Law Commons^™

Sieracki Lives: A Portrait Of The Interplay Between Legislation And The Judicially Created General Maritime Law, Thomas C. Galligan Jr.

Journal Articles

In American maritime law, the interplay between the courts and Congress is complex and iterative. A significant body of American admiralty law, the general maritime law, has been judicially created and developed. But Congress has also enacted a number of important statutes governing maritime commerce and the rights of maritime workers, such as the Longshore and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act (“LHWCA”). The back and forth between the courts and Congress in interpreting those statutes and gauging their impact on and consistency with the general maritime law is ongoing. One important area where the courts development of the general maritime law …

A Better Interpretation Of The Wrongful Death Act, Dennis M. Doiron

Maine Law Review

A viable fetus is not a person under the wrongful death act, declared the Maine Law Court in a controversial decision in 1988. To reach this conclusion, the court employed one traditional and one new rule of statutory interpretation, and one traditional rule of law. The traditional rule of interpretation-that the wrongful death act is to be strictly construed because it is in derogation of the common law-dates from the earliest wrongful death cases heard by the court. The new rule of interpretation-that the death statute must be harmonized with the Maine Uniform Probate Code-derives from the enactment of the …

Qualified Immunity And Statutory Interpretation: A Response To William Baude, Hillel Y. Levin, Michael Wells

Scholarly Works

In his article, Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?, Professor Baude argues that the doctrine of qualified immunity under section 1983 is unlawful because the doctrine did not exist at the time section 1983 was enacted. We disagree. Section 1983 is a common law statute. Consequently, its meaning and application was not fixed at the time of original passage. In this article, we explain why.

Although we are sympathetic to Professor Baude’s implicit policy-based critique of the doctrine of qualified immunity, we believe his analysis is flawed. The better and more likely way to improve the doctrine is through the common law …

Simmons V. Briones, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 9, Annie Avery

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A judgment for penalty attorney fees and costs against a driver in an action that arises out of a motor vehicle accident is not a “judgment . . . upon a cause of action” arising out of the use of a motor vehicle such that its nonpayment may result in the suspension of driving privileges under NRS § 485.302.

Torts: No Statutory Interpretation Required—Guzick V. Kimball, Marcus Jardine

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

To Touch And Concern The United States With Sufficient Force: How American Due Process And Choice Of Law Cases Inform The Reach Of The Alien Tort Statute After Kiobel, Karima Tawfik

Michigan Journal of International Law

This Note explores the post-Kiobel ATS cases and argues that the Fourth Circuit’s approach to considering claims that manifest a close connection to the United States as potentially entitling the plaintiff to relief under the ATS is preferable to approaches that categorically bar claims when the alleged conduct has occurred abroad. Part I describes the Kiobel decision in more depth and the subsequent ATS case law to outline the contours of recent circuit cases. Part II demonstrates how domestic personal jurisdiction and choice of law principles weigh in favor of a more expansive reading of the ATS, as adopted …

Everything Is Presumed In Texas, Benjamin Walther

Benjamin Walther

As this Article will reveal, the Fifth Circuit has traditionally been loath to apply the presumption against preemption in most cases. Texas courts, on the other hand, have consistently employed a particularly strong application of the presumption to all types of preemption cases. This inconsistency between these two jurisdictions creates an incentive for forum shopping. Generally, the courts rely on a defendant’s ability to remove a case to the federal courts to counteract the plaintiff’s exclusive power to decide the forum. This ability, however, is not available to a defendant within the context of preemption cases. As such, there is …

A Jurisprudential Divide In U.S. V. Wong & U.S. V. June, Richard J. Peltz-Steele

Faculty Publications

In spring 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two consolidated cases construing the Federal Tort Claims Act, U.S. v. Kwai Fun Wong and U.S. v June, Conservator. The Court majority, 5-4, per Justice Kagan, ruled in favor of the claimants and against the Government in both cases. On the face of the majority opinions, Wong and June come off as straightforward matters of statutory construction. But under the surface, the cases gave the Court a chance to wrestle with fundamental questions of statutory interpretation. The divide in Wong and June concerns the role of the courts vis-à-vis Congress — one …

Benevolent Maleficence:How A Well-Intentioned Legislature And A Deferential Court Combined To Stunt The Development Of Massachusetts Product Liability Law, Philip E. Cleary

University of Massachusetts Law Review

Massachusetts product liability law is unusual. Unlike most states, Massachusetts does not recognize strict tort liability in the product area. Rather, "strict product liability" is limited to breaches of warranty under Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code. the Massachusetts Legislature amended Article 2 in several ways to provide a "strict liability" remedy that is, in the words of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, "congruent in nearly all respects with the principles" of strict tort liability. The court has construed the amendments to the UCC as precluding the adoption of strict tort liability in Massachusetts. In most ways, Massachusetts product …

A Case Study In The Superiority Of The Purposive Approach To Statutory Interpretation: Bruesewitz V. Wyeth , Donald G. Gifford, William L. Reynolds, Andrew M. Murad

William L. Reynolds

This Article uses the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth to examine the textualist or “plain meaning” approach to statutory interpretation. For more than a quarter-century, Justice Scalia has successfully promoted textualism, usually associated with conservatism, among his colleagues. In Bruesewitz, Scalia, writing for the majority, and his liberal colleague Justice Sotomayer, in dissent, both employed textualism to determine if the plaintiffs, whose child was allegedly harmed by a vaccine, could pursue common-law tort claims or whether their remedies were limited to those available under the no-fault compensation system established by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Despite …

Does The Packers And Stockyards Act Require Antitrust Harm?, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

The Packers and Stockyards Act was enacted in 1921. Congress was plainly influenced by the 1919 publication of a Federal Trade Commission Report on the meatpacking industry. Consistent with the FTC’s jurisdiction and concerns, the Report dealt with deceptive and unfair practices as well as practices that were believed to violate the antitrust laws. The language of the PSA does much the same, mixing the two. Of its seven specific prohibitions, three contain antitrust-like provisions requiring a lessening of competition. Two others reach unfair and tort-like conduct without any requirement of harm to competition. The remaining two reach both anticompetitive …

Slides: The Future Of Oil And Gas Development On Federal Lands, Mike Chiropolos

The Future of Natural Resources Law and Policy (Summer Conference, June 6-8)

Presenter: Mike Chiropolos, Lands Program Director, Western Resource Advocates

44 slides

Preemption Of State Tort Law By Federal Safety Statutes: Supreme Court Preemption Jurisprudence Since Cipollone, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This article shall attempt to trace the twists and turns of Supreme Court preemption jurisprudence. Part I provides a brief overview of federal preemption law, considering the constitutional sources of preemption and the traditional preemption categories. Part II analyzes Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., the source of modem Supreme Court doctrine regarding preemption of state tort law by federal safety legislation. Part III reviews seven post-Cipollone Supreme Court preemption cases: CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood, Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Shanklin, Geier v. American Honda Motor …

With The Legislature's Permission And The Supreme Court"S Consent, Common Law Social Host Liability Returns To Minnesota, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

In 1990, the Minnesota Legislature amended the Civil Damage Act to allow for common law tort claims against persons 21 years old or older who knowingly provide alcohol to a person under 21 years of age. The 1990 amendment is unique because the legislature in effect appears to be releasing its stranglehold on liquor liability law, permitting the courts to apply common law negligence principles under the defined circumstances, but without providing any guidelines as to how the common law remedy should be formulated. The interpretive problems the amendment creates will eventually have to be resolved by the courts. The …

Federal Preemption Of State Products Liability Doctrines, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Federal agencies now regulate the manufacture, design, and labeling of hundreds of consumer products. For example, the Consumer Product Safety Commission promulgates "consumer product safety standards" for a number of consumer products. Likewise, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 authorizes the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration to develop safety standards for automobiles and other motor vehicles. Additionally, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) exercises extensive control over prescription drugs, biologics, medical devices, and over-the-counter drugs. The FDA also regulates food labeling.6 Finally, Congress has established statutory labeling requirements for cigarettes, smokeless tobacco products, and alcoholic beverages. …

The Impact Of The Cipollone Case On Federal Preemption Law, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The United States Supreme Court handed down an opinion in the Cipollone case on June 24, 1992. Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, concluded that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempted all tort claims against cigarette manufacturers based on failure to provide adequate warnings about the health risks of smoking. However, the Court also held that claims based on breach of express warranty, misrepresentation, and conspiracy were not preempted by the Act. Thus, although Cipollone represents a clear victory for tobacco companies, it also leaves the door open for future litigation. The first part of this Article will …

From Feres To Stencel: Should Military Personnel Have Access To Ftca Recovery, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note reevaluates the Feres doctrine in light of legal developments of the past three decades. It concludes that the FTCA should be extended to military claims. It discusses the arguments that military claims will burden vital government functions and shows that the exception to liability under the present FTCA, particularly the exception for "discretionary actions" by government employees, would adequately protect all legitimate military interests.

Emerging Standards For Implied Actions Under Federal Statutes, Gary W. Klotz

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This article will examine the theoretical basis for finding implied causes of action in legislation and the development of the implication doctrine in the federal courts. In particular, the Cort v. Ash case will be discussed, both in terms of the standards articulated by the Supreme Court in dicta and the potential impact of Cort on the law of implied remedies.