially prevailed on the merits. The decision ignored both the important role environmental groups play in the interpretation and development of regulatory programs through litigation and the ability of the lower courts to determine when attorneys' fees were "appropriate." The Court, instead, focused on the adversarial nature of such groups and the traditional American …