Litigation Commons^™

Expert Asymmetry: Evidence From Securities Litigation, Adam Callister, Andrew Granato, Belisa Pang

Articles

Modern litigation often involves two separate, extra-legal features: (1) contingency fee arrangements with the plaintiff-side attorney, and (2) a “battle of the experts” where the outcome of the case rests on conflicting expert witness testimony. We construct a model to illustrate that when these features occur simultaneously, in contexts where plaintiff-side attorneys bear the cost of hiring experts upfront, defendants will spend systematically more than plaintiffs on hiring expert witnesses. Our model is motivated by hand-collected data from a decade of securities class action litigation, where we show that experts polarize into almost entirely plaintiff-side versus defense-side experts, that defense-side …

Exploring The Limits Of Qualified Immunity Under Harlow’S Discretionary Function Test, James E. Pfander, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

No abstract provided.

Merger Remedies Unbound, Dhruv Aggarwal, Albert H. Choi, Geeyoung Min

Articles

How should foundational contract law doctrines apply to corporate mergers? This Article argues that recent changes in Delaware law grant parties expansive contractual freedom to define their preferred remedies in merger agreements, untethered from the limits imposed by traditional contract law. A new provision in the Delaware corporate code, or the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL), permits penalty clauses in merger agreements, notwithstanding the traditional “anti-penalty doctrine” that forbids punitive liquidated damages in contracts. Delaware courts have also shown deference to specific performance provisions, treating them as presumptively enforceable commitments instead of retaining their traditional judicial discretion over the choice …

Useful Noise: Understanding Dicta And Knowing What To Do With It, Len Niehoff, Tucker Gribble

Articles

Sometimes we approach the idea of obiter dictum as if it were Latin for “Here the court says something I wish it didn’t.” When a judicial opinion includes a statement that hurts our case, we labor to cast it as dicta and we give it the first name “mere.” If the opposing party quotes the statement, we huff about its irrelevance and dismissively proclaim that it can, indeed must, be ignored. We treat dicta as background noise, and we encourage the court to plug its ears and hum.

Burdens Of Proof In Criminal Procedure, Eve Brensike Primus

Articles

The Supreme Court’s haphazard approach to allocating burdens of proof in criminal procedure has created a system in which constitutional rights can be rendered meaningless simply because defendants are required to prove things they cannot possibly know. Even though allocations of the burden of proof often drive litigation outcomes, the Court has failed to establish clear burden allocation structures for cases arising under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, leaving lower courts split about how to allocate the burdens. When the Supreme Court does allocate burdens, it often does so without explanation or consideration of key factors. Recent Supreme …

Statelessness As An Academic Concern: The Indian Supreme Court’S Engagement With Citizenship Policy In In Re: Section 6a Of The Citizenship Act, 1955, Aishwarya Birla

Articles

In October 2024, the Supreme Court of India (‘Court’) made a significant ruling regarding citizenship laws in Assam, a state in the north-east of the country. The case In Re: Section 6Aof the Citizenship Act, 1955(‘In Re: s 6A’)centred on s 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955(‘Citizenship Act’), which pertains to granting citizenship to a specific class of migrants who entered Assam before ‘the 1stday of January, 1966’.The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of s 6A in a 4:1 majority. In doing so, the Court also engaged with a multitude of important issues for constitutional law and citizenship in …

Does Third Party Litigation Funding Need Regulations On Consumer Protection, Ronen Avraham, Eric Schuller, Anthony J. Sebok

Articles

Transcript of a roundtable discussion during the Third-Party Litigation Symposium at the S.J. Quinney College of Law.

Why Did The Irs Restart Transfer Pricing Litigation?, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah

Articles

In his excellent recent article on Coca-Cola’s appeal of its transfer pricing defeat in the Tax Court, Tax Notes contributing editor Ryan Finley explains that Coca-Cola’s main argument is based on the idea that “the IRS led the company into an ambush.” In 1996 the IRS entered into a closing agreement with Coca-Cola that provided that for the 1987 through 1995 tax years, the division of profits between Coca-Cola and its foreign “supply points” (the subsidiaries responsible for mixing the secret formula) would be based on a 10 percent return to the subsidiary and that any profit above that would …

The Editorial Board's Stories Of War And Recovery, Rachelle Navarro, Edna Epstein, Kristin Bender, Leonard Niehoff, Rahul Agarwal, Dennis Raglin, Margaret Mckeown

Articles

What follows are real-world experiences my fellow editors at Litigation journal shared with me. As much as misery loves company, we litigators love war stories more and, boy, do we have some! They show us that, when faced with unexpected catastrophes, we have only one option: Get to work. Do the math. Solve the problem. And then solve the next one.

Unspeakable Objections: Recovering From The Tricks And Traps Of Rule 30(C)(2), Leonard Niehoff, Shannon Hickey

Articles

The boundary between a proper “working” objection and an improper “speaking” objection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(c)(2) turns out to be less discernible and more mysterious than we might like. It’s certainly less plain than some lawyers believe and some judges have suggested. We all need a better understanding of how and why the business of making objections at depositions can get complicated under the terms of this rule.

Fee-Shifting Shortcuts, Maureen Carroll

Articles

Federal fee-shifting statutes, which allow certain prevailing plaintiffs to recover a reasonable attorney’s fee from the defendant, are critically important to civil rights enforcement. When it comes to the interpretation of these statutes, however, a wide gap separates the doctrine articulated by the Supreme Court and the decisions issued by lower courts. According to the Supreme Court, the calculation of a feeshifting award requires a highly contextualized inquiry, specific to the plaintiff’s attorneys and claims; in the lower courts, by contrast, judges take a set of welltrodden shortcuts that flatten many of the differences the case law makes relevant.

This …

Let's Break Some Rules: Immodest Proposals For Evidence Reform, Len Niehoff

Articles

In 1975, when the American Bar Association launched LITIGATION, its editors dedicated the entirety of one of the journal's first issues to evidence. Authors included distinguished practitioners, respected judges, and academic giants like Margaret A. Berger, Irving Younger, and Jim McElhaney. Subjects varied, but the articles shared a common sensibility: The recently adopted Federal Rules of Evidence were a good thing.

Understanding Federal Rule Of Evidence 104(B) On Building Walls And Missing Bricks, Len Niehoff, Shannon Hickey

Articles

We use individual pieces of evidence to construct our cases, recognizing that no one of them, taken in isolation, suffices to get the job done. As Professor McCormick famously said of evidence, “a brick is not a wall.” Federal Rule of Evidence 104(b) explains the logical relationship between those various pieces of evidence and how they help us build our proofs. Or perhaps we should say that the rule tries to explain it, without much success.

Gregory, Textualism, And Tax Shelters, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah

Articles

In this installment of Reflections With Reuven Avi-Yonah, Avi-Yonah suggests that courts should adopt a consequentialist approach to tax shelter litigation that would acknowledge the long- term risks of enabling tax shelters and seek to prevent their recurrence. In his excellent article on Gregory v. Helvering, David Elkins says that the common assumption that the case was about abuse of the tax-free reorganization provisions of the code is mistaken. Therefore, he argues, both Judge Learned Hand and the Supreme Court were wrong when they focused on whether the transaction was a “reorganization” as intended by Congress. Instead, they should have …

Notice Pleading’S Quiet Return, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

Fifteen years ago, the Supreme Court announced two significant civil procedure decisions – Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Together, Iqbal and Twombly marked a new approach to pleading in federal courts. No longer would courts apply the forgiving notice pleading standard, in force since the 1938 adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In its place, the Court introduced plausibility pleading, inviting district courts to apply their “judicial experience and common sense” to decide whether a claim was “plausible.” Commentators expressed alarm, predicting that the new standard …

Paying For Performance? Attorneys' Fees In Fraud Class Actions, Stephen J. Choi, Jessica M. Erickson, Adam C. Pritchard

Articles

This paper studies whether plaintiffs' lawyers matter in securities class actions. We use inverse propensity score weighting (IPW) to compare the results in cases led by top-tier firms against those brought by lower-tier firms. This technique addresses case selection effects by using all of the cases led by a top-tier firm and then weighting the cases led by lower-tier firms based on how similar these cases are to the cases led by top-tier firms. We do find that top-tier lawyers obtain better outcomes for shareholders in a subset of securities class actions, specifically the cases against the larger (although not …

Why Did The Irs Win? A Remarkable Year In Tax Litigation, Part 2, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah

Articles

In my previous column, 2023 was a remarkably good year for government litigators in tax cases. That column focused on two transfer pricing cases (3M and Coca-Cola). This column will focus on two other government victories (YA Global and Liberty Global).

Is You Is Or Is You Ain’T My Client? Navigating The Mysteries Of Prospective And Organizational Representation, Leonard Niehoff

Articles

Many years ago, I was trying a civil case that had stretched on for weeks in a federal court in Detroit. The counsel tables for both parties were covered with briefs, coffee cups, memoranda, books, water pitchers, examination outlines, yellow writing pads, and all the other litter that inevitably piles up during long trials. It appeared that we had moved in, just as at our actual homes it appeared that we had moved out.

A Law At War With Itself: Character Evidence And The Doctrine Of Chances, Len Niehoff, Shannon Hickey

Articles

Certain legal principles have raging within them a kind of civil war. Important but abstract policy concerns pull the doctrine in one direction; common sense and practical experience pull it in another. Casualties ensue.

Perhaps no body of legal doctrine better exemplifies this sort of internal conflict than the general ban on character evidence, as embodied in Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a)(1). That rule states: “Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with that character or trait.” The rule has deep roots in the …

The Joy Of The Fight: What Litigators Can Learn From The Martial Arts, Len Niehoff, Tim Lynch

Articles

You walk into a martial arts training studio (in Japanese styles, a dojo) and you scan the room. Everything going on here looks, well, unpleasant. In one corner, you observe a group of students performing kata, choreographed sequences of kicks, punches, and blocks that simulate the experience of fighting multiple opponents. Sweat pours off them. In another corner, you see two students engaged in sparring exercises, or kumite. The sharp, smacking noise of one student striking the protective pads worn by another carries across the room. In a third corner, you notice students doing push-ups, working their muscles until their …

Making Sense Of Abatement As A Tort Remedy, Anthony J. Sebok

Articles

Controversy over public nuisance in recent high profile cases invites the question of whether, and to what extent, it is limited by its roots in tort law. This article, which was prepared for the 2023 Clifford Symposium on “New Torts” focuses on causes of action in which the state seeks to enjoin the defendant by requiring that it abate the consequences of the invasion of a public right. In the most controversial of these public nuisance actions, such as lead paint and opioids, the wrongful conduct that is remedied by the injunctive relief has already ceased, and the state does …

Aaron Twerski: Practical Wisdom At Ground Zero, Anthony J. Sebok

Articles

This Article celebrates Professor. Aaron Twerski’s “practical wisdom” in crafting a solution (with Jim Henderson) to a problem faced by Judge Alvin Hellerstein in the so-called 9/11 First Responder cases. The problem was that Congress did not include these plaintiffs within the Victims Compensation Fund (“VCF”) despite there being every reason to suspect that the interaction of workersman’s compensation law and tort law, if left to operate on their own, would generate a politically unacceptable outcome. Despite his clear misgivings – —expressed decades earlier – —about allowing those who control the workplace to enjoy the benefits of limited liability guaranteed …

Unbelievable: How Narrative Can Help Vulnerable Narrators Overcome Perceived Unreliability In The Legal System, Cathren Page

Articles

This article examines how advocates can champion vulnerable narrators’ truths. First, advocates must prime the audience by educating the audience about the ways the vulnerability manifests; this process helps to allay credibility questions. Second, advocates must reframe seemingly untrustworthy behavior by showing how the behavior is consistent with someone in the vulnerable narrator’s situation. Third, advocates must create what fiction writers call verisimilitude—a sense of reality—by including concrete details that logically fit together in the legal narrative. Finally, advocates must label the tactics commonly used to discredit vulnerable narrators so that the audience can see those tactics for what they …

Qualified Immunity’S Flawed Foundation, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

Qualified immunity has faced trenchant criticism for decades, but recent events have renewed focus on this powerful defense to liability for constitutional violations. This Article takes aim at the roots of the doctrine—fundamental errors that have never been excavated. First, this Article demonstrates that the Supreme Court’s qualified immunity jurisprudence is premised on a flawed application of a dubious canon of statutory construction—namely, that statutes in “derogation” of the common law should be strictly construed. Applying the Derogation Canon, the Court has held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983’s silence regarding immunity should be taken as an implicit adoption of common …

Privacy And National Politics: Fingerprint And Dna Litigation In Japan And The United States Compared, Dongsheng Zang

Articles

Drawing cases from two related areas of law-fingerprint and DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) data-this Article proposes a modified framework, built on the Balkin-Levinson emphasis on national politics: First, national politics understood as partisan rivalry cannot account for what I call doctrinal lock-in in this Article, where I will demonstrate that in different stages of American politics-the Lochner era, the New Deal era, and Civil Rights era-courts across the nation ruled predominantly in favor of public data collectors-state and federal law enforcement in fingerprint cases. From the 1990s, when DNA data became hot targets of law enforcement, the United States Supreme Court …

Giving Shareholders The Right To Say No, Albert H. Choi, Adam C. Pritchard

Articles

When a public company releases misleading information that distorts the market for the company’s stock, investors who purchase at the inflated price lose money when (and if) the misleading information is later corrected. Under Rule 10b‑5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, investors can seek compensation from corporations and their officers who make materially misleading statements that the investors relied on when buying or selling a security. Compensation is the obvious goal, but the threat of lawsuits can also benefit investors by deterring managers from committing fraud.

In Search Of The First-Round Knockout A Rule 12(B) Primer, Kate Rogers, Leonard Niehoff

Articles

Boxing enthusiasts define success not just by wins and losses but also by knockouts. Many of the greatest fighters in the history of boxing—Rocky Marciano, Mike Tyson, Jack Dempsey, and Sugar Ray Robinson—were known for their knockout punching power. Within the category of knockouts, the gold standard is the first-round knockout, the moment when stunned fans watch a fighter take the opponent out of the contest before either of them has broken a sweat.

How Not To Lie: A Don't-Do-It-Yourself Guide For Litigators, Leonard Niehoff

Articles

Over the past few years, a number of high-profile attorneys have been sanctioned or suspended from the practice of law because they lied. The instance that probably received the greatest media attention came in June of 2021, when the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York ordered the immediate suspension of Rudy Giuliani’s license because he had made demonstrably false statements to the courts, lawmakers, and the public at large concerning the 2020 presidential election. In a 33- page opinion, the court considered the arguments Giuliani raised in his defense but concluded that his pants …

Public Law Litigation And Electoral Time, Zachary D. Clopton, Katherine Shaw

Articles

Public law litigation is often politics by other means. Yet scholars and practitioners have failed to appreciate how public law litigation intersects with an important aspect of politics-electoral time. This Essay identifies three temporal dimensions of public law litigation. First, the electoral time of government litigants-measured by the fixed terms of state and federal executive officials-may affect their conduct in litigation, such as when they engage in midnight litigation in the run-up to and aftermath of their election. Second, the electoral time of state courts-measured by the fixed terms of state judges-creates openings for strategic behavior among litigants (both public …

When To Be Objectionable… And How Not To Be An Artless Clay-Brained Pignut, Leonard Niehoff

Articles

Having taught evidence for more than 30 years. I've become fairly good at predicting the questions students will ask, especially the questions that are hardest to answer. One of those typically comes after we've discussed how to object to evidence. We've worked through the basics: Stand up, speak up, say that you object, and briefly explain why. At this point a student almost always raises his or her and says something like this: "OK. I understand the how part. But when do I object?"