Law Commons^™

In A Class Of Its Own: Bristol-Myers Squibb'S Worrisome Application To Class Actions, Grant Mcleod

Akron Law Review

The Supreme Court’s holding in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court has far-reaching implications for federally filed class actions. While the case concerned a mass action in the California state courts, the opinion contained strong dicta to suggest its principles of specific jurisdiction could be applied to federal class—an entirely different procedural tool with its own host of complexities and problems. In the three years following the decision, federal district courts are split on how to apply the Bristol-Myers Squibb analysis to class actions. A distinct category of courts have applied the analysis to dismiss absent class members’ claims when …

Appellate Jurisdiction And The Emoluments Litigation, Adam N. Steinman

Akron Law Review

This article—part of a symposium on federal appellate procedure—addresses questions of appellate jurisdiction that have played an important role in litigation challenging Donald Trump’s conduct under the Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses. When federal trial judges in the District of Columbia and Maryland rejected Trump’s early attempts to dismiss two of these cases, Trump sought immediate relief from the federal courts of appeals rather than allowing the litigation to proceed in the district courts. The lack of a traditional final judgment, however, prompted difficult jurisdictional issues for the D.C. Circuit and the Fourth Circuit.

In both cases, the relationship between appellate mandamus …

Three Ideas For Discretionary Appeals, Bryan Lammon

Akron Law Review

Discretionary appeals currently play a limited role in federal appellate jurisdiction. But reformers have long argued for a larger role. And any wholesale reform of the current appellate-jurisdiction system will likely involve additional or expanded opportunities for discretionary appeals. In this essay, I offer three ideas for the future of discretionary appeals—what form they might take in a reformed system of federal appellate jurisdiction and how we might learn about their function. First, remove any limits on the types of decisions that can be certified for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Second, give parties one opportunity in a …

The Renaissance Of Permissive Interlocutory Appeals And The Demise Of The Collateral Order Doctrine, Michael E. Solimine

Akron Law Review

Reserving appeals to final judgments has a long history in the federal courts, as do exceptions to that rule. The problem has less been the existence of the exceptions, but rather their scope and application. This article addresses two of those exceptions. One is permissive interlocutory appeals codified in section 1292(b) of the Judicial Code. That exception, requiring the permission of both the trial and appellate courts, has numerous advantages over other exceptions, has been frequently touted as such by the Supreme Court, and has been applied in several recent high-profile cases. In contrast, the collateral order doctrine, an ostensible …

Judicial Disqualification On Appeal, Cassandra Burke Robertson, Gregory Hilbert

Akron Law Review

Adjudication by an impartial decision maker is one of the cornerstones of due process. The interest is so fundamental that constitutional due process guards against even the appearance of partiality, and federal judges are statutorily required to disqualify themselves in any proceeding in which their impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” Courts and scholars alike have struggled with what it means to “reasonably question” a judge’s impartiality. That question has taken on greater salience in recent years, as deepening partisan divisions have increasingly led parties to express skepticism of judicial neutrality.

When a party files a motion to disqualify a judge …

Signed Opinions, Concurrences, Dissents, And Vote Counts In The U.S. Supreme Court: Boon Or Bane? (A Response To Professors Penrose And Sherry), Joan Steinman

Akron Law Review

Some commentators recently have argued for changes in how United States Supreme Court Justices communicate with everyone except perhaps other Justices of the Supreme Court and the Justices' assistants. Specifically, some commentators have urged that signed opinions and separate opinions, such as concurrences and dissents, stop being published in the official reports. One commentator also has advocated non‑publication of the vote count in Supreme Court decisions. Another has demanded unanimity, as required by due process.

In this piece, I offer my thoughts in response to these proposals.

I argue several reasons to doubt that a prohibition on publication of concurring …

Fixing The Broken System Of Assessing Criminal Appeals For Frivolousness, Andrew S. Pollis

Akron Law Review

This article seeks to end fifty years of confusion over how to proceed when a criminal defendant wants to appeal but appointed counsel sees no basis for doing so.

Practices vary among jurisdictions, but most require counsel to explain the predicament to the court—often at a level of detail that compromises the duty of loyalty to the client. Most also require the court to double-check counsel’s conclusion by conducting its own independent review of the record, thus burdening judges and blurring the important line between judge and advocate. And at no point in this process does the defendant have a …