Law Commons^™

Full Federal Circuit Curbs On Sale Bar's Threat To Patents, Zong-Qiang Bill Tian, Matthew D'Amore

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Gross Beast Of Burden Of Proof: Experimental Evidence On How The Burden Of Proof Influences Employment Discrimination Case Outcomes, David Sherwyn, Michael Heise

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Scholarly and public attention to the burden of proof and jury instructions has increased dramatically since the Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. Gross holds that the so-called mixed-motive jury instruction, which we call the motivating factor instruction, is not available in age, and possibly disability and retaliation cases. The decision prompted an outcry from the plaintiffs' bar and Congress has proposed legislation to overturn Gross. Despite the outcry, a simple question persists: Does the motivating factor jury instruction influence case outcomes? Results from our experimental mock jury study suggest that such jury instructions …

Punitive Damages In Securities Arbitration: An Empirical Study, Stephen Choi, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This article provides the first empirical analysis of punitive damages in securities arbitrations. Using a data set of over 6,800 securities arbitration awards, we find that claimants prevailed in 48.9 percent of arbitrations and that 9.1 percent of those claimant victories included a punitive damages award. The existence of a punitive damages award was associated with claims that suggested egregious misbehavior and with claims that provided higher compensatory awards. The pattern of punitive awards is more consistent with a traditional view of punitive damages that incorporates a retributive component than with a law and economics emphasis on efficient deterrence. We …

Maybe Dick Speidel Was Right About Court Adjustment, Robert A. Hillman

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In a symposium to honor Professor Richard Speidel, a giant in the field of contract and commercial law for over four decades, this contribution argues that Speidel may have been correct in asserting that, in limited circumstances, court adjustment of disrupted long-term contracts makes sense. I assert that nothing courts have decided or writers have analyzed since the ALCOA case proves that court adjustment is wrong-headed. But, as with so many policy issues, we may never identify the "best" judicial approach to disrupted long-term contracts because resolution depends on too many variables and unknowns.

A New Look At Judicial Impact: Attorneys' Fees In Securities Class Actions After Goldberger V. Integrated Resources, Inc., Theodore Eisenberg, Geoffrey P. Miller, Michael A. Perino

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Judicial impact studies have generally found widespread compliance by lower courts. Often, however, these studies employ relatively insensitive measures of compliance, limit their focus to compliance with Supreme Court precedent, and only occasionally examine the impact of judicial decisions on the ultimate consumers of those rulings - the members of society who are subject to them. Significant questions thus remain, such as whether and to what extent lower courts in fact comply with precedent and what if any role fear of reversal plays in compliance. To address these gaps, we use regression analysis to examine how the district courts in …

Who Decides The Arbitrators' Jurisdiction? Separability And Competence-Competence In Transnational Perspective, John J. Barceló Iii

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Realigning Corporate Governance: Shareholder Activism By Labor Unions, Stewart J. Schwab, Randall S. Thomas

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The "Chief Executive" And The Quiet Constitutional Revolution, Cynthia R. Farina

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Litigation Outcomes In State And Federal Courts: A Statistical Portrait, Theodore Eisenberg, John Goerdt, Brian Ostrom, David Rottman

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

"U.S. Juries Grow Tougher on Plaintiffs in Lawsuits," the New York Times page-one headline reads. The story details how, in 1992, plaintiffs won 52 percent of the personal injury cases decided by jury verdicts, a decline from the 63 percent plaintiff success rate in 1989. The sound-byte explanations follow, including the notion that juries have learned that they, as part of the general population, ultimately pay the costs of high verdicts. Similar stories, reporting both increases and decreases in jury award levels, regularly make headlines. Jury Verdict Research, Inc. (JVR), a commercial service that sells case outcome information, often is …

Life-Cycle Justice: Accommodating Just Cause And Employment At Will, Stewart J. Schwab

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Is The Glass Half-Empty Or Half-Full?: Reflections On The Kodak Case, George A. Hay

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Statutory Interpretation And The Balance Of Power In The Administrative State, Cynthia R. Farina

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Collective Bargaining And The Coase Theorem, Stewart J. Schwab

Cornell Law Faculty Publications