Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Access to information (1)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal (1)
- Atamirzayeva (Zoya) (1)
- Atamirzayeva v. United States (1)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (1)
-
- Case studies (1)
- Climate change (1)
- Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co. (1)
- Constitutional standing (1)
- Discovery (1)
- Emissions (1)
- Facts (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Foreign relations (1)
- Greenhouse gases (1)
- Information (1)
- Justiciability (1)
- Law reform (1)
- Lucus standi (1)
- Nuisances (1)
- Pleadings (1)
- Probability (1)
- Prudential standing (1)
- Public policy (1)
- Substantial-connections test (1)
- Sufficiency (1)
- Takings Clause (1)
- United States Supreme Court (1)
- United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Right Issue, The Wrong Branch: Arguments Against Adjudicating Climate Change Nuisance Claims, Matthew Edwin Miller
The Right Issue, The Wrong Branch: Arguments Against Adjudicating Climate Change Nuisance Claims, Matthew Edwin Miller
Michigan Law Review
Climate change is probably today's greatest global environmental threat, posing dire ecological, economic, and humanitarian consequences. In the absence of a comprehensive regulatory scheme to address the problem, some aggrieved Americans have sought relief from climate-related injuries by suing significant emitters of greenhouse gases under a public nuisance theory. Federal district courts have dismissed four such claims, with each court relying at least in part on the political question doctrine of nonjusticiability. However, one circuit court of appeals has reversed to date, finding that the common law cognizes such claims and that the judiciary is competent and compelled to adjudicate …
Zoya's Standing Problem, Or, When Should The Constitution Follow The Flag?, Jeffrey Kahn
Zoya's Standing Problem, Or, When Should The Constitution Follow The Flag?, Jeffrey Kahn
Michigan Law Review
Some federal courts have devised a new test of prudential standing that they use to dismiss suits filed by foreign plaintiffs alleging unlawful conduct by American officials abroad, even when these cases involve matters that may have nothing to do with foreign affairs, national security, or terrorism. Rather than decide the case on its merits or dismiss it on any number of legitimate grounds, the complaint is dismissed because the plaintiff lacks a "prior substantial connection" to the United States. I identify and critique this strange but proliferating test of standing. First, it is inconsistent with any theoretical view of …
New Pleading, New Discovery, Scott Dodson
New Pleading, New Discovery, Scott Dodson
Michigan Law Review
Pleading in federal court has a new narrative. The old narrative was one of notice, with the goal of broad access to the civil justice system. New Pleading, after the landmark Supreme Court cases of Twombly and Iqbal, is focused on factual sufficiency, with the purpose of screening out meritless cases that otherwise might impose discovery costs on defendants. The problem with New Pleading is that factual insufficiency often is a poor proxy for meritlessness. Some plaintifs lack sufficient factual knowledge of the elements of their claims not because the claims lack merit but because the information they need is …