Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Brief Of Consumers Union Of United States, Inc., As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Riegel & Riegel V. Medtronic, Inc., No. 06-179 (U.S. Aug. 27, 2007), Lisa Heinzerling Aug 2007

Brief Of Consumers Union Of United States, Inc., As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Riegel & Riegel V. Medtronic, Inc., No. 06-179 (U.S. Aug. 27, 2007), Lisa Heinzerling

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.


Why Preemption Proponents Are Wrong, Brian Wolfman Mar 2007

Why Preemption Proponents Are Wrong, Brian Wolfman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The basic idea of federal preemption is easily stated: It is a constitutionally mandated principle that demands that federal law trumps state law when the two conflict or in the rare instances when a federal law is so comprehensive that there’s no role left for state law to fill. But in practice, courts have often had difficulty applying the principle.

For plaintiff lawyers, preemption is an ever-present worry. When your client has been injured by a defective car, truck, medical device, boat, tobacco product, pesticide, or mislabeled drug, or has been victimized by a bank or other lending institution, the …


A Unilateral Accident Model Under Ambiguity, Joshua C. Teitelbaum Jan 2007

A Unilateral Accident Model Under Ambiguity, Joshua C. Teitelbaum

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Standard accident models are based on the expected utility framework and represent agents’ beliefs about accident risk with a probability distribution. Consequently, they do not allow for Knightian uncertainty, or ambiguity, with respect to accident risk and cannot accommodate optimism (ambiguity loving) or pessimism (ambiguity aversion). This paper presents a unilateral accident model under ambiguity. To incorporate ambiguity, I adopt the Choquet expected utility framework and represent the injurer’s beliefs with a neoadditive capacity. I show that neither strict liability nor negligence is generally efficient in the presence of ambiguity. In addition, I generally find that the injurer’s level of …