Law Commons^™

Civil Rights Law Equity: An Introduction To A Theory Of What Civil Rights Has Become, John Valery White

Scholarly Works

This Article argues that civil rights law is better understood as civil rights equity. It contends that the four-decade-long project of restricting civil rights litigation has shaped civil rights jurisprudence into a contemporary version of traditional equity. For years commentators have noted the low success rates of civil rights suits and debated the propriety of increasingly restrictive procedural and substantive doctrines. Activists have lost faith in civil rights litigation as an effective tool for social change, instead seeking change in administrative forums, or by asserting political pressure through social media and activism to compel policy change. As for civil rights …

Uncovering The Hidden Conflicts In Securities Class Action Litigation: Lessons From The State Street Case, Benjamin P. Edwards, Anthony Rickey

Scholarly Works

Courts, Congress, and commentators have long worried that stockholder plaintiffs in securities and M&A litigation and their counsel may pursue suits that benefit themselves rather than absent stockholders or the corporations in which they invest. Following congressional reforms that encouraged the appointment of institutional stockholders as lead plaintiffs in securities actions, significant academic commentary has focused on the problem of “pay to play”—the possibility that class action law firms encourage litigation by making donations to politicians with influence over institutional stockholders, particularly public sector pension funds.

A recent federal securities class action in the District of Massachusetts, however, suggests that …

Our Passive-Aggressive Model Of Civil Adjudication, Thomas O. Main

Scholarly Works

In this essay, Professor Main offers one original observation and poses two new questions about the vanishing civil trial.

Book Review: Legal Persuasion: A Rhetorical Approach To The Science, Lori D. Johnson, Sarah Morath

Scholarly Works

In this piece written for Legal Writing: The Journal of the Legal Writing Institute, Professor Lori D. Johnson provides a compelling review of new publication co-authored by William S. Boyd Law Professor Linda L. Berger.

Is Pena-Rodriguez V. Colorado Just A Drop In The Bucket Or A Catalyst For Improving A Jury System Still Plagued By Racial Bias, And Still Badly In Need Of Repairs, Robert I. Correales

Scholarly Works

Historically, race-based jury bias has maintained the most prominent place in the hierarchy of social ills that have plagued the American Criminal Justice System. Relying on Due Process and Equal Protection principles, the United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have chipped away at the problem with mixed results. State Courts have also served as laboratories, providing important lessons on the successes and failures of different approaches, often leading the way with their innovations. A formidable obstacle commonly referred to as a "black box," better known as the no-impeachment rule, has made progress difficult. The no-impeachment rule was designed …

Principal Investments V. Harrison, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 2 (Jan. 14, 2016), Katherine Maher

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held unless the arbitration agreement commits the question to the arbitrator with “clear and unmistakable” language, a litigation-conduct waiver is presumptively for the court to decide because it is a waiver based on active litigation in court. Thus, the district court judge in this case did not err in addressing whether the moving party waived its right to arbitrate, instead of referring the question to the arbitrator.

Summary Of Logan V. Abe, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 31 (Jun. 4, 2015), Michael S. Valiente

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A party incurs an expense even if a third party pays the expense on the party’s behalf, as long as the party would otherwise be legally obligated to pay the expense. Thus, costs and reasonable attorney fees that a third party paid on behalf of a litigant can be recovered under NRS 17.115(4) and NRCP 68(f)(2). In addition, a party can recover expert witness fees even if the expert did not testify at trial and was not deposed.

Summary Of Manning V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 26 (May 7, 2015), Scott Lundy

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that it is a constitutional error when the district court fails to notify and confer with the parties when the court receives and responds to a note from the jury indicating that they are deadlocked. The Court further held such error will be reviewed for harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt.

Navigating The Law Of Defense Counsel Ex Parte Interviews Of Treating Physicians, Joseph Regalia, V. Andrew Cass

Scholarly Works

This article explores the issue of defense counsel ex parte interviews with treating physicians, and proposes a resolution to standardize the practice that is equitable for all parties involved. Courts and legal scholars have commonly recognized that treating physicians in personal injury litigation are usually fact witnesses, albeit with special expertise, and allow plaintiffs unfettered access while defendants are relegated to a formal deposition which creates a fundamental imbalance in informational power. Moreover, there are significant arguments raised by the defense bar concerning efficiency and fairness. However, allowing defense counsel unlimited and unregulated access to treating physicians creates clear risks …

All Together Now: Using Principles Of Group Dynamics To Train Better Jurors, Sara Gordon

Scholarly Works

We ask juries to make important decisions that have a profound impact on people’s lives. We leave these decisions in the hands of groups of laypeople because we hope that the diverse range of experiences and knowledge in the group will lead to more thoughtful and informed decisionmaking. Studies suggest that diverse groups of jurors have different perspectives on evidence, engage in more thorough debate, and more closely evaluate facts. At the same time, there are a variety of problems associated with group decisionmaking, from the loss of individual motivation in group settings, to the vulnerability of groups to various …

Disarming Employees: How American Employers Are Using Mandatory Arbitration To Deprive Workers Of Legal Protection, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

Employers’ imposition of mandatory arbitration constricts employees’ access to justice. The twenty percent of the American workforce covered by mandatory arbitration clauses file just 2,000 arbitration claims annually, a minuscule number even compared to the small number of employees who litigate claims individually or as part of a class action. Exploring how mandatory arbitration prevents employees from enforcing their rights the Article shows employees covered by mandatory arbitration clauses (1) win far less frequently and far less money than employees who litigate; (2) have a harder time obtaining legal representation; (3) are often precluded from participating in class, collective or …

What Jurors Want To Know: Motivating Juror Cognition To Increase Legal Knowledge & Improve Decisionmaking, Sara Gordon

Scholarly Works

What do jurors want to know? Jury research tells us that jurors want to understand the information they hear in a trial so they can reach the correct decision. But like all people, jurors who are asked to analyze information in a trial—even jurors who consciously want to reach a fair and accurate verdict—are unconsciously influenced by their internal goals and motivations. Some of these motives are specific to individual jurors; for instance, a potential juror with a financial interest in a case would be excluded from the jury pool. But other motivations, like the motive to understand the law …

Using Outcomes To Reframe Guilty Plea Adjudication, Anne R. Traum

Scholarly Works

The Supreme Court’s 2012 decisions in Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye lay the groundwork for a new approach to judicial oversight of guilty pleas that considers outcomes. These cases confirm that courts possess robust authority to protect defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel and that plea outcomes are particularly relevant to identifying and remedying prejudicial ineffective assistance in plea-bargaining. The Court’s reliance on outcome-based prejudice analysis and suggestions for trial court-level reforms to prevent Sixth Amendment violations set the stage for trial courts to take a more active, substantive role in regulating guilty pleas. …

This Is Your Sword: How Damaging Are Prior Convictions To Plaintiffs In Civil Trials?, Kathryn M. Stanchi, Deirdre Bowen

Scholarly Works

The conventional wisdom in law is that a prior conviction is one of the most powerful and damaging pieces of evidence that can be offered against a witness or party. In legal lore, prior convictions seriously undercut the credibility of the witness and can derail the outcome of a trial. This Article suggests that may not always be true.

This Article details the results of an empirical study of juror decision-making that challenges the conventional wisdom about prior convictions. In our study, the prior conviction evidence did not have a direct impact on the outcome of the civil trial or …

When Fear Rules In Law’S Place: Pseudonymous Litigation As A Response To Systematic Intimidation, Benjamin P. Edwards

Scholarly Works

When reprisals and intimidation make certain types of cases too risky for most plaintiffs to file, courts should preserve access to justice by allowing more plaintiffs to proceed pseudonymously. As it stands, courts may be deciding requests to proceed under a pseudonym without understanding the full scope of possible retaliation risks, including that past retaliation may work continuing harm through the stress created by fear.

Unusually heightened retaliation risks may be best exemplified by the nasty reprisals befalling plaintiffs in separation of church and state cases. Although multiple books addressed the issue in the mid-90s, the violent trend has continued …

Toward A Law Of "Lovely Parting Gifts": Conditioning Forum Non Conveniens Dismissals, Thomas O. Main

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Tending To Potted Plants: The Professional Identity Vacuum In Garcetti V. Ceballos, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Gat, Solvay, And The Centralization Of Patent Litigation In Europe, Marketa Trimble

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Cross-Border Injunctions In U.S. Patent Cases And Their Enforcement Abroad, Marketa Trimble

Scholarly Works

In surveying recent literature on difficulties with cross-border injunctions in patent cases, one may conclude that the problem appears to be limited to the phenomenon of pan-European injunctions granted by some courts in Europe in cases concerning infringements of foreign patents. However, even in cases concerning domestic patents, injunctions reaching beyond national borders can be issued; the empirical evidence presented in the paper demonstrates a variety of such instances in U.S. patent cases. Certainly the existence of such injunctions in the U.S. raises concerns about their enforceability in other countries, particularly when they are issued against a foreign entity that …

A Democratic Theory Of Amicus Advocacy, Ruben J. Garcia

Scholarly Works

Amicus curiae ("friend of the court”) participation in litigation has flourished in recent years as many groups and individuals seek to influence the outcome of litigation. Amicus filers are not parties and judges have wide discretion to reject amicus briefs if they believe that the amicus participation does not add anything to the briefs already filed by the parties. In three recent cases, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner has rejected amicus filings and promised to closely scrutinize applications to file amicus briefs in the future. Judge Posner's influence has led an increasing number of judges, primarily at …

The Relationship Between Defense Counsel, Policyholders, And Insurers: Nevada Rides Yellow Cab Toward "Two-Client" Model Of Tripartite Relationship. Are Cumis Counsel And Malpractice Claims By Insurers Next?, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

It happens constantly in civil litigation. An insurance company hires a lawyer to defend its policyholder from a third party’s claim of injury. But just who is the lawyer’s “client?” Is it the policyholder who is the named defendant in the case and is “represented” in court proceedings? Or is it the insurer who, in most cases, selected the attorney, pays the attorney, supervises the litigation, and has (by the terms of the liability insurance policy) the right to settle the case, even over the objections of the policyholder? Ordinarily, the liability insurer has both the duty to defend a …

Lawyer Professional Responsibility In Litigation, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

A perennially-vexing litigation issue concerns the limits of permissible attorney argument. More than a few lawyers have been tripped up by the occasional fuzziness of the line between aggressive advocacy and improper appeals to passion or prejudice. See Craig Lee Montz, Why Lawyers Continue to Cross the Line in Closing Argument: An Examination of Federal and State Cases, 28 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 67 (2001-2002)(problem of violations results from lack of uniformity and clarity of ground rules as well as errors of counsel). In Cohen v. Lioce, 149 P.3d 916 (Nev. 2006) the Nevada Supreme Court both provided significant guidance …

Assessing The Coverage Carnage: Asbestos Liability And Insurance After Three Decades Of Dispute, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Often overlooked are the insurance issues related to asbestos and the degree to which the asbestos mass tort has changed the face of liability insurance and liability insurance law. The asbestos mass tort brought insurance coverage litigation into the big leagues of litigation, adjudication, and scholarly examination (although even the most rabid insurance coverage junkie would concede this is not much silver lining to the asbestos cloud). But after 30 years of big-time liability insurance coverage litigation involving asbestos or influenced by asbestos, what is the outcome? My assessment is:

1. Despite their protestations, insurers have not been unfairly treated …

Class Actions And Limited Vision: Opportunities For Improvement Through A More Functional Approach To Class Treatment Of Disputes, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

This Article describes the evolution of the perception of the modern class action from populist darling to greedy lawyer pariah, including recent passage of CAFA. It then examines the degree to which different types of cases present different potential benefits and detriments of class action treatment and explains why investor class actions, including those brought by institutional investors, are particularly likely to benefit from class treatment, are resistant to many of the perceived problems of class actions in other contexts, and should receive a warmer welcome from courts, both in absolute terms and relative to other types of class actions. …

Not So Peaceful Coexistence: Inherent Tensions In Addressing Tort Law Reform, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

As Professor Michael Green's comments trenchantly remind us, all of this has a familiar ring: insurers and tort defendants claim unfairly escalating liability, plaintiffs' lawyers and consumer groups counterattack, and (for the most part), insurers and defendants obtain some of the relief they seek. The tort reform victories are not so overwhelming as to completely unravel the historical rights of victims or the power of courts generally, but some constriction of rights inevitably occurs. During periods of quiescence, plaintiffs and consumers take back some lost territory through common law victories expanding claimant rights, or through specific legislation. Statutes that permitted …

Disparate Impact Theory In Employment Discrimination: What’S Griggs Still Good For? What Not?, Elaine W. Shoben

Scholarly Works

Is disparate impact a dead theory of employment discrimination? Definitely not. The theory itself has a more stable legal status than it did when the Supreme Court embraced it in its 1971 opinion Griggs v. Duke Power Co. But is it thriving in litigation? It appears to be neither thriving nor dead. It has become a relatively less vital tool, compared with theories of intentional discrimination. Despite the heroic effort of Congress to keep the theory from destruction by the Supreme Court through its express codification in 1991, disparate impact litigation is not making a major impact in this …

Symposium Introduction: Perspectives On Dispute Resolution In The Twenty-First Century, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

An Overview Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act And Its Implications For Attorneys, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

On July 30, 2002, President Bush signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, H.R. 3763, well-publicized in the press as a legislative response to the perceived excesses of corporate America: Enron; WorldCom; Tyco; Global Crossing, etc.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 contains an array of provisions affecting lawyers as professionals serving businesses and contains one provision that will clearly impact corporate counsel in the ethical discharge of their duties. Section 307 of the Act and the recently released Proposed Roles of the Securities Exchange Commission regarding lawyer duties and implementation of Section 307 require counsel to go "up the ladder," to …

Introduction: Favorite Insurance Cases Symposium, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Insurance law scholars and teachers sometimes feel, with a mixture of paranoia and justification, that insurance law simply does not receive its proper respect in the hierarchy of legal education and law generally.

Consider the law school curriculum. In none of America’s nearly 200 ABA-approved law schools in insurance law a required course. Nor is it considered a course that, although not required, prudent students “must” be sure to take before they graduate (e.g. Evidence, Corporations). Enrollments may be respectable but the class is seldom oversubscribed, even where the law school is located in an insurance hub city. Although other …

Timeless And Ahead Of Its Time: Lach's V. Fidelity & Casualty Of New York, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

The publication of Judge Keeton's important article “inventing” the reasonable expectations doctrine in 1971 is notable for infusing a good deal of intellectual energy into the study of insurance law, particularly judicial decisions about insurance coverage. Keeton's article, which deduced from cases the principle that courts tended to interpret policies to vindicate the objectively reasonable expectations of the insured, has rightly been viewed as a milestone. It clarified an area of law long seen as inconsistent or result-oriented. It spurred additional important scholarship in the area and elevated insurance caselaw from something of a backwater to at least a respectable …