Law Commons^™

Federal Securities Fraud Litigation As A Lawmaking Partnership, Jill E. Fisch

All Faculty Scholarship

In its most recent Halliburton II decision, the Supreme Court rejected an effort to overrule its prior decision in Basic Inc. v. Levinson. The Court reasoned that adherence to Basic was warranted by principles of stare decisis that operate with “special force” in the context of statutory interpretation. This Article offers an alternative justification for adhering to Basic—the collaboration between the Court and Congress that has led to the development of the private class action for federal securities fraud. The Article characterizes this collaboration as a lawmaking partnership and argues that such a partnership offers distinctive lawmaking advantages. …

Defending The Majoritarian Court, Amanda Frost

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

No abstract provided.

A Sea Of Confusion: The Shipowner's Limitation Of Liability Act As An Independent Basis For Admiralty Jurisdiction, Amie L. Medley

Michigan Law Review

The Shipowner's Limitation of Liability Act of 1851 allowed the owner of a vessel to limit his liability in the case of an accident to the value of the vessel and its cargo if he could show he had no knowledge of or participation in the negligent act that resulted in the loss. In 1911, the Supreme Court decided Richardson v. Harmon, a case which was interpreted for several decades to hold that the Limitation Act formed an independent basis for admiralty jurisdiction. In a 1990 case, the Supreme Court stated in a footnote that it would not reach …

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 …

Unmasking The Presumption In Favor Of Preemption, Mary J. Davis

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

It is inescapable: there is a presumption in favor of preemption. Historically, the Supreme Court has said differently-that, rather, there is a presumption against preemption. There is no such presumption any longer, if, indeed, there ever really was one. Preemption doctrine has been exceedingly puzzling in the last decade, but when one recognizes that the Court's doctrine not only favors preemption, but presumes it, preemption doctrine is not a puzzle at all.

This Article argues that the Supreme Court's recent preemption decisions compel the conclusion that the Court's preemption analysis has, in effect, created a presumption in favor of preemption, …

The Supreme Court And Our Culture Of Irresponsibility, Mary J. Davis

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This article chronicles the Supreme Court's expansion of the “culture of irresponsibility,” where institutional defendants are freed from tort liability with no check on the abuse of such immunity. Professor Davis describes the Court's progression toward immunity in products liability decisions of the past decade including East River Steamship, Boyle, Cipollone, and Lohr. Noting the effect of the Court's decisions in promoting institutional irresponsibility, Professor Davis encourages the Court to use its “cultural influence” and reconsider its broad extension of immunity which has spread to situations and institutional defendants the Court never imagined.

The Qualified Immunity Doctrine In The Supreme Court: Judicial Activism And The Restriction Of Constitutional Rights, David Rudovsky

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Divided Damages - The Albatross Of The Modern Mariner., Howard E. Davis Jr.

St. Mary's Law Journal

Since 1854, the United States has followed the English rule regarding ship collision cases: where both vessels involved in a collision are at fault, each party is responsible for one-half of the total damages regardless of its respective degree of blame. At the time, the rule was considered necessary to provide just and equitable results in admiralty litigation. However, the harshness of the rule justifies its disregard in favor of more equitable remedies. The problem with divided damages can be illustrated by the following scenario: a small pleasure craft and an oil tanker collide. The pleasure craft is only slightly …