Law Commons^™

The End Of Objector Blackmail?, Brian T. Fitzpatrick

Vanderbilt Law Review

For many years, courts and commentators have been concerned about a phenomenon in class action litigation referred to as objector "blackmail." The term "blackmail" is used figuratively rather than literally; so-called objector "blackmail" is simply a specific application of the general concern with legal regimes that permit one or more individuals to "hold out" and disrupt collective action. The holdout problem in class action litigation stems from the following series of events: When a class action is settled, class members who do not like the proposed settlement are permitted to file objections with the federal district court that must approve …

A Uniform System For The Enforceability Of Forum Selection Clauses In Federal Courts, Ryan T. Holt

Vanderbilt Law Review

In the early 1980s, a successful and ambitious Alabama businessman named Walter H. Stewart purchased a failing local copying business. Through the Stewart Organization, a corporation he controlled, Stewart sought to steer this troubled business to the realm of profitability. To do so, he entered into a dealership contract with Ricoh Corporation, a national manufacturer of copy machines that conducted its operations in New York. Unfortunately, their relationship soured. Stewart sued Ricoh in an Alabama federal district court, basing jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship. Ricoh did not want to litigate in Alabama, and the original dealership contract seemed to provide …

Neglected Justices: Discounting For History, G. Edward White

Vanderbilt Law Review

The category of "neglected Justices" presupposes meaningful baselines for evaluating judicial reputations. A Justice cannot be deemed "neglected" except against the backdrop of some purported consensus about that Justice's reputation and the reputations of other Justices. Moreover, when the category of "neglected Justices" encompasses the performance of Justices who served in different time periods, it also presupposes that evaluative baselines for Justices can retain their integrity in the face of historical change and historical contingency.

This Article argues that when one discounts for history in the process of evaluating judicial reputations, the effects of history are sufficiently powerful to throw …