Litigation Commons^™

Declaration Of Catherine Smith: Navahine V. Dept. Of Transportation, State Of Hawai’I, Catherine Smith

Scholarly Articles

I submit this expert declaration in support of the children’s motion to maintain their September 2023 trial date so they can have their urgent constitutional rights case involving a life-sustaining climate system accorded the legal prioritization it deserves. Each day that passes without redress not only means an infringement on children’s rights but also impacts their health, safety, well-being, and the cultural lifeways and traditions of Native Hawaiian children. These harms are cumulative and compounding for the duration of the plaintiffs’ childhoods as they mature into adults. And many of the plaintiffs’ climate change-induced injuries are irreversible.

The Counterintuitive Court: How The Supreme Court’S Punitive Damages Jurisprudence Endangers Marginalized Communities, Anne Rodgers

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

Punitive damages are awarded in civil suits to deter intentionally reckless and grossly negligent behavior. The goal of punitive damages is to punish the tortfeasor and protect the public from future misconduct. However, the Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence on punitive damages reflects a shift towards protecting businesses from what the Court perceives as an arbitrary taking under the Due Process Clause. This Note argues that these decisions are dangerous, especially for marginalized communities. This Note begins by defining punitive damages and common criticisms of punitive damages awards. This Note then discusses the role of the Supreme Court in reviewing punitive …

Brief Of First Amendment And Securities Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent: National Center For Public Policy Research V. Securities And Exchange Commission, Sarah C. Haan

Scholarly Articles

Amici are law professors with significant expertise in corporate and securities law, and constitutional law, particularly regarding the First Amendment. They have published extensive analyses about the Shareholder Proposal Rule, shareholder voting, corporate democracy, First Amendment “coverage,” the constitutionality of mandatory disclosures, and various related issues. Amici thus have particular expertise in the First Amendment issues raised by the parties in this case.

Amici submit this brief to respond to Intervenor National Association of Manufacturers’ extreme argument that Rule 14a-8 violates the First Amendment. This position ignores—and NAM repeatedly overlooks—the vital function of proxy solicitation in modern corporate governance and …

Brief Of Law And Business Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents: Macquarie Infrastructure Group V. Moab Partners, L.P., Sarah C. Haan

Scholarly Articles

Amici are scholars at American law schools whose research and teaching focus on federal securities regulation and the governance of public corporations. Three of the authors appearing as counsel on this brief have together submitted to this Court briefs on prior occasions as amici in cases arising under the federal securities laws on behalf of law and business faculty.2 All of us have written and/or taught extensively about the SEC’s system of disclosure and our experience includes service in positions that allowed for the participation in the evolution of the system of disclosure developed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. …

Amicus Curiae Brief Of Law Professor Suzette Malveaux In Support Of Plaintiff’S Opposition To Defendant Ultragenyx’S Motion To Dismiss: Lacks V. Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical, Inc., Suzette Malveaux

Scholarly Articles

Plaintiff alleges that Ultragenyx was conferred the benefit of Henrietta Lacks’s cell line, that Ultragenyx knew of this benefit, and that Ultragenyx unfairly retained the benefit without providing payment to the Lacks family. Moreover, Plaintiff contends that this wrongful conduct has been going on for years, within the three-year limitations period and beforehand. Thus, on the face of the complaint, Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claims would be viable. Alternatively, Plaintiff may proceed on a theory that an unjust enrichment claim does not ripen until an accumulation of wrongful acts has occurred, which pushes accrual within the limitations period.

Amicus Curiae Brief Of Law Professor Suzette Malveaux In Support Of Plaintiff The Estate Of Henrietta Lacks’S Opposition To Defendant’S Motion To Dismiss Second Amended Complaint: Estate Of Henrietta Lacks V. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., Suzette Malveaux

Scholarly Articles

Plaintiff alleges that Thermo Fisher was conferred the benefit of Henrietta Lacks’s cell line, that Thermo Fisher knew of this benefit, and that Thermo Fisher unfairly retained the benefit without providing payment to the Lacks family. Moreover, Plaintiff contends that this wrongful conduct has been going on for years, within the three-year limitations period and beforehand. Thus, on the face of the complaint, Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claims would be viable. Alternatively, Plaintiff may proceed on a theory that an unjust enrichment claim does not ripen until an accumulation of wrongful acts has occurred, which pushes accrual within the limitations period.

Boba Fett, Bounty Hunters, And The Supreme Court’S Viking River Decision: A New Hope, Imre S. Szalai

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

The United States Supreme Court recently issued a fractured decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S. Ct. 1906 (June 15, 2022), a classic David v. Goliath clash between a worker and employer. Can arbitration agreements be used to eliminate group or representative actions brought against employers, where the plaintiff worker is serving as a bounty hunter for the State? Although the majority clearly holds that a worker’s individual claims must be sent to arbitration pursuant to a predispute arbitration agreement, the splintered opinions leave some uncertainty regarding what happens to the representative claims of the other …

Brief Of Professor Brandon Hasbrouck As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Appellant: Bell V. Streeval, Brandon Hasbrouck

Scholarly Articles

The core question raised by this case is whether a federal prisoner serving an unconstitutional sentence can be foreclosed from post-conviction habeas relief by the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255. The Constitution answers that question in the negative through the Suspension Clause. “[F]reedom from unlawful restraint [i]s a fundamental precept of liberty,” and the writ of habeas corpus “a vital instrument to secure that freedom.” Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 739. The importance of the common law writ was such that the Framers specified that it could be suspended only in the most exigent circumstances. U.S. Const. art. I, § …

Memorandum Of Amici Curiae Doug Rendleman & Caprice Roberts In Support Of Plaintiff: Estate Of Henrietta Lacks V. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Doug Rendleman, Caprice Roberts

Scholarly Articles

This brief addresses the law of unjust enrichment and its relationship to restitution has failed to state a valid cause of action for restitution relief. Defendant incorrectly insists that plaintiff must plead a tort to seek restitution remedies as well as Both arguments belie the basic tenets of unjust enrichment law. Simply, plaintiff may seek restitution remedies based either a separate tort nor an allegation of the lack of bona fide purchaser status is required to survive these challenges.

The Future Of Testamentary Capacity, Reid Kress Weisbord, David Horton

Washington and Lee Law Review

Recently, the #FreeBritney saga cast a harsh spotlight on state guardianship systems. Yet despite their serious flaws, guardianship regimes have benefited from waves of reform. Indeed, since the 1970s, most jurisdictions have taken steps to protect the autonomy of people with cognitive, intellectual, or developmental disabilities (CIDD). Likewise, lawmakers are currently experimenting with supported decision-making (SDM): an alternative to guardianship designed to help individuals with CIDD make their own choices. These changes are no panacea, but they have modernized a field that once summarily denied “idiots” and “lunatics” power over their affairs.

However, in a related context, the legal system’s …

Juries, Democracy, And Petty Crime, John D. King

Scholarly Articles

The right to trial by jury in criminal cases is basic to the design of American criminal justice and to the structure of American government. Guaranteed by Article III of the Constitution, the Sixth Amendment, and every one of the original state constitutions, the criminal jury was seen as critically important not only to the protection of individual rights but also to the architecture of American democracy. The vast majority of criminal prosecutions today, however, are resolved without even the prospect of community review by a jury. Despite the textual clarity of the guarantee, the Supreme Court has long recognized …

Brief Of Amici Curiae In Support Of Defendants-Appellees: Braidwood Management V. Eeoc, Suzette Malveaux

Scholarly Articles

Amici are law professors with expertise in the requirements for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Amici have written extensively about class action litigation, including the use of class actions in civil rights cases seeking declaratory or injunctive relief. Together, we share an interest in ensuring that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure continue to be construed so as to ensure the “just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” FED. R. CIV. P. 1.

The Justiciability Of Cancelled Patents, Greg Reilly

Washington and Lee Law Review

The recent expansion of the Patent Office’s power to invalidate issued patents raises a coordination problem when there is concurrent litigation, particularly where the federal courts have already upheld the patent’s validity. The Federal Circuit has concluded that Patent Office cancellation extinguishes litigation pending at any stage and requires vacating prior decisions in the case. This rule is widely criticized on doctrinal, policy, and separation of powers grounds. Yet the Federal Circuit has reached (almost) the right outcome, except for the wrong reasons. Both the Federal Circuit and its critics overlook that the Federal Circuit’s rule reflects a straightforward application …

Brief Of Black Women Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. V. President And Fellows Of Harvard College And Univ. Of N.C., Suzette Malveaux

Scholarly Articles

Amici are Black women law scholars who, based on their professional and personal experiences, share a deeply rooted commitment to defending the legality of race-conscious admissions policies in educational institutions across the country. They submit this brief to present their unique and vital perspective on the history, constitutionality, and importance of race-conscious programs like those adopted by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (“UNC”).

The Litigation Landscape Of Fraternity And Sorority Hazing: Defenses, Evidence, And Damages, Gregory S. Parks, Elizabeth Grindell

Washington and Lee Law Review

In recent years, increasing public and media attention has focused on hazing, especially in collegiate fraternities and sororities. Whether it is because of the deaths, major injuries, or litigation, both criminal and civil, collegiate fraternities and sororities have received increased scrutiny. In this Article, we explore a range of tactical considerations that lawyers must consider—from defenses to evidentiary concerns. We also explore how damages are contemplated in the context of hazing litigation.

Submission Of Amicus Curiae Observations In The Case Of The Prosecutor V. Dominic Ongwen, Erin Baines, Kamari M. Clarke, Mark A. Drumbl

Scholarly Articles

The important questions laid out by the Appeals Chamber in this case highlight the need for the proper delineation and interplay between mental illness and criminal responsibility under international law. Specifically, this case represents a watershed moment for the Appeals Chamber to set a framework for adjudicating mental illness in the context of collectivized child abuse and trauma. This is especially true for former child soldiers who occupy both a victim and alleged perpetrator status.

Civil Rights Equity: An Introduction To A Theory Of What Civil Rights Has Become, John Valery White

Washington and Lee Law Review

This Article argues that civil rights law is better understood as civil rights equity. It contends that the four-decade-long project of restricting civil rights litigation has shaped civil rights jurisprudence into a contemporary version of traditional equity. For years commentators have noted the low success rates of civil rights suits and debated the propriety of increasingly restrictive procedural and substantive doctrines. Activists have lost faith in civil rights litigation as an effective tool for social change, instead seeking change in administrative forums, or by asserting political pressure through social media and activism to compel policy change. As for civil rights …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Professors Katherine Mims Crocker And Brandon Hasbrouck In Support Of Neither Party With Respect To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss: Dyer V. Smith, Brandon Hasbrouck, Katherine Mims Crocker

Scholarly Articles

This case illustrates how the First Amendment functions as an essential backstop to Fourth Amendment freedoms—and vice versa. As revealed by the national response to the killing of George Floyd and so many similar injustices, the ability to record encounters with government representatives is critical to preserving civil rights, and especially the right to avoid excessive force. The public only “became aware of the circumstances surrounding George Floyd’s death because citizens standing on a sidewalk exercised their First Amendment rights and filmed a police officer kneeling on Floyd’s neck until he died.” Index Newspapers LLC v. U.S. Marshals Serv., …

Defending Bridgegate, George D. Brown

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

The Supreme Court’s decision in the “Bridgegate” controversy has been the subject of intense debate. It has received strong support. However, some critics assail the decision as representative of a pattern of recent cases in which the Court has shown itself as indifferent to political corruption, if not supportive of it. Somewhat lost in the discussion is the decision’s potential to be the foundation for a seismic re-alignment of anti-corruption enforcement in the United States. The current model—with federal prosecution as the norm—is not cast in stone.

The Pandemic Juror, Melanie D. Wilson

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

While the deadly and highly contagious COVID-19 virus lingers and spreads across the country, courts are resuming criminal jury trials. In moving forward, judges reference case backlogs, speedy trial rights, and other concerns for the rights of the accused. Overlooked in this calculus is the importance of jurors and their safety. The Sixth Amendment guarantees “the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” Without jurors, there is no justice.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the justice system sometimes took advantage of juror vulnerability, treating jurors callously, if not rudely, during voir dire by asking them intensely …

The Lost Lessons Of Shareholder Derivative Suits, Jessica Erickson

Washington and Lee Law Review

Merger litigation has changed dramatically. Today, nearly every announcement of a significant merger sparks litigation, and these cases look quite different from merger cases in the past. These cases are now filed primarily outside of Delaware, they typically settle without shareholders receiving any financial consideration, and corporate boards now have far more ex ante power to shape these cases. Although these changes are often heralded as unprecedented, they are not. Over the past several decades, derivative suits experienced many of the same changes. This Article explores the similarities between the recent changes in merger litigation and the longer history of …

No Injury? No Class: Proof Of Injury In Federal Antitrust Class Actions Post-Wal-Mart, Rami Abdallah Elias Rashmawi

Washington and Lee Law Review

Over the past twenty years the Supreme Court of the United States has systematically limited the scope of federal class actions brought under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Importantly, in two landmark decisions, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, the Supreme Court cemented a heightened level of inquiry demanded by Rule 23, a stringent, “rigorous analysis.”

This Note analyses the effects of this heightened inquiry on federal antitrust class actions, particularly in situations where the plaintiffs’ method of proving antitrust injury fails to do so for some of the putative class …

Enforcement Of The Americans With Disabilities Act: Remedying “Abusive” Litigation While Strengthening Disability Rights, Evelyn Clark

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

This Note explores the Americans with Disabilities Act and the private litigation used to enforce compliance. While the ADA was designed to be enforced by private citizens, many have called for reform to limit what they see as “abusive” litigants. This Note focuses on (1) the perceived problem of vexatious litigants abusing the ADA and its state counterparts to benefit monetarily, (2) the attempted solutions on both a state and federal level, and (3) recommended solutions that focus on protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities while limiting abusive litigation meant to extort businesses.

Ebay, Permanent Injunctions, And Trade Secrets, Elizabeth A. Rowe

Washington and Lee Law Review

This Article presents the first qualitative empirical review of permanent injunctions in trade secret cases. In addition, it explores the extent to which the Supreme Court’s patent decision in eBay v. MercExchange has influenced the analysis of equitable principles in federal trade secret litigation. Among the more notable findings are that while equitable principles are generally applied in determining whether to grant a permanent injunction to a prevailing party after trial, the courts are not necessarily strictly applying the four factors from eBay. The award of monetary relief does not preclude equitable injunctive relief, and courts can find irreparable harm …

Brief Amici Curiae On Behalf Of Constitutional Law Professors A.E. Dick Howard, Russell A. Miller, And Carl W. Tobias: Lynchburg Range & Training Llc V. Northam, A.E. Dick Howard, Russell A. Miller, Carl W. Tobias

Scholarly Articles

Through Executive Order No. 53, the Governor of Virginia has acted in a manner consistent with the Constitution of Virginia in temporarily limiting access to indoor, nonessential businesses during the COVID-19 health crisis. Nothing in Article I, § 13 should be read to, nor was intended to, prevent the Governor from taking neutral, commonsense actions to protect the public health in the face of a nationwide pandemic.

Personal Jurisdiction And National Sovereignty, Ray Worthy Campbell

Washington and Lee Law Review

State sovereignty, once seemingly sidelined in personal jurisdiction analysis, has returned with a vengeance. Driven by the idea that states must not offend rival states in their jurisdictional reach, some justices have looked for specific targeting of individual states as individual states by the defendant in order to justify an assertion of personal jurisdiction. To allow cases to proceed based on national targeting alone, they argue, would diminish the sovereignty of any state that the defendant had specifically targeted.

This Article looks for the first time at how this emphasis on state sovereignty limits national sovereignty, especially where alien defendants …

The Dilemma Of Interstatutory Interpretation, Anuj C. Desai

Washington and Lee Law Review

Courts engage in interstatutory cross-referencing all the time, relying on one statute to help interpret another. Yet, neither courts nor scholars have ever had a satisfactory theory for determining when it is appropriate. Is it okay to rely on any other statute as an interpretive aid? Or, are there limits to the practice? If so, what are they? To assess when interstatutory cross-referencing is appropriate, I focus on one common form of the technique, the in pari materia doctrine. When a court concludes that two statutes are in pari materia or (translating the Latin) “on the same subject,” the court …

The Constitutionality Of Nationwide Injunctions, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarly Articles

Opponents of nationwide injunctions have advanced cogent reasons why courts should be skeptical of this sweeping remedy, but one of the arguments is a red herring: the constitutional objection. This Essay focuses on the narrow question of whether the Article III judicial power prohibits nationwide injunctions. It doesn’t.

This Essay confronts and dispels the two most plausible arguments that nationwide injunctions run afoul of Article III. First, it shows that standing jurisprudence does not actually speak to the scope-of-remedy questions that nationwide injunctions present. Second, it demonstrates that the Article III judicial power is not narrowly defined in terms of …

Preserving The Nationwide National Government Injunction To Stop Illegal Executive Branch Activity, Doug Rendleman

Scholarly Articles

The Trump Administration’s extravagant claims of executive power have focused the federal courts’ attention on separation of powers, judicial review, and equitable jurisdiction to grant broad injunctions that forbid the administration’s violations of the Constitution and federal statutes. Critics question the federal courts’ power to grant broad injunctions that are effective everywhere. These critics maintain, among other things, that the federal courts lack jurisdiction and that broad injunctions improperly affect nonparties and militate against “percolation” of issues in a variety of courts.

This Article examines the critics’ arguments and finds them unconvincing. Accepting the critics’ arguments would rebalance the separation …

Gamesmanship And Criminal Process, John D. King

Scholarly Articles

We first learn formal structures of rules, procedures, and norms of conduct through games and sports. These lessons illuminate and inform human behavior in other contexts, including the adversarial world of criminal litigation. As critiques of the legitimacy and fairness of the criminal justice system increase, the philosophy and jurisprudence of sport offer a comparative legal system to examine criminal litigation. Allegations of gamesmanship—the aggressive and strategic use of rules that violate some sense of decorum or culture yet remain within the formal rules of engagement—cut across both contexts. This Article examines what sports can teach us about gamesmanship in …