Courts Commons^™

There Is Always A Need: The "Necessity Doctrine" And Class Certification Against Government Agencies, Daniel Tenny

Michigan Law Review

On its face, Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seems tailor-made for lawsuits against government. Rule 23(b)(2) allows a class action when "the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole." This situation arises frequently in people's dealings with government agencies: recipients of public benefits and consumers using public utilities, for example, constitute large groups of people all subject to identical government policies who might seek injunctive relief. Litigants attempting …

The New Stage Of Corporate Governance Litigation: Section 220 Demands, Stephen A. Radin

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reconsidering Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity, Margaret Z. Johns

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

The "Duty" To Be A Rational Shareholder, David A. Hoffman

ExpressO

How and when do courts determine that corporate disclosures are actionable under the federal securities laws? The applicable standard is materiality: would a (mythical) "reasonable investor" have considered the disclosures important. As I establish through empirical and statistical testing of 500 cases analyzing the materiality standard, judicial findings of immateriality are remarkably common, and have been stable over time. Materiality's scope results in the dismissal of a large number of claims, and creates a set of cases in which courts attempt to explain and defend their vision of who is, and is not, a "reasonable investor." Thus, materiality provides an …

The Medical Malpractice Debate: The Jury As Scapegoat (Symposium), Nancy S. Marder

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Worries In A Limitless World, Renata Salecl

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Future Of Parity, Michael E. Solimine

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reply Brief For Petitioner, Hamdan V. Rumsfeld, No. 04-702 (U.S. Jan. 03, 2005), Neal K. Katyal

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Volume 72

Tennessee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Birth Of A Therapeutic Courts Externship Program: Hard Labor But Worth The Effort, Gregory Baker, Jennifer Zawid

St. Thomas Law Review

In this article, we focus on the use of externships to introduce law students to the concepts of Therapeutic Jurisprudence and problem solving courts (also referred to herein as therapeutic courts). We begin with an examination of the birth of William & Mary Law School's therapeutic courts practice externship, arguably the most comprehensive externship of its kind. Next, we will focus on an alternative model of a therapeutic court externship clinic, still in its infancy, at the University of Miami School of Law. Our goals are both simple and lofty. We want as many law students as possible to be …

Access To Justice For A New Century: The Way Forward, Julia H. Bass, W. A. Bogart, Frederick H. Zemans

Books

This book is a timely addition to the literature on access to justice. The book's essays address all aspects of the topic, including differing views on the meaning of access to justice; ways to improve access to legal services; litigation and its role in achieving social justice; and the roles of lawyers, citizens, and legal insitutions.

Access to Justice for a New Century is based on papers given at an international symposium presented by the Law Society of Upper Canada, sponsored by the Law Foundation of Ontario.

"Who's The Boss?": An Analytical And Practical Approach To Determine The "Employer" In A Defined Contribution Qualified Retirement Plan, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1011 (2005), Megan Mccoy

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Preventing "You've Got Mail"™ From Meaning "You've Been Served": How Service Of Process By E-Mail Does Not Meet Constitutional Procedure Due Process Requirements, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1121 (2005), Matthew R. Schreck

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Work: The Discriminatory Effect Of Veterans' Preferences On Homosexuals, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1083 (2005), Louis J. Virelli Iii

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Injunctions Against Liquidation In Trade Remedy Cases: A Petitioner's View, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 45 (2005), Jeffrey M. Telep

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Adjudicating International Trade Cases At The U.S. Commerce Department: Endless Remand Or Balanced Resolve?, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 59 (2005), Elizabeth C. Seastrum, Matthew D. Walden

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Patients Beware: Preemption Of Common Law Claims Under The Medical Device Amendments, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 75 (2005), Michael P. Dinatale

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

American Courts Are Drowning In The "Gene Pool": Excavating The Slippery Slope Mechanisms Behind Judicial Endorsement Of Dna Databases, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 115 (2005), Meghan Riley

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Public Use Or Experimental Use: Are Clinical Trials Susceptible To Another Attack Similar To That In Smithkline Beecham Corp. V. Apotex Corp., 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 149 (2005), Nimalka Wickramasekera

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Meaning, Ambiguity And Legitimacy: Judicial (Re-)Construction Of Nafta Chapter 11, Ari Afilalo

Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business

Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) benignly named the "Investment Chapter," is a theater for some of the most advanced issues of 21st century international law and adjudication. The Chapter gives private parties the right to challenge national policies that burden their ability to do business freely. It empowers arbitral tribunals to assess damages against the governments of NAFTA parties. The adjudicators, as this Article illustrates, render opinions with a constitutional flavor in that they assess the validity of domestic norms against larger principles of international economic law. In a drastic move away from classical century …

Squeezing Subjectivity From The Doctrine Of Unconscionability, Paul Bennett Marrow

Cleveland State Law Review

Issues of unconscionability are most often encountered in two arenas: commercial agreements and family law agreements. In the first arena this Article proposes that the analysis should focus on the impact of a suspect term on the integrity of the contracting system or to an enabling statute. If a contract term materially undermines or compromises the integrity of the system for contracting or the integrity of an enabling statute, it should be found unconscionable. In the family law arena things differ because of the substance of the relationships involved and because the need for mutual consideration is de-emphasized. Accordingly, in …

Justice Court Appeals: The Good, The Bad, And The Unintended, Samuel P. Newton

Articles

No abstract provided.

Exonerations In The United States 1989 Through 2003, Samuel R. Gross, Kriten Jacoby, Daniel J. Matheson, Nicholas Montgomery, Sujata Patil

Articles

On August 14, 1989, the Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago, Illinois, vacated Gary Dotson's 1979 rape conviction and dismissed the charges.1 Mr. Dotson-who had spent ten years in and out of prison and on parole for this conviction-was not the first innocent prisoner to be exonerated and released in America. But his case was a breakthrough nonetheless: he was the first who was cleared by DNA identification technology. It was the beginning of a revolution in the American criminal justice system. Until then, exonerations of falsely convicted defendants were seen as aberrational. Since 1989, these once-rare events have become …

Globalizing Savigny: The State In Savigny’S Private International Law, And The Challenge Of Europeanization And Globalization, Ralf Michaels

Faculty Scholarship

How can conflict of laws respond to the challenges from globalization? Some argue that state-based approaches like governmental interest analysis are inadequate, and advocate a return to the approach taken by the German scholar Savigny in the 19th century. The article shows that the assumption is correct: state-based approaches have indeed become problematic. However, a return to Savigny's approach will not help: While Savigny's approach is multilateral and pays little regard to governmental interest, closer analysis reveals how central the state is to his theory. The consequences are shown in an analysis of a recent European case. It follows that …

Congressional Authorization And The War On Terrorism, Curtis A. Bradley, Jack L. Goldsmith

Faculty Scholarship

This Article presents a framework for interpreting Congress's September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the central statutory enactment related to the war on terrorism. Although both constitutional theory and constitutional practice suggest that the validity of presidential wartime actions depends to a significant degree on their relationship to congressional authorization, the meaning and implications of the AUMF have received little attention in the academic debates over the war on terrorism. The framework presented in this Article builds on the analysis in the Supreme Court's plurality opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which devoted significant attention to the …

Mr. Justice Posner? Unpacking The Statistics, Stephen J. Choi, Mitu Gulati

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Terrorism: The Politics Of Prosecution, Madeline Morris

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

2003-2004 Supreme Court Update, Erwin Chemerinsky

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Foreign Law And The Denominator Problem, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Why States Create International Tribunals: A Response To Professors Posner And Yoo, Laurence R. Helfer, Anne-Marie Slaughter

Faculty Scholarship

A recent article in the California Law Review by Professors Eric Posner and John Yoo, Judicial Independence in International Tribunals, argues that the only effective international tribunals are dependent tribunals, by which the authors mean ad hoc tribunals staffed by judges closely controlled by governments through the power of reappointment or threats of retaliation. Independent tribunals, by contrast, meaning tribunals staffed by judges appointed on similar terms as those in domestic courts, pose a danger to international cooperation. According to Posner and Yoo, independent tribunals are suspect because they are more likely to allow moral ideals, ideological imperatives or the …