Legal Remedies Commons^™

Shareholder Compensation As Dividend, James J. Park

Michigan Law Review

This Article questions the prevailing view that securities-fraud actions suffer from a circularity problem. Because shareholder plaintiffs are owners of the defendant corporation, it is commonly argued that shareholder compensation is a payment from shareholders to themselves with substantial transaction costs in the form of attorney fees. But shareholder compensation is no more circular than a dividend, which is a cash payment to shareholders from the company they own with substantial transaction costs in the form of taxes. In fact, shareholder compensation is less circular than a dividend because it is a transfer to shareholders who purchased stock when the …

Election Of Remedies In The Twenty-First Century: Centra Health, Inc. V. Mullins, L. Steven Emmert

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The End Of Objector Blackmail?, Brian T. Fitzpatrick

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Courts and commentators have long been concerned with holdout problems in the law. This Article focuses on a holdout problem in class action litigation known as objector “blackmail.” Objector blackmail occurs when individual class members delay the final resolution of class action settlements by filing meritless appeals in the hope of inducing class counsel to pay them a side settlement to drop their appeals. It is thought that class counsel pay these side settlements because they cannot receive their fee awards until all appeals from the settlement are resolved. Although several solutions to the blackmail problem have been proposed, both …

From Feudal Land Contracts To Financial Derivatives: The Treatment Of Status Through Specific Relief, John J. Chung

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Understanding Pleading Doctrine, A. Benjamin Spencer

Michigan Law Review

Where does pleading doctrine, at the federal level, stand today? The Supreme Court's revision of general pleading standards in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly has not left courts and litigants with a clear or precise understanding of what it takes to state a claim that can survive a motion to dismiss. Claimants are required to show "plausible entitlement to relief' by offering enough facts "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Translating those admonitions into predictable and consistent guidelines has proven illusory. This Article proposes a descriptive theory that explains the fundaments of contemporary pleading doctrine in …

No Rational Basis: The Pragmatic Case For Marijuana Law Reform, Eric D. Blumenson, Eva Nilsen

Faculty Scholarship

This article presents a critique of marijuana prohibition and suggests some alternative regulatory approaches that would be more productive and consonant with justice. Part I relies on a forty-year empirical record to demonstrate that (1) reliance on a law enforcement approach has aggravated rather than mitigated the risks involved with marijuana use, and (2) criminalization, which results in the arrest of more than 700, 000 Americans annually for possession of any amount of marijuana, is an inhumane and destructive response to an act that almost 100 million Americans have committed. Part II assesses the relative merits of several alternative reform …

Bailouts, Bonuses, And The Return Of Unjust Gain, Tracy A. Thomas

Akron Law Faculty Publications

In March 2009, ailing insurance giant triggered a national outcry when it paid out $165 million in government bailout funds for employee bonus incentives. President Obama called the bonus payments an “outrage” and promised that his administration would “pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the taxpayers whole.” One possible answer lies with the remedy of restitution. Restitution, based on unjust enrichment, provides a common law solution that just might work. Unjust enrichment is a remedy directed at the defendant that requires the wrongdoer to return all ill-gotten gains. The goal is to return the defendant …

Maybe Dick Speidel Was Right About Court Adjustment, Robert A. Hillman

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In a symposium to honor Professor Richard Speidel, a giant in the field of contract and commercial law for over four decades, this contribution argues that Speidel may have been correct in asserting that, in limited circumstances, court adjustment of disrupted long-term contracts makes sense. I assert that nothing courts have decided or writers have analyzed since the ALCOA case proves that court adjustment is wrong-headed. But, as with so many policy issues, we may never identify the "best" judicial approach to disrupted long-term contracts because resolution depends on too many variables and unknowns.

Speech Regulation: Why An Injunction Should Be Permissible Under Workplace Discrimination But Is Problematic Under Defamation, Sarah Shyr

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Protecting Cultural Heritage In Armed Conflict: Looking Back, Looking Forward, Patty Gerstenblith

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article argues that the destruction and looting of cultural property during armed conflicts, as exemplified by the 2003 Gulf War and its aftermath, highlight the urgent need for stronger enforcement of international legal frameworks, particularly the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The failure of the United States to ratify this convention undermines global efforts to protect cultural heritage, despite the U.S. military already adhering to some of its principles through other legal frameworks. The article advocates for U.S. ratification of both the 1954 Hague Convention and its protocols to …

What's Fair Is Fair? A Comparative Look At Judicial Discretion In Fairness Review Of Holocaust Era Class Action Settlement In The United States And Canada, Arthur Oder

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The note critiques the effectiveness of U.S. class action frameworks, particularly Rule 23, in addressing Holocaust-era claims, arguing that the Canadian Class Proceedings Act (CPA) offers a more flexible and fair approach for resolving such complex human rights cases. It highlights the shortcomings of the Generali Insurance Litigation and contrasts it with the success of the Swiss Banks Settlement, emphasizing the importance of judicial discretion and adequate notice in ensuring fair outcomes. The analysis advocates for adopting the Canadian model to improve the handling of large-scale human rights class actions.

The Unintended Consequence Of Tort Reform In Michigan: An Argument For Reinstating Retailer Product Liability, Ashley L. Thompson

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Tort reform became an important issue during the 1994 Congressional Campaign as part of the Republican Party's "Contract with America. "Since then, many federal and state laws have attempted to reduce both liability and recovery in tort actions. In 1996, Michigan passed the Tort Reform Act, encompassing many drastic changes to state tort law. One provision of the Act, § 294 7, scaled back liability against non-manufacturing retailers in product liability actions. The Michigan Supreme Court interpreted the exceptions of the law narrowly and the prohibition broadly, essentially barring recovery from retailers. Since 1996, this provision has prevented victims injured …

Let Us Never Blame A Contract Breaker, Richard A. Posner

Michigan Law Review

Holmes famously proposed a "no fault" theory of contract law: a contract is an option to perform or pay, and a "breach" is therefore not a wrongful act, but merely triggers the duty to pay liquidated or other damages. I elaborate the Holmesian theory, arguing that fault terminology in contract law, such as "good faith," should be given pragmatic economic interpretations, rather than be conceived of in moral terms. I further argue that contract doctrines should normally be alterable only on the basis of empirical investigations.

Willfulness Versus Expectation: A Promisor-Based Defense Of Willful Breach Doctrine, Steve Thel, Peter Siegelman

Michigan Law Review

Willful breach doctrine should be a major embarrassment to contract law. If the default remedy for breach is expectation damages designed to put the injured promisee in the position she would have been in if the contract had been performed, then the promisor's behavior-the reason for the breach-looks to be irrelevant in assessing damages. And yet the cases are full of references to "willful" breaches, which seem often to be treated more harshly than ordinary ones based on the promisor's bad/willful conduct. Our explanation is that willful breaches are best understood as those that should be prevented or deterred because …

"One Of The Dirty Secrets Of American Corrections": Retaliation, Surplus Power, And Whistleblowing Inmates, James E. Robertson

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Retaliation is deeply engrained in the correctional office subculture; it may well be in the normative response when an inmate files a grievance, a statutory precondition for filing a civil rights action. This Article, the first to address comprehensively the sociological and constitutional aspects of retaliation, argues for protecting grievants through safeguards much like those accorded whistleblowers. Part I of the Article provides a socio-legal primer on correctional officer retaliation by addressing the frequency of retaliation, its causes, and its constitutional taxonomy. Part II describes the elements of a prima facie case of unconstitutional retaliation under § 1983. Part III …

The Tort Of Betrayal Of Trust, Caroline Forell, Anna Sortun

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Fiduciary betrayal is a serious harm. When the fiduciary is a doctor or a lawyer, and the entrustor is a patient or client, this harm frequently goes unremedied. Betrayals arise out of disloyalty and conflicts of interest where the lawyer or doctor puts his or her interest above that of his or her client or patient. They cause dignitary harm that is different from the harm flowing from negligent malpractice. Nevertheless, courts, concerned with overdeterrence, have for the most part refused to allow a separate claim for betrayal. In this Article, we suggest that betrayal deserves a remedy and propose …

The Appropriations Power And Sovereign Immunity, Paul F. Figley, Jay Tidmarsh

Michigan Law Review

Discussions of sovereign immunity assume that the Constitution contains no explicit text regarding sovereign immunity. As a result, arguments about the existence-or nonexistence-of sovereign immunity begin with the English and American common-law doctrines. Exploring political, fiscal, and legal developments in England and the American colonies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, this Article shows that focusing on common-law developments is misguided. The common-law approach to sovereign immunity ended in the early 1700s. The Bankers' Case (1690- 1700), which is often regarded as the first modern common-law treatment of sovereign immunity, is in fact the last in the line of English …

Questioning The Political Question Doctrine: Inconsistent Applications In Reparations And Alien Tort Claims Act Litigation, Shelley Buchanan

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The note argues that while transnational public law litigants have successfully used U.S. courts to address human rights violations under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), African American reparations claims for slavery have been systematically dismissed on procedural grounds, particularly under the political question doctrine. This disparity highlights the inconsistent application of the doctrine, with recent ATCA cases narrowing its scope, while African American slave redress cases continue to face strict dismissal. The note advocates for a more consistent application of the political question doctrine across all human rights litigation, including slave redress, to ensure fairness and maintain the U.S. …

The Boundary-Line Function Of The Economic Loss Rule, Vincent R. Johnson

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Is Specific About Specific Restitution, Colleen P. Murphy

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Institutional Legitimacy And Counterterrorism Trials, Gregory S. Mcneal

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Story Of Bivens V. Six Unknown-Named Agents Of The Federal Bureau Of Narcotics, James E. Pfander

Faculty Working Papers

In Bivens v. Six Unknown-Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the Supreme Court recognized the right of an individual to sue federal government officials for a violation of constitutional rights. Drawing on interviews with some of the participants, including Webster Bivens himself and one of the agents who conducted the search, this chapter in the forthcoming book Federal Courts' Stories describes the events that led to the litigation and the complex array of factors that informed the Court's approach to the case. After placing the Bivens decision in context, the chapter evaluates the competing narratives that have grown …

Annoyancetech Vigilante Torts And Policy, Robert F. Blomquist

Law Faculty Publications

The twenty-first century has ushered in demand by some Americans for annoyancetech devices—novel electronic gadgets that secretly fend off, punish, or comment upon perceived antisocial and annoying behaviors of others. Manufacturers, marketers, and users of certain annoyancetech devices, however, face potential tort liability for personal and property damages suffered by the targets of this “revenge by gadget.” Federal, state, and local policymakers should start the process of coming to pragmatic terms with the troubling rise in the popularity of annoyancetech devices. This is an area of social policy that cries out for thoughtful and creative legislative solutions.

Common Law Punitive Damages: Something For Everyone?, Doug Rendleman

Scholarly Articles

Common law punitive damages have some feature that will get everyone's goat: a civil court meting out quasi-criminal punishment; a sanction, punishment, imposed after mere civil procedure; a civil jury stretching imprecise instructions into Robin Hood justice; a private plaintiff receiving a windfall that exceeds any reasonable estimate of loss; and, finally, the Supreme Court wielding the discredited doctrine of substantive due process. This article will examine the preceding fault lines and the countervailing considerations, devoting more attention to substantive due process than the others. It will then turn to Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, and include some modest …

Rethinking Bivens: Legitimacy And Constitutional Adjudication, James E. Pfander, David Baltmanis

Faculty Working Papers

The Supreme Court's decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics provides an uncertain framework for the enforcement of constitutional rights against the federal government. Rather than recognizing a federal common law right of action for use in every case, the Court views itself as devising actions on a case-by-case basis in light of a range of factors. Critics on all sides question the Court's approach, doubting either its power to fashion federal common law or the tendency of its case-by-case analysis to create gaps in constitutional enforcement. Particularly when compared with actions under …

From Pinochet To Rumsfeld: Universal Jurisdiction In Europe 1998-2008, Wolfgang Kaleck

Michigan Journal of International Law

This Essay provides a survey of more than fifty universal jurisdiction proceedings in European courts and illustrates that universal jurisdiction is no longer a seldom-used theoretical concept, but a widespread practice. However, it is a practice that faces a number legal and practical obstacles identified here. Similar difficulties are encountered in other mechanisms used to combat impunity, including territorial and personality jurisdiction, state accountability at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), and civil litigation in the United States. The Essay then begins an evaluation of the last ten years of universal …

Ride At Your Own Risk: Bicyling And Government Tort Immunity In Illinois, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 293 (2009), John Ochoa

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Phases And Faces Of The Duke Lacrosse Controversy: A Conversation, Angela J. Davis, James E. Coleman Jr, Michael Gerhardt, K.C. Johnson

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Ubi Jus, Ibi Remedium, Steven M. Schneebaum

Human Rights & Human Welfare

A review of:

Justice Across Borders: The Struggle for Human Rights in U.S. Courts. By Jeffrey Davis. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. 320 pp.

Remedies For Wrongfully-Issued Preliminary Injunctions: The Case For Disgorgement Of Profits, Ofer Grosskopf, Barak Medina

Seattle University Law Review

This Article demonstrates that the underlying aim of remedies for wrongfully issued preliminary injuntion leads to two central conclusions. First, it is desirable to award the remedy of restitution, which requires the moving party to disgorge all the benefits obtained at the expense of the defendant as a result of the wrongfully-issued preliminary injunction. Second, it may be unjustified to compel the plaintiff to compensate the defendant for all harms inflicted by the wrongfully-issued preliminary injunction. Part I of this Article summarizes the law of remedies for wrongfully-issued preliminary injunctions. Part I.A surveys the doctrinal reasons for imposing on the …