Legal Remedies Commons^™

Enhanced Patent Infringement Damages Post-Halo And The Problem With Using The Read Factors, Betul Serbest

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The United States Patent Act allows a patent holder to recover treble damages for “willful infringement.” The standard for willful infringement has changed over the years, with the United States Supreme Court providing the most recent explanation of what is “willful” in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. in 2016. Courts, however, continue to use a set of factors set forth in Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc. in 1992 to aid their discretion in awarding willful infringement enhanced damages. In this article, I argue that at least two of the Read factors are inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s Halo …

Insurance Appraisal In Texas And Its Place In Coverage Litigation, Brendan K. Mcbride, William J. Chriss, Matthew R. Pearson

St. Mary's Law Journal

Insurance appraisal is a contractually agreed process for resolving a disagreement between the insurance carrier and the policyholder about the amount of a loss under an insurance policy. Appraisal clauses have been a feature of insurance policies in Texas for well over a century. Old Texas cases were uniform to the effect that appraisal was a method to establish the “amount” of the loss under circumstances where coverage was not in dispute, but a recent line of cases has allowed insurers to escape liability for breach of contract, attorneys’ fees, statutory and common law “bad faith,” and even liability under …

Nevor V. Moneypenny Holdings, Llc: Availability Of Prejudgment Interest For Mixed Maritime Law And Jones Act Claims, Adam S. Bohanan

Ocean and Coastal Law Journal

In maritime personal injury cases, courts have traditionally seen prejudgment interest as part of the compensation due to a prevailing plaintiff. The goal of ensuring the fullest compensation possible has long been recognized as a basic principle of admiralty law. However, federal appellate courts are split over whether to award prejudgment interest on a mixed claim under general maritime law and the Jones Act. This Note explores this issue in Nevor v. Moneypenny Holdings, LLC, which was the first time the question had been raised in the First Circuit. The Fifth and Sixth Circuits have held that because prejudgment interest …

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” …

Modern Waste Law, Bankruptcy, And Residential Mortgage, Jill M. Fraley

Scholarly Articles

Around the time of the subprime mortgage collapse, lenders began in earnest to sue borrowers by adapting the traditional law of waste. Today, these claims continue to rise in frequency and to expand to more jurisdictions. Lender waste claims provide a “work around” for state mortgage laws that prohibit personal deficiency judgments after foreclosure and are potentially non-dischargeable in bankruptcy.

While a recent wave of scholarship has addressed the problems of how the bankruptcy system handles mortgages, scholars have not yet explored the use of waste actions by lenders and how waste judgments intersect with bankruptcy and foreclosure. Using new …

Protecting Wisconsinites From Trolls: The Federal Circuit's "Bad Faith" Preemption And Its Restrictive Effect, Andrew Salomone

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

In this comment, I use Wis. Stat. Ann. § 100.197 (“Wisconsin’s anti-PAE statute”) to demonstrate the significant degree to which the Federal Circuit’s current preemption regime restricts states’ abilities to regulate the behavior of PAEs. In Part II, I summarize Wisconsin’s legislative response to PAEs. In Part III, I contrast the Federal Circuit’s preemption doctrine and the Supreme Court’s doctrine as it relates to state laws similar to anti-PAE statutes. Paying particular attention to Wisconsin’s patent notification statute, I provide a brief preemption analysis in Part IV. Finally, in Part V, I conclude by arguing that the severe consequences of …

Accommodating Competition: Harmonizing National Economic Commitments, Jonathan Baker

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

This article shows how the norm supporting governmental action to protect and foster competitive markets was harmonized with economic rights to contract and property during the 19th century, and with the development of the social safety net during the 20th century. It explains why the Constitution, as understood today, does not check the erosion of the entrenched but threatened national commitment to assuring competitive markets.

Disgorging Emoluments, Caprice L. Roberts

Marquette Law Review

This Article is about unjust enrichment. It includes a theory of an unjust

enrichment cause of action against executive actors who receive unlawful

emoluments. Interpretations of the boundaries of unlawful emoluments range

from receipt of a gift or benefit because of the position of power held to quid

pro quo exchanges of a thing of value in exchange for government information

or advantage. Wherever the proper line, the purpose of the law of unjust

enrichment is to prevent and undo benefits one has no right to retain. It

achieves those goals with the use of restitution remedies including

disgorgement of …

October 1, 2019 Broadcast: 'The Rohingya Genocide', Rebecca Hamilton

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Class Actions, Indivisibility, And Rule 23(B)(2), Maureen Carroll

Articles

The federal class-action rule contains a provision, Rule 23(b)(2), that authorizes class-wide injunctive or declaratory relief for class-wide wrongs. The procedural needs of civil rights litigation motivated the adoption of the provision in 1966, and in the intervening years, it has played an important role in managing efforts to bring about systemic change. At the same time, courts have sometimes struggled to articulate what plaintiffs must show in order to invoke Rule 23(b)(2). A few years ago, the Supreme Court weighed in, stating that the key to this type of class action is the “indivisible” nature of the remedy the …

State Standing For Nationwide Injunctions Against The Federal Government, Jonathan R. Nash

Faculty Articles

Recent years have seen a substantial increase of cases in which states seek, and indeed obtain, nationwide injunctions against the federal government. These cases implicate two complicated questions: first, when a state has standing to sue the federal government, and second, when a nationwide injunction is a proper form of relief. For their part, scholars have mostly addressed these questions separately. In this Essay, I analyze the two questions together. Along the way, I identify drawbacks and benefits of nationwide injunctions, as well as settings where nationwide injunctions may be desirable and undesirable. I present arguments that, although I do …

Accounting For Awards: An Examination Of Juror Reasoning Behind Pain And Suffering Damage Award Decisions, Krystia Reed, Valerie P. Hans, Valerie F. Reyna

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

What do civil jurors think about when they are asked to make damage award decisions? Given the secrecy of the jury deliberation process, often we are unaware of jurors' thought processes. This Article presents the results from three studies in which mock jurors explained the reasoning behind their damage awards for pain and suffering. We highlight the most common explanations and distinguish between reasons justifying high and low pain and suffering awards. We conclude with a discussion for what this means for attorneys during trial.

Separation Of Powers In New Mexico: Item Vetoes, State Policy-Making, And The Role Of State Courts, Michael B. Browde

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

School Finance Litigation And The Separation Of Powers, Larry J. Obhof

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

State Courts And Democratic Theory: Toward A Theory Of State Constitutional Judicial Review, David Schultz

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

The “Law Of Ramsey County” – Reflections Of A Trial Judge On State Government Gridlock, Kathleen Gearin

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Policing Corporate Conduct Toward Minority Communities: An Insurance Law Perspective On The Use Of Race In Calculating Tort Damages, Dhruti J. Patel

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Courts commonly use U.S. Department of Labor actuarial tables, which explicitly take into account the race of the tort victim, to determine average national wage, work-life expectancy, and life expectancy. This practice has led to wide discrepancies between average damage awards for minority plaintiffs compared to white plaintiffs even if both plaintiffs are similarly situated. While recent legal scholarship criticizes the use of race-based tables and addresses the Equal Protection and incentive concerns such tables present, few courts have deviated from the explicit use of race in determining tort damages.

Though the use of demographic features, such as race, to …

Whiteness As Innocence, David Simson

Articles & Chapters

Current antidiscrimination law is exceedingly hostile to the project of race-conscious remediation—the conscious use of race to mitigate America’s persistent racial hierarchy. This Article argues that this broad hostility can be traced in significant part to what I call “Whiteness as Innocence” ideology. This ideology is a system of legal reasoning by which the formal principle of equality is filled with the substantive principle of white racial dominance via invocations of white innocence. That is, under this ideology, ideas about white innocence influence legal decisions on who is “alike” and “unalike” and what constitutes “alike” and “unalike” treatment in race-conscious …

Regulating Prosecutors’ Courtroom Misconduct, Bruce A. Green

Faculty Scholarship

Trial prosecutors’ visible misbehavior, such as improper questioning of witnesses and improper jury arguments, may not seem momentous. Sometimes, the improprieties are simply the product of poor training or overenthusiasm. In many cases, they pass unremarked. As the Chicago Eight trial illustrated, trial prosecutors’ improprieties may also be overshadowed by the excesses of other trial participants—the witnesses, the defendants, the defense lawyers, or even the trial judge. And when noticed, prosecutors’ trial misbehavior can ordinarily be remedied, and then restrained, by a capable trial judge. It is little wonder that disciplinary authorities, having bigger fish to fry, are virtually indifferent …

Leveling Down Gender Equality, Tracy A. Thomas

Akron Law Faculty Publications

The U.S. Supreme Court recently revived its jurisprudence of “leveling down,” that is, curing an equal protection violation of gender discrimination by denying the requested benefit to all rather than extending the benefit to the excluded class. This article challenges the continuation of the conventional acceptance of leveling down as an equally legitimate remedial option for gender discrimination. Instead, it argues for the adoption of an alternative remedial calculus of a strong presumption of leveling up remedies, overcome only by limited equitable considerations. Such a presumption better effectuates the substantive right of gender equality, as well as the correlative due …

Improving Employer Accountability In A World Of Private Dispute Resolution, Hope Brinn

Michigan Law Review

Private litigation is the primary enforcement mechanism for employment discrimination laws like Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and many related state statutes. But the expansion of extrajudicial dispute resolution—including both arbitration and prelitigation settlement agreements—has compromised this means of enforcement. This Note argues that state-enacted qui tam laws can revitalize the enforcement capacity of private litigation and provides a roadmap for enacting such legislation.

A Post-Spokeo Taxonomy Of Intangible Harms, Jackson Erpenbach

Michigan Law Review

Article III standing is a central requirement in federal litigation. The Supreme Court’s Spokeo decision marked a significant development in the doctrine, dividing the concrete injury-in-fact requirement into two subsets: tangible and intangible harms. While tangible harms are easily cognizable, plaintiffs alleging intangible harms can face a perilous path to court. This raises particular concern for the system of federal consumer protection laws where enforcement relies on consumers vindicating their own rights by filing suit when companies violate federal law. These plaintiffs must often allege intangible harms arising out of their statutorily guaranteed rights. This Note demonstrates that Spokeo’s …

Equity: Notes On The American Reception, Samuel L. Bray

Book Chapters

From the Publisher

Chapter 2
How has equity been received in the United States? Two themes stand out. One is that of ‘nice adjustment’: the case-specific adjustment of legal rules to avoid the harsh results of applying rules to unforeseen circumstances. The second is the idea of judicial command: ordering the particular defendant in the circumstances to do equity without contradicting the common law. While the former has waned in the US, the latter has overly strengthened. The reasons of legal culture are discussed.

Waiving Federal Sovereign Immunity In Original Actions Between States, Sandra B. Zellmer

Faculty Law Review Articles

There are tremendous disparities between high stakes original actions between states before the US. Supreme Court, where there is no waiver of federal sovereign immunity, and other types of cases in the lower courts, where a plethora of immunity waivers allow states and other parties to seek relief from the federal government for Fifth Amendment takings, unlawful agency action, and tort claims. Federal actions or omissions are often at the heart of the dispute, and federal involvement may be crucial for purposes of providing an equitable remedy to the state parties, but there is no reliable mechanism for bringing the …

The Challenges Of Cryptocurrency Asset Recovery, Andrew W. Balthazor

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.