Law Commons^™

The Litigation Finance Contract, Maya Steinitz

Faculty Scholarship

Litigation funding-for-profit, nonrecourse funding of a litigation by a nonparty-is a new and rapidly developing industry. It has been described as one of the "biggest and most influential trends in civil justice" today by RAND, the New York Times, and others. Despite the importance and growth of the industry, there is a complete absence of information about or discussion of litigation finance contracting, even though all the promises and pitfalls of litigation funding stem from the relationships those contracts establish and organize. Further, the literature and case law pertaining to litigation funding have evolved from an analogy between litigation funding …

The Relational Contingency Of Rights, Alex Stein, Gideon Parchomovsky

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Private Costs Of Patent Litigation, James Bessen, Michael J. Meurer

Faculty Scholarship

This paper estimates the total cost of patent litigation to alleged infringers. We use a large sample of stock market event studies around the date of lawsuit filings for US public firms from 1984-99. We find that the total costs of litigation are much greater than legal fees and costs are large even for lawsuits that settle. Lawsuits cost alleged infringers about $28.7 million ($92) in the mean and $2.9 million in the median. Moreover, infringement risk rose sharply during the late 1990s to over 14% of R&D spending. Small firms have lower risk relative to R&D.

The Economics Of Third-Party Financed Litigation, Keith N. Hylton

Faculty Scholarship

This paper examines the law and economics of third-party financed litigation. I explore the conditions under which a system of third-party financiers and litigators can enhance social welfare, and the conditions under which it is likely to reduce social welfare. Among the applications I consider are the sale of legal rights (such as contingent tort claims) to insurers, to patent trolls, and to financiers generally

Back To The Future (Reviewing David Bernstein, Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights Against Progressive Reform (2011)), William D. Araiza

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Trial Selection Theory And Evidence, Keith N. Hylton, Haizhen Lin

Faculty Scholarship

This chapter presents a review of trial selection theory. We use the term “trial selection theory” to refer to models that attempt to explain or predict the characteristics that distinguish cases that are litigated to judgment from those that settle, and the implications of those characteristics for the development of legal doctrine and for important trial outcome parameters, such as the plaintiff win rate. Using this definition, trial selection theory can be said to have started with Priest and Klein (1984).

A New Model Of Plaintiffs' Class Action Attorneys, Morris A. Ratner

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Professionalism And Advocacy At Trial – Real Jurors Speak In Detail About The Performance Of Their Advocates, Mitchell J. Frank, Osvaldo F. Morera

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

“Early-Bird Special” Indeed!: Why The Tax Anti-Injunction Act Permits The Present Challenges To The Minimum Coverage Provision, Neil S. Siegel, Michael C. Dorf

Faculty Scholarship

In view of the billions of dollars and enormous effort that might otherwise be wasted, the public interest will be best served if the Supreme Court of the United States decides the present challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) during its October 2011 Term. Potentially standing in the way, however, is the federal Tax Anti-Injunction Act (TAIA), which bars any “suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.” The dispute to date has turned on the fraught and complex question of whether the ACA's exaction for being uninsured qualifies as a …

Business Interests And The Long Arm In 2011, Paul D. Carrington

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Evaluating And Improving The Mdl Process, Francis Mcgovern, John G. Heyburn

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The North Carolina Racial Justice Act: An Essay On Substantive And Procedural Fairness In Death Penalty Litigation, Neil Vidmar

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Aggregate Litigation Goes Public: Representative Suits By State Attorneys General, Margaret H. Lemos

Faculty Scholarship

State attorneys general represent their citizens in aggregate litigation that bears a striking resemblance to the much-maligned damages class action. Yet, while class actions are subject to a raft of procedural rules designed to protect absent class members, equivalent suits in the public sphere are largely free from constraint. The procedural disconnect between the two categories of aggregate litigation reflects a widespread assumption that attorneys general will adequately represent the interests of the state’s citizens, obviating any need for case-specific mechanisms for assuring the loyalty of lawyer to client.

This Article challenges the presumption of adequate public representation. By conflating …

A Political Show Trial In The Northern District: Oberlin-Wellington Fugitive Slave Rescue Case, Paul Finkelman

Faculty Scholarship

This chapter from Justice and Legal Change on the Shores of Lake Erie, examines the first important cases ever heard by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The cases, known as the Oberlin-Wellington Fugitive Slave Cases -- stemmed out of the rescue of a fugitive slave from the custody of a professional slave catcher. The fugitive was seized in Oberlin, and taken to nearby Wellington, and held in hotel while the slave catchers waiting for a train to take them to Columbus. Meanwhile, a mob -- consisting mostly of Oberlin residents, including many Oberlin College …

Clarity And Clarification: Grable Federal Questions In The Eyes Of Their Beholders, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Faculty Scholarship

Jurists and commentators have repeated for centuries the refrain that jurisdictional rules should be clear.' Behind this mantra is the idea that clearly designed jurisdictional rules should enable trial courts to apply the law more easily and therefore allow litigants to predict more accurately how trial courts will rule^.2 The mantra's ultimate goal is efficiency-that trial courts not labor too long on jurisdiction and, most important, that litigants can accurately predict the correct forum and choose to spend their money litigating the merits of their claim, rather than where it will be heard. Jurisdictional clarity largely is devoted …

Introduction, Paul Finkelman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Character Of The Governmental Action, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City holds a secure position in the architecture of the regulatory takings doctrine. That doctrine is at bottom a tool for distinguishing between different governmental powers; in particular, between the power of eminent domain and the police power. Because eminent domain requires that compensation be paid, whereas the police power does not, it is necessary to draw a line between these powers. Conceivably we could simply take the legislature at its word as to which power it is exercising. But at least since Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, the Supreme Court has insisted …

Litigation Finance: What Do Judges Need To Know?, Bert Huang

Faculty Scholarship

In our classic image of an American lawsuit, including class actions, the plaintiffs lawyer pays the upfront costs and then hopes to recoup them from a share of the winnings. But today, this picture is incomplete. It is no longer only the law firm's own war chest that finances a case – so can outside investors and lenders. As Judge Hellerstein has just reminded us, the 9/11 cases he presided over involved such third-party financing. The Ecuadorian plaintiffs' environmental case against Chevron, now pending in the Southern District of New York, is another prominent example in the news.