Law Commons^™

Atlantic Pilotage Authority V Cmsg, Innis Christie

Innis Christie Collection

INTRODUCTION. The "RESOLUTION OF CONTRACT RENEWAL DISPUTES AGREEMENT" of April 24, 2003 between the parties, under which I am proceeding here, provides: The purpose of this agreement is to establish a binding dispute resolution process to be utilized in circumstances where the parties have engaged in collective bargaining for the purpose of entering into a collective agreement but have failed to reach a settlement. Under such circumstances the following process shall be used to conclude all outstanding issues for the renewal of the collective agreement:

Fort Mcdowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Revision Act Of 2006, United States 109th Congress

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Federal Legislation: Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Revision Act of 2006 (PL 109-373, 120 Stat. 2650) This Act cancels the repayment obligation of the tribe under PL 101-628 and relieves the DOI secretary of its obligation to obtain mitigation property or develop additional farm acreage under the Act. [Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-120/pdf/STATUTE-120-Pg2650.pdf]

Conflicts Of Interest And Institutional Litigants, Curtis E.A. Karnow

ExpressO

This paper uses techniques borrowed from the field of game theory to describe rational bargaining among institutional litigants, and explains how the results, while often not leading to the rational outcome in a given case, do rationally serve a more general strategy. The paper then reviews the law on conflicts of interests and concludes that such conflicts—as between attorney and client, and among clients—will often result when institutional litigants bargain. The paper continues with a review on the law of waiver and provides a basis to accommodate the conflicts of interests. That accommodation however will often not be practical, and …

Who Decides?: A Critical Look At Procedural Discretion, Robert G. Bone

ExpressO

Federal civil procedure today relies extensively on trial judge discretion to manage litigation, promote settlements, and otherwise tailor process to individual cases. Even those rules with decisional standards leave trial judges considerable interpretive freedom to make case-specific determinations. This Article criticizes these choices and recommends stricter rules. Many judges and procedure scholars applaud the discretionary approach, and the Advisory Committee seems content to draft vague rules that implement it. The assumption seems to be that trial judges have the expertise and experience to do a good job of tailoring procedures to the needs of particular cases. The assumption is wrong, …

Soboba Band Of Luiseño Indians Settlement Agreement, Soboba Band Of Luiseño Indians Et Al

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Settlement Agreement: Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians Settlement Agreement of June 7, 2006, (final signatures Oct. 18, 2008) Parties: Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, US, Eastern Municipal Water District, Lake Hemet Municipal Water District and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The Tribe is entitled to 9K acre-feet annually (afy) as a prior and paramount right. The districts agree to supply the Tribe water to the extent that it is not able to produce that amount. However, the Tribe agrees to limit its exercise of the right to 4,100 afy for 50 years. The Tribe may use water made available …

A Price Theory Of Legal Bargaining: An Inquiry Into The Selection Of Settlement And Litigation Under Uncertainty, Robert J. Rhee

Faculty Scholarship

Conventional wisdom says that economic surplus is created when the cost of litigation is foregone in favor of settlement, a theory flowing from the Coase Theorem. The cost-benefit analysis weighs settlement against the expected value of litigation net of transaction cost. This calculus yields the normative proposition that settlement is a superior form of dispute resolution and so most trials are considered errors. While simple in concept, the prevailing economic model is flawed. This article is a theoretical inquiry into the selection criteria of settlement and trial. It applies principles of financial economics to construct a pricing theory of legal …

Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes Settlement Act Of 2006, United States 109th Congress

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Federal Legislation: Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes Settlement Act of 2006 in Native American Technical Corrections Act of 2006 (PL 109-221, Sec. 104, 120 Stat. 336) This Act amends Sec. 102 of the Fallon Paiute Shoshone Indian Tribes Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990. The amendment concerns restructuring of management of Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes Settlement Fund. [Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ221/pdf/PLAW-109publ221.pdf]

The Unexpected Value Of Litigation: A Real Options Perspective, Joseph A. Grundfest, Peter H. Huang

Publications

In this Article, we suggest that litigation can be analyzed as though it is a competitive research and development project. Developing this analogy, we present a two-stage real option model of the litigation process that involves sequential information revelation and bargaining over the surplus generated by early settlement. Litigants are risk-neutral and have no private information. The model generates results that, we believe, have analytic and normative significance for the economic analysis of litigation

From an analytic perspective, we demonstrate that negative expected value (NEV) lawsuits are analogous to out of the money call options held by plaintiffs and that …

How Much Justice Can We Afford?: Defining The Courts' Roles And Deciding The Appropriate Number Of Trials, Settlement Signals, And Other Elements Needed To Administer Justice, John M. Lande

Faculty Publications

This article discusses how the U.S. court system can function optimally given declining trial rates and the limited resources available. The question of how much justice we can afford is a challenge that becomes more difficult as budgets fall behind the increasing demand for and cost of court services. Presumably most analysts would agree that courts should try cases when appropriate - and help litigants find just resolutions without trial when it is not needed. The courts' ability to provide trials in some cases is possible only if the vast majority of other cases are not tried.This article provides background …

How Much Justice Can We Afford: Defining The Courts' Roles And Deciding The Appropriate Number Of Trials, Settlement Signals, And Other Elements Needed To Administer Justice, John Lande

Journal of Dispute Resolution

This article discusses how the court system can function optimally given declining trial rates and the limited resources available. It does not provide a detailed analysis of court financing but rather discusses broad issues relating to the role of trials in the legal system.

Anchoring, Information, Expertise, And Negotiation: New Insights From Meta-Analysis, Chris Guthrie, Dan Orr

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In this article, we conduct a meta-analysis of studies of simulated negotiations to explore the impact of an initial "anchor," typically an opening demand or offer, on negotiation outcomes. We find that anchoring has a significant impact on the deals that negotiators reach. We also explore whether negotiator experience and the information environment mitigate the influence of anchoring. We conclude by offering prescriptive advice, both "offensive" and "defensive," to negotiators.

A Price Theory Of Legal Bargaining: An Inquiry Into The Selection Of Settlement And Litigation Under Uncertainty, Robert J. Rhee

UF Law Faculty Publications

Conventional wisdom says that economic surplus is created when the cost of litigation is foregone in favor of settlement, a theory flowing from the Coase Theorem. The cost-benefit analysis weighs settlement against the expected value of litigation net of transaction cost. This calculus yields the normative proposition that settlement is a superior form of dispute resolution and so most trials are considered errors. While simple in concept, the prevailing economic model is flawed. This article is a theoretical inquiry into the selection criteria of settlement and trial. It applies principles of financial economics to construct a pricing theory of legal …

Do Reverse Payment Settlements Violate The Antitrust Laws, Christopher M. Holman

Faculty Works

The term "reverse payment" has been used as shorthand to characterize a variety of diverse agreements between patent owners and alleged infringers that involve a transfer of consideration from the patent owner to the alleged infringer. Reverse payment settlements are particularly associated with drug patent challenges mounted by generic drug companies under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Many, including the Federal Trade Commission, would characterize these agreements as antitrust violations. However, courts have generally declined to find these agreements in violation of the antitrust laws based solely on the presence of a reverse payment.

This article begins in Section II with an …

Australia To Become “Nerve Centre” For P2p Litigation?, Rebecca Giblin

Dr Rebecca Giblin

Discusses the terms and implications of the Sharman Networks (Kazaa) settlement.