Civil Procedure Commons^™

If The Shoe Fits: Rethinking Minimum Contacts And The Fsia Commercial Activity Exception, Jacqueline M. Fitch

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

The question explored in this Note is whether, under the direct effect clause of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act commercial activities exception, a foreign sovereign must have minimum contacts with the United States in order for a U.S. court to assert personal jurisdiction over the entity. Examining personal jurisdiction over foreign states under the direct effect clause requires exploring the interaction between constitutional law and principles of international law. The minimum contacts analysis highlights the tension between applying constitutional due process protection to a foreign state, while simultaneously asserting jurisdiction over its commercial activities. Denying jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign …

O’Neill, Oh O’Neill, Wherefore Art Thou O’Neill: Defining And Cementing The Requirements For Asserting Deliberative Process Privilege, Andrew Scott

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The government may invoke the deliberative process privilege to protect the communications of government officials involving policy-driven decision-making. The privilege protects communications made before policy makers act upon the policy decision to allow government officials to speak candidly when deciding a course of action without fear of their words being used against them.

This privilege is not absolute and courts recognize the legitimate countervailing interest the public has in transparency. The Supreme Court in United States v. Reynolds held that someone with control over the protected information should personally consider the privilege before asserting it but did not provide definitive …

The Past And The Present: Stare Decisis In Wisconsin Law, Daniel R. Suhr, Kevin Leroy

Marquette Law Review

None

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Consequences For Patent Owners If A Patent Is Unconstitutionally Invalidated By The Patent Trial And Appeal Board, Mark Magas

Chicago-Kent Law Review

There have been many constitutional challenges against the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) since it was created by the America Invents Act in 2011. While the merits of these challenges have been widely debated, there has been little analysis of what would happen if one of these challenges succeeded and patents are found to have been unconstitutionally invalidated. This note examines how issues with waiver, retroactivity, and finality may prevent patent owners from getting their patent rights back, considering the type of constitutional challenge and the different stages of the PTAB process. While the odds are stacked against patent …

The Defamation Injunction Meets The Prior Restraint Doctrine, Doug Rendleman

Scholarly Articles

In Near v. Minnesota, the Supreme Court added the injunction to executive licensing as a prior restraint. Although the Near court circumscribed the injunction as a prior restraint, it approved criminal sanctions and damages judgments. The prior restraint label resembles a death sentence. This article maintains that such massive retaliation is overkill.

A judge’s injunction that forbids the defendant’s tort of defamation tests Near and prior restraint doctrine because defamation isn’t protected by the First Amendment. Arguing that the anti-defamation injunction has outgrown outright bans under the prior restraint rule and the equitable Maxim that “Equity will not enjoin defamation” …

Appellate Jurisdiction And The Emoluments Litigation, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

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 …

The People's Lawyer: The Role Of Attorney General In The Twenty-First Century, Mark J. Herring

University of Richmond Law Review

For the last five years, it has been my privilege to serve the people as their attorney general. The origin of the position of attorney general can be traced back centuries, but in a world that has become more interconnected, complex, and fast-paced, what does the role of a state attorney general entail in the twenty-first century and beyond? Is the proper role as a diligent but reactive defender of statutes and state agencies, or is there a deeper responsibility that calls for a more proactive and engaged use of its tools and authority? I have found that the job …

Access To Justice, Rationality, And Personal Jurisdiction, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

After more than twenty years of silence, the Supreme Court has addressed personal jurisdiction six times over the last six Terms. This Article examines the Court’s recent decisions in terms of their effect on access to justice and the enforcement of substantive law. The Court’s new case law has unquestionably made it harder to establish general jurisdiction—that is, the kind of jurisdiction that requires no affiliation at all between the forum state and the litigation. Although this shift has been justifiably criticized, meaningful access and enforcement can be preserved through other aspects of the jurisdictional framework, namely (1) the basic …

Access To Justice: Impact Of Twombly & Iqbal On State Court Systems, Danielle Lusardo Schantz

Akron Law Review

Approximately a decade ago, the Supreme Court of the United States unexpectedly changed the pleading standard for federal cases with the Twombly and Iqbal decisions. Plausibility pleading replaced the more liberal notice pleading standard endorsed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Since then, state courts have been faced with a choice to either mirror this change in pleading standards or maintain their commitment to notice pleading. Plausibility pleading has begun to creep into the state court system. Several states have formally changed their pleading standards, while others have declared their commitment to notice pleading. This Article considers the impact …

Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Pregnant: The Jurisprudence Of Abortion Exceptionalism In Garza V. Hargan, Kaytlin L. Roholt

Texas A&M Law Review

Since a majority of Supreme Court justices created the abortion right in 1973, a troubling pattern has emerged: The Supreme Court has come to ignore—and even nullify—longstanding precedent and legal doctrines in the name of preserving and expanding the abortion right. And with a Supreme Court majority that is blithe to manipulate any doctrine or principle—no matter how deeply rooted in U.S. legal tradition—in the name of expansive abortion rights, it should come as no surprise that lower courts are following suit. Most recently, the D.C. Circuit fired up the “ad hoc nullification machine,” but this time, its victim of …

States Suing The Federal Government: Protecting Liberty Or Playing Politics?, Elbert Lin

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Who Determines What Is Egregious? Judge Or Jury: Enhanced Damages After Halo V. Pulse, Brandon M. Reed

Georgia State University Law Review

Enhanced damages in patent law are a type of punitive damage that can be awarded in the case of “egregious misconduct” during the course of patent infringement. Authorization for enhanced damages comes from 35 U.S.C. § 284, which allows the district court to increase total damages up to three times the amount of actual damages found by the jury. It is well understood that, since enhanced damages are punitive in nature, enhancement should only be considered for cases of “wanton” or “deliberate” infringement. However, determining what constitutes this “egregious” misconduct has vastly transformed over time to include a negligence standard, …

Rwu First Amendment Blog: Diana Hassel's Blog: How Will Supreme Court Slice Wedding Cake Case 01-11-2018, Diana Hassel

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Uniform Enforcement Or Personalized Law? A Preliminary Examination Of Parking Ticket Appeals In Chicago, Randall K. Johnson

Faculty Works

This article is one in a series of papers that sets the record straight about the type, quality and quantity of information that U.S. cities may employ, in order to make more informed policy decisions. It does so, specifically, by examining information that is collected by the City of Chicago. The goal is to gauge the uniformity, as well as the relative cost-effectiveness, of the parking ticket appeals process. The article has six (VI) parts. Part I is the introduction, which sets the stage for a preliminary examination of the parking ticket appeals process in Chicago. Part II describes the …

The Scc's Dilemma: What To Do With Interveners?, Richard Haigh

Articles & Book Chapters

At a conference in 2016, Osgoode Hall Law School Dean Lorne Sossin made the following offhand comment: “I think it is possible to tell the most important Supreme Court of Canada cases by the number of interveners that were involved.” I assume what he meant--and granted, it was somewhat tongue in cheek--that the more interveners there are in a case, the more important the case.

The comment intrigued me. Is it true? It is such a simple proposition. Intuitively, it seems right: more parties would wish to involve themselves in those cases that have larger impacts, or that represent more …

Preclusion Law As A Model For National Injunctions, Suzette M. Malveaux

Publications

No abstract provided.

Dorothy Moser Medlin Papers - Accession 1049, Dorothy Moser Medlin

Manuscript Collection

(The Dorothy Moser Medlin Papers are currently in processing.)

This collection contains most of the records of Dorothy Medlin’s work and correspondence and also includes reference materials, notes, microfilm, photographic negatives related both to her professional and personal life. Additions include a FLES Handbook, co-authored by Dorothy Medlin and a decorative mirror belonging to Dorothy Medlin.

Major series in this collection include: some original 18th century writings and ephemera and primary source material of André Morellet, extensive collection of secondary material on André Morellet's writings and translations, Winthrop related files, literary manuscripts and notes by Dorothy Medlin (1966-2011), copies …

A New Guard At The Courthouse Door: Corporate Personal Jurisdiction In Complex Litigation After The Supreme Court’S Decision Quartet, David W. Ichel

Faculty Scholarship

In a quartet of recent decisions, the Supreme Court substantially reshaped the analysis of due process limits for a state's exercise of personal jurisdiction over corporations for the first time since its groundbreaking 1945 decision in International Shoe Co. v. Washington. The Court's decision quartet recasts the International Shoe continuum of corporate contacts for which it would be "reasonable" for the state to exercise jurisdiction based on "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" into a more rigid bright-line dichotomy between "general" and "specific" jurisdiction: for a state to exercise general (or all-purpose) jurisdiction over any suit, regardless of …

Franchise Tax Board Of California V. Hyatt, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 102 (Dec. 26, 2017), Rebecca L. Crooker

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that discretionary-function immunity does not apply to intentional tort and bad faith claims. Under comity principles, the Franchise Tax Board was entitled to the $50,000 statutory cap that would extend to Nevada businesses under NRS 41.035(1). The Court additionally recognized false light invasion of privacy as a tort cause of action distinct from other privacy torts, and adopted the Restatement’s sliding-scale approach in determining the amount of evidence necessary to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Towards A Jurisprudence Of Public Law Bankruptcy Judging, Edward J. Janger

Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law

In this essay Professor Janger considers the role of bankruptcy judges in Chapter 9 cases in light of the scholarly literature on public law judging. He explores the extent to which bankruptcy judges engaged in the fiscal restructuring of a municipality use tools, and face constraints, similar to those utilized by federal district court judges in structural reform cases, where constitutional norms are at issue.

Litigating Police Misconduct: Does The Litigation Process Matter? Does It Work?

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

No abstract provided.

Holding Supporters Of Terrorism Accountable: The Exercise Of General Jurisdiction Over The Pa And Plo In A Post-Daimler Framework, Mark D. Christopher

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Sargeant V. Henderson Taxi, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (June 1, 2017), Ping Chang

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) a summary judgment is proper when the opposing party did not file a substantive opposition to the motion for summary judgment and (2) a class certification is inappropriate when the plaintiff/appellant did not meet the burden of demonstrating “numerosity, commonality, and typicality,” and the ability to “fairly and adequately” represent the class members when an earlier-filed grievance between the union and taxi company resolved the minimum wage back-pay dispute at issue.

Jury Deliberation, Giuliana Pietrantoni

The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research

Juries are tasked with the duty of deliberating and applying the law to the case at hand. But it is unclear whether juries deliberate or deliberate well enough. Factors which may affect jury deliberation are the motivation of jurors, characteristics of jurors, emotions during and after trial, bargaining, charges, and dissenters. This paper argues that jurors do engage in rigorous dialogue which eventually results in compromises, although whether this creates an unjust verdict is unclear.

A Modern Look At The Right To A Civil Jury Trial Under The Maine Constitution, Carolyn A. Liegner

Maine Law Review

The right to a civil jury trial is a cornerstone of the American legal system. The Maine Constitution promises an even broader right to a civil jury trial than is offered by the federal Constitution and many other states. Article I, Section 20 states: “In all civil suits, and in all controversies concerning property, the parties shall have a right to a trial by jury, except in cases where it has heretofore been otherwise practiced.” The exception in the provision has been the subject of multiple interpretations by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, since the …

It’S Time For An Intervention!: Resolving The Conflict Between Rule 24(A)(2) And Article Iii Standing, Gregory R. Manring

Fordham Law Review

This Note argues that federal courts should employ an approach that is more related to maintaining the benefits of Rule 24 without running afoul of Article III—a task the yes-or-no approach is ill equipped to handle. Ultimately, an approach that is based on employing a standing analysis only where the Case or Controversy Clause is implicated anew allows the greatest access to the intervention device without running the risk of entertaining nonjusticiable disputes.

It’S Time For An Intervention!: Resolving The Conflict Between Rule 24(A)(2) And Article Iii Standing, Gregory R. Manring

Fordham Law Review

This Note argues that federal courts should employ an approach that is more related to maintaining the benefits of Rule 24 without running afoul of Article III—a task the yes-or-no approach is ill equipped to handle. Ultimately, an approach that is based on employing a standing analysis only where the Case or Controversy Clause is implicated anew allows the greatest access to the intervention device without running the risk of entertaining nonjusticiable disputes.

Precedent And Preclusion, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarly Articles

Preclusion rules prevent parties from revisiting matters that they have already litigated. A corollary of that principle is that preclusion usually does not apply to nonparties, who have not yet benefited from their own “day in court.” But precedent works the other way around. Binding precedent applies to litigants in a future case, even those who never had an opportunity to participate in the precedent-creating lawsuit. The doctrines once operated in distinct spheres, but today they often govern the same questions and apply under the same circumstances, yet to achieve opposite ends. Why, then, does due process promise someone a …

Private Or Public Right? Who Should Adjudicate Patentability Disputes And Is The Current Scheme Really Constitutional?, Jasmyne M. Baynard

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

“The patent bargain is the foundation upon which the patent system is built: in exchange for protections for an invention, the inventor agrees to make public their inventions so that others may build upon it.” The patent bargain creates a presumption of protection for the inventors, yet categorizing the patent a public right or a private right has diminished expectations for inventors and confusion for the masses. On October 11, 2016, the Supreme Court denied two petitions for writ of certiorari that challenged the constitutionality of Patent Trial and Review Board proceedings on the basis of the patent owner’s Seventh …