Litigation Commons^™

Enforcement Of Arbitral Awards Against Foreign States Or State Agencies, S. I. Strong

Faculty Publications

Britain's Lord Denning once said that “as a moth is drawn to the light, so is a litigant drawn to the United States.” Certainly, as a pro-arbitration state and a signatory to various international conventions concerning the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the United States seems a natural place to bring an action to enforce an arbitral award against a foreign state or state agency. However, suing a sovereign has not traditionally been a simple task in the United States or elsewhere. Most nations grant foreign states the presumption of immunity, thus denying that their domestic courts have jurisdiction to …

Is Multidistrict Litigation A Just And Efficient Consolidation Technique? Using Diet Drug Litigation As A Model To Answer This Question, Danielle Oakley

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Transnational Regulatory Litigation, Hannah Buxbaum

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Recent years have seen much debate about the role of national courts in addressing global harms. That debate has focused on the application by domestic courts of international law - for instance, in civil actions brought in U.S. courts to enforce human rights law. This article identifies a parallel development in the area of economic regulation. It classifies and analyzes a category of cases that seek the application of regulatory law by domestic courts in situations involving global economic misconduct. Like the public international law cases, these cases highlight the tension between the benefits to be gained by enhanced enforcement …

Driving Misjoinder: The Improper Party Problem In Removal Jurisdiction, Laura J. Hines, Steven S. Gensler

ExpressO

This Article explores, and ultimately embraces, a new exception to the complete diversity rule in removal cases: the doctrine of procedural misjoinder. We argue that the doctrine offers federal courts a vital tool with which to police joinder gamesmanship. Absent this power, plaintiffs may preclude defendant access to federal courts by the relatively simple expedient of joining in state court largely unrelated claims against or on behalf of non-diverse parties. The resulting lawsuit thus fails the complete diversity test, rendering such cases removal-proof. Like fraudulent joinder, the long-standing practice of ignoring non-diverse parties against whom no valid claim may be …

Breaking The Bank: Revisiting Central Bank Of Denver After Enron And Sarbanes-Oxley, Celia Taylor

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

In The Wake Of Gratz V. Bollinger: Standing On Thin Ice, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1037 (2005), Zubaida Qazi

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.

A Device Designed To Manipulate Diversity Jurisdiction: Why Courts Should Refuse To Recognize Post-Removal Damage Stipulations, Benjamin T. Clark

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Unconstitutional Courses, Frederic M. Bloom

Publications

By now, we almost expect Congress to fail. Nearly every time the federal courts announce a controversial decision, Congress issues a call to rein in "runaway" federal judges. And nearly every time Congress makes a "jurisdiction-stripping" threat, it comes to nothing.

But if Congress's threats possess little fire, we have still been distracted by their smoke. This Article argues that Congress's noisy calls have obscured another potent threat to the "judicial Power": the Supreme Court itself. On occasion, this Article asserts, the Court reshapes and abuses the "judicial Power"--not through bold pronouncements or obvious doctrinal revisions, but through something more …

Another Limit On Federal Court Jurisdiction? Immigrant Access To Class-Wide Injunctive Relief, Jill E. Family

ExpressO

This article examines a statute that may embody another limit on the power of the federal courts. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) implemented sweeping changes that substantially restrict federal court review of administrative immigration decisions. One provision implemented as a part of IIRIRA, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), appears, at least at first glance, to prohibit courts from issuing class-wide injunctive relief in immigration cases. Such a restriction would be significant because federal courts have issued class-wide injunctions in the past to stop unconstitutional immigration practices and policies of the federal government. The Supreme Court …

Dead Men Telling Tales - A Policy-Based Proposal For Survivability Of Qui Tam Actions Under The Civil False Claims Act, Vickie J. Williams

ExpressO

The civil False Claims Act is a powerful tool used by both the federal government and private citizens, under the statutes "qui tam" or "whistleblower" provisions, to fight fraud against the government. Use of the statute has continually risen in recent years, and recoveries under the statute are in the billions of dollars. The unique relationship between a private citizen whistleblower and the government who both have an interest in the case raises many interesting procedural and substantive issues of federal law. This article proposes an answer to one of these questions. The article proposes that a whistleblower suit survives …

The Market For Justice, The "Litigation Explosion," And The "Verdict Bubble": A Closer Look At Vanishing Trials, Frederic Nelson Smalkin, Frederic Nelson Chancellor Smalkin

ExpressO

This article takes a fresh look at the increasingly discussed topic of the scarcity of civil cases reaching trial in the Article III system. The number of cases tried declined by more than one-fourth in the decade from 1989-1999, and the decline continued at about the same rate to the end of the latest year for which statistics are available, 2002, while ADR (particularly arbitrations) skyrocketed.

The authors examine the history of competing English courts (particularly Common Pleas and King's Bench) for signs that, in fact, market competition can arise among dispute-resolving bodies. They also apply economic analysis to the …

Avoidable Due Process Confusion: Special Use Hearings In Illinois After Klaeren, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 609 (2004), James C. Munson, Christi J. Guerrini

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Secret Life Of The Political Question Doctrine, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 441 (2004), Louis Michael Seidman

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Retaliation Against Third Parties: A Potential Loophole In Title Vii's Discrimination Protection, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1313 (2004), Anita G. Schausten

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Past Is Another Country: Against The Retroactive Applicability Of The Foreign Immunities Act To Pre-1952 Conduct, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1337 (2004), Andrzej R. Niekrasz

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Boundary Of Personal Jurisdiction: The "Effects Test" And The Protection Of Crazy Horse's Name, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 381 (2004), Scott Fruehwald

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Global Antitrust Enforcement: The Sherman Act Does Not Apply Without Any Direct Domestic Effect, But Discovery Assistance May Be Available To Aid A Foreign Tribunal, According To The U.S. Supreme Court, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 495 (2004), Sue Ann Mota

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

State Sovereign Immunity And The Plaintiff State: Does The Eleventh Amendment Bar Removal Of Actions Filed In State Court?, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 513 (2004), Virginia F. Milstead

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Separations, Blow-Outs, And Fallout: A Treadise On The Regulatory Aftermath Of The Ford-Firestone Tire Recall, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1073 (2004), Kevin M. Mcdonald

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Hardball, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 523 (2004), Mark Tushnet

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Minimum Contacts, No Dog: Evaluating Personal Jurisdiction For Nonparty Discovery, Ryan W. Scott

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Agenda: Water Negotiation Workshop, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center, William & Flora Hewlett Foundation

Water Negotiation Workshop (June 4-5)

"Sponsored by: The Natural Resources law Center of the University of Colorado Law School; Funding provided by: The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation."

"Facilitators: Lucy Moore and Steve Snyder."

"June 4 and 5, 2003, Community House, Chautauqua Park, Boulder, Colorado."

Contents:

Agenda -- Roster of workshop participants -- Biographies of workshop participants -- Maps of Klamath basin -- Key water-related events in the upper Klamath basin -- Federal-state decisionmaking on water : applying lessons learned / David J. Hayes -- Turbulence in the Klamath River basin / Sharon Levy

Maps Of The Klamath Basin And Key Water-Related Events In The Upper Klamath Basin, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

Water Negotiation Workshop (June 4-5)

5 pages.

Contents:

Maps of Klamath Basin -- Key water-related events in the Upper Klamath Basin

Excerpted from: Ron Hathaway & Teresa Welch, Water Allocation in the Klamath Reclamation Project, 2001: An Assessment of Natural Resource, Economic, Social, and Institutional Issues with a Focus on the Upper Klamath Basin 31-34, 43 (Oregon State University, University of California, reprinted May 2003). Full report available in Klamath Waters Digital Library at http://digitallib.oit.edu/cdm/ref/collection/kwl/id/9442.

Into The Abyss: How Party Autonomy Supports Overreaching Through The Exercise Of Unequal Bargaining Power, 36 J. Marshall L. Rev. 421 (2003), Pamela Edwards

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Forum Selection Clauses In Diversity Actions, 36 J. Marshall L. Rev. 941 (2003), Kendra Johnson Panek

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Freedom Of Discrimination?:The Conflict Between Public Accommodations' Freedom Association And State Anti-Discrimination Laws, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 125 (2003), Gregory J. Wartman

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is Citizen Suit Notice Jurisdictional And Why Does It Matter?, Karl S. Coplan

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The question of whether notice is jurisdictional or not has important ramifications for citizen suit litigation. The characterization of the notice requirement as “jurisdictional” implicates the proper procedure for raising notice objections, the means of curing notice defects, the question of waiver of notice objections, and the timing of raising notice objections. This article will conduct a brief review of the case law concerning the jurisdictional nature (or not) of the notice requirement, a consideration of the as-yet unnoticed impact of Steel Co. on the issue, and a discussion of the procedural and litigation ramifications of characterizing the notice element …

No Longer Safe At Home: Preventing The Misuse Of Federal Common Law Of Foreign Relations As A Defense Tactic In Private Transnational Litigation, Lumen N. Mulligan

Michigan Law Review

In an increasingly common litigation strategy, plaintiffs in Patrickson v. Dole Food Company, laborers in the banana industries of Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala and Panama, brought a classaction suit in Hawaii state court against Dole Food and other defendants. Plaintiffs brought only state law causes of action, alleging that they had been harmed by Dole Food's use of DBCP, a toxic pesticide banned from use in the United States. Dole Food removed the case to federal district court seeking the procedural advantages of a federal forum, as corporate defendants facing alien tort plaintiffs seeking redress for overseas conduct invariably do. …

A Practitioner's Guide To Arkansas's New Judicial Article, Larry Brady, J.D. Gingerich

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.