Civil Procedure Commons^™

Stepping Into The Shoes Of The Department Of Justice: The Unusual, Necessary, And Hopeful Path The Illinois Attorney General Took To Require Police Reform In Chicago, Lisa Madigan, Cara Hendrickson, Karyn L. Bass Ehler

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

No abstract provided.

Conceptualizing Appealability: Resisting The Supreme Court's Categorical Imperative, Richard L. Heppner Jr.

Law Faculty Publications

This paper draws on insights from cognitive psychology to understand how courts conceive of categories of orders. Cognitive psychologists have shown that people understand the world using not only "classical categories" based on logical definitions, but also "conceptual categories" based on fuzzier, intuitive concepts of similarity and typicality. This paper approaches appealability as a two-step process-first, categorizing the order and, second, applying the appropriate doctrine. Previous interventions have focused on whether different doctrines use rules or standards at the second step. This paper focuses on the initial categorization step.

This paper makes two contributions to the study of federal appealability. …

Precedent, Non-Universal Injunctions, And Judicial Departmentalism: A Model Of Constitutional Adjudication, Howard M. Wasserman

Lewis & Clark Law Review

This Article proposes a model of constitutional adjudication that offers a deeper, richer, and more accurate vision than the simple “courts strike down unconstitutional laws” narrative that pervades legal, popular, and political discourse around constitutional litigation. The model rests on five principles: 1) an actionable constitutional violation arises from the actual or threatened enforcement of an invalid law, not the existence of the law itself; 2) the remedy when a law is constitutionally invalid is for the court to halt enforcement; 3) remedies must be particularized to the parties to a case and courts should not issue “universal” or “nationwide” …

Multidistrict Litigation And Personal Jurisdiction, Zachary T. Nelson

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, a court cannot lawfully adjudicate a party’s rights or obligations unless, among other things, that court possesses sufficient personal jurisdiction over the party. The means by which a court may obtain such jurisdiction have grown increasingly narrow in recent years. Parallel to that trend has been the meteoric rise of multidistrict litigation (MDL), in which the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers and consolidates numerous civil cases in a single federal court that, in many instances, lacks personal jurisdiction over one or more parties. Although MDL is statutorily limited to “pretrial proceedings,” 97% …

Foreword, National Injunctions: What Does The Future Hold?, Suzette Malveaux

Publications

This Foreword is to the 27th Annual Ira C. Rothgerber Jr. Conference, National Injunctions: What Does the Future Hold?, which was hosted by The Byron R. White Center for the Study of American Constitutional Law at the University of Colorado Law School, on Apr. 5, 2019.

Trust The Process: Understanding Procedural Standing Under Spokeo, Jon Romberg

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pills, Public Nuisance, And Parens Patriae: Questioning The Propriety Of The Posture Of The Opioid Litigation, Michelle L. Richards

University of Richmond Law Review

The opioid crisis has been in litigation for almost twenty years on various fronts, including criminal prosecutions of pharmaceutical executives, civil lawsuits by individuals against drug manufacturers and physicians, class actions by those affected by opioid abuse, and criminal actions filed by the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”). In the early 2000s, opioid litigation began with individual plaintiffs filing suit against manufacturers and others for damages allegedly related to opioid use. The litigation has since expanded significantly in terms of the type of plaintiffs and defendants, the nature of the claims being asserted, and the damages attributable to the crisis.

The …

Experiments With Suppression: The Evolution Of Repressive Legality In Britain In The Revolutionary Period, Christopher M. Roberts

Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review

This article is concerned with the structure of repressive governance, and how it has evolved historically. It examines this theme through an exploration of the manner which repressive laws and institutions evolved in Britain over the course of the late eighteenth century. In particular, it reviews the various measures that British authorities utilized and relied upon in order to confront a growing wave of calls for social and political reforms. These included a policy of aggressive prosecutions of dissidents; the creation of new institutions such as the Home Office designed to enhance the powers of the central authorities; extralegal measures …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Knick V. Township Of Scott, Alizabeth A. Bronsdon

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Supreme Court overruled a 34-year-old precedent and sparked a sharp dissent by holding that a landowner impacted by a local ordinance requiring public access to an unofficial cemetery on her property could bring a takings claim directly in federal court. The decision eliminated a Catch-22 state-litigation requirement that effectively barred local takings plaintiffs from federal court, but raised concerns about government land use and regulation, judicial federalism, and the role of stare decisis.

Out Of The Quandary: Personal Jurisdiction Over Absent Class Member Claims Explained, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

Since the Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, litigants and lower courts have wrestled with the issue of whether a federal court must be able to exercise personal jurisdiction with respect to each of the claims asserted by absent class members in a class action and, if so, what standard governs that jurisdictional determination. This issue is rapidly coming to a head and is poised for inevitable resolution by the Supreme Court in the near future; multiple circuit courts have heard appeals from district courts that have reached varying conclusions on …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Establishing Climate Change Standing: A New Approach, Ian R. Curry

Pace Environmental Law Review

Climate change is one of the thorniest political, legal, and economic issues of our time. Therefore, a new legal approach to the issue is required. This Note proposes a streamlined approach for climate change standing, one that assumes injury in fact and causation for a class of discernible climate change harms. A streamlined approach will enable litigants harmed by climate change to seek redress in court, providing an outlet for redress where there has previously been none. Part II of this Note discusses the constitutional doctrine of standing. It begins with a summary of Article III and the logic behind …

The Venue Shuffle: Forum Selection Clauses & Erisa, Christine P. Bartholomew, James A. Wooten

Journal Articles

Forum selection clauses are ubiquitous. Historically, the judiciary was hostile to contracts limiting a plaintiff’s venue options. The tide has since turned. Today, lower courts routinely enforce such clauses. This Article challenges this reflexive response in the special context of ERISA cases. It mines ERISA’s statutory text, rich legislative history, and historical context to supply an in-depth exploration of ERISA’s unique policy goal of providing employees “ready access to the Federal courts.” The Article then explains how forum selection clauses undermine this goal and thus should be invalid under controlling Supreme Court jurisprudence.

The Normativity Of Possibilities And Ideals, Tvsi Blanchard

Cardozo Law Review

To begin, Arthur, I want to say to you, that it's privilege for me to be a part of this event that honors you. We've known each other for a long time and I, as all of us here, have always recognized your intellectual capability and deep insight. But I also want to add here that you are at the same time a very kind, caring person. In many ways, you are the embodiment of what I would hold the most important Jewish value of Chesed, loving-kindness. For me it is an inspiration to know you.

Due Process Supreme Court Rockland County

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process Pringle V. Wolfe (Decided 28, 1996)

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Queens County

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Overruling Mcculloch?, Mark A. Graber

Arkansas Law Review

Daniel Webster warned Whig associates in 1841 that the Supreme Court would likely declare unconstitutional the national bank bill that Henry Clay was pushing through the Congress. This claim was probably based on inside information. Webster was a close association of Justice Joseph Story. The justices at this time frequently leaked word to their political allies of judicial sentiments on the issues of the day. Even if Webster lacked first-hand knowledge of how the Taney Court would probably rule in a case raising the constitutionality of the national bank, the personnel on that tribunal provided strong grounds for Whig pessimism. …

M'Culloch In Context, Mark R. Killenbeck

Arkansas Law Review

M’Culloch v. Maryland is rightly regarded as a landmark opinion, one that affirmed the ability of Congress to exercise implied powers, articulated a rule of deference to Congressional judgments about whether given legislative actions were in fact “necessary,” and limited the ability of the states to impair or restrict the operations of the federal government. Most scholarly discussions of the case and its legacy emphasize these aspects of the decision. Less common are attempts to place M’Culloch within the ebb and flow of the Marshall Court and the political and social realities of the time. So, for example, very few …

The Confusing Language Of Mcculloch V. Maryland: Did Marshall Really Know What He Was Doing (Or Meant)?, Sanford Levinson

Arkansas Law Review

All legal “interpretation” involves confrontation with inherently indeterminate language. I have distinguished in my own work between what I call the Constitution of Settlement and the Constitution of Conversation. The former includes those aspects of the Constitution that do indeed seem devoid of interpretive challenge, such as the unfortunate assignment of two senators to each state or the specification of the terms of office of representatives, senators, and presidents. I am quite happy to concede that “two,” “four,” and “six” have determinate meaning, though my concession is not based on a fancy theory of linguistics. It is, rather, a recognition …

The Territorial Reach Of Federal Courts, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

Federal courts exercise the sovereign authority of the United States when they assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant. As components of the national sovereign, federal courts' maximum territorial reach is determined by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which permits jurisdiction over persons with sufficient minimum contacts with the United States and over property located therein. Why, then, are federal courts limited to the territorial reach of the states in which they sit when they exercise personal jurisdiction in most cases? There is no constitutional or statutory mandate that so constrains the federal judicial reach. Rather, it is by operation …

Categorical Confusion In Personal Jurisdiction Law, Todd Peterson

Washington and Lee Law Review

In Part I, the Article discusses the history of the U.S. Supreme Court’s substantive due process limitations on personal jurisdiction and, in particular, the standards for corporate-activities-based jurisdiction before the Court’s recent cases on that issue. Part II discusses the Court’s failure to provide a convincing theoretical justification for imposing substantive due process limitations on personal jurisdiction. It also discusses the consequences of that failure in three doctrinal areas of personal jurisdiction law, the traditional basis of service on an individual in the forum state, specific jurisdiction and corporate-activities-based jurisdiction. Part III then analyzes in detail the four recent Supreme …

The Forgotten Property Right: The Unconstitutionality Of The At Home Standard In Assertions Of General Personal Jurisdiction Over Corporations, Peter Kuylen

Texas A&M Journal of Property Law

With its move to the “at home” standard in Goodyear, Daimler, and BNSF, the Supreme Court significantly restricted the exercise of general personal jurisdiction over nonresident corporation defendants. This restriction offers questionable actual benefits to corporate defendants, but its rigid focus on defendant’s rights has impacted the ability of certain plaintiffs to bring a cause of action against those defendants. Because the at home standard infringes on this group of plaintiffs’ ability to assert their property right of redress in violation of the Due Process Clauses of the Constitution (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments), the Court should return to the previous …