Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
To Remove Or Not To Remove - Is That The Question In 1933 Act Securities Cases?, Tanya Pierce
To Remove Or Not To Remove - Is That The Question In 1933 Act Securities Cases?, Tanya Pierce
Faculty Scholarship
Litigants spend immense time and money fighting over procedure. That fact is especially true for procedural rules concerning where a case may be heard—which, in the context of class actions, can determine the viability of claims almost regardless of their underlying merit. The potential for class certification, which tends to be greater in state than in federal courts, can transform claims that alone are too small to even justify suing into threats so large that defendants routinely use the words “judicial blackmail” to describe them. This paper focuses on a growing conflict between federal statutory removal provisions that arises in …
Precedent As Rational Persuasion, Brian N. Larson
Precedent As Rational Persuasion, Brian N. Larson
Faculty Scholarship
The ways that judges and lawyers make and justify their arguments and decisions have profound impacts on our lives. Understanding those practices in light of theories of reasoning and argumentation is thus critical for understanding law and the society it shapes. An inquiry that explores the very foundations of all legal reasoning leads to a broad, important question: How do lawyers and judges use cited cases in their legal arguments? It turns out there is practically no empirical research to suggest the answer. As the first step in a comprehensive empirical effort to answer this question, this article performs a …
Appellate Courts And Civil Juries, Adam N. Steinman
Appellate Courts And Civil Juries, Adam N. Steinman
Faculty Scholarship
In federal civil litigation, decision-making power is shared by juries, trial courts, and appellate courts. This Article examines an unresolved tension in the different doctrines that allocate authority among these institutions, one that has led to confusion surrounding the relationship between appellate courts and civil juries. At base, the current uncertainty stems from a longstanding lack of clarity regarding the distinction between matters of law and matters of fact. The high-stakes Oracle-Google litigation—which is now before the Supreme Court—exemplifies this. In that case, the Federal Circuit reasoned that an appellate court may assert de novo review over a jury’s verdict …