Law Commons^™

Good-Bye Significant Contacts: General Personal Jurisdiction After Daimler Ag V. Bauman, Judy Cornett, Michael Hoffheimer

College of Law Faculty Scholarship

This article shows that the Supreme Court's opinion in Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) marks a significant departure from settled practice. It argues that the decision's restriction of general jurisdiction will prevent reasonable access to courts in some cases, eroding the power of state courts for the sake of achieving policy goals that are more appropriate for the political branches.

"All Writs" In Bankruptcy And District Courts: A Story Of Differing Scope, George Kuney

College of Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

In Defense Of The Substance-Procedure Dichotomy, Jennifer S. Hendricks

College of Law Faculty Scholarship

John Hart Ely famously observed, “We were all brought up on sophisticated talk about the fluidity of the line between substance and procedure,” but for most of Erie’s history, the Supreme Court has answered the question “Does this state law govern in federal court?” with a “yes” or a “no.” Beginning, however, with Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, and continuing with Semtek v. Lockheed and Shady Grove v. Allstate, a shifting coalition of justices has pursued a third path. Instead of declaring state law applicable or inapplicable, they have claimed for themselves the prerogative to fashion law that purportedly accommodates …

Ending Erie's Third Phase: Why The Supreme Court Should Stop Freelancing And Go Back To Drawing Lines Between Substance And Procedure, Jennifer S. Hendricks

College of Law Faculty Scholarship

John Hart Ely famously observed, “We were all brought up on sophisticated talk about the fluidity of the line between substance and procedure,” but for most of Erie’s history, the Supreme Court has answered the question “Does this state law govern in federal court?” with a “yes” or a “no.” Beginning, however, with Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, and continuing with Semtek v. Lockheed and Shady Grove v. Allstate, a shifting coalition of justices has pursued a third path. Instead of declaring state law applicable or inapplicable, they have claimed for themselves the prerogative to fashion law that purportedly accommodates …

Do Judges Systematically Favor The Interests Of The Legal Profession? , Benjamin H. Barton

College of Law Faculty Scholarship

This Article answers this question with the following jurisprudential hypothesis: many legal outcomes can be explained, and future cases predicted, by asking a very simple question, is there a plausible legal result in this case that will significantly affect the interests of the legal profession (positively or negatively)? If so, the case will be decided in the way that offers the best result for the legal profession.

The article presents theoretical support from the new institutionalism, cognitive psychology and economic theory. The Article then gathers and analyzes supporting cases from areas as diverse as constitutional law, torts, professional responsibility, employment …

Do Judges Systematically Favor The Interests Of The Legal Profession? , Benjamin H. Barton

College of Law Faculty Scholarship

This Article answers this question with the following jurisprudential hypothesis: many legal outcomes can be explained, and future cases predicted, by asking a very simple question, is there a plausible legal result in this case that will significantly affect the interests of the legal profession (positively or negatively)? If so, the case will be decided in the way that offers the best result for the legal profession.

The article presents theoretical support from the new institutionalism, cognitive psychology and economic theory. The Article then gathers and analyzes supporting cases from areas as diverse as constitutional law, torts, professional responsibility, employment …