Litigation Commons^™

Authentication, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Rules Of Evidence Amendments, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Dna Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Best Evidence Rule, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Hearsay: Part Ii, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Hearsay: Part Iv, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Hearsay: Part I, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Hearsay: Part Iii, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Impeachment Of Witnesses: Part Ii, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Expert Witnesses, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Impeachment Of Witnesses: Part I, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Admissibility Of Laboratory Reports In Criminal Trials: The Reliability Of Scientific Proof, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Procedure For Admitting And Excluding Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Attorneys’ Fees In Antitrust Litigation: Making The System Fairer, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

Section 4(a) of the Clayton Act entitles prevailing plaintiffs in private antitrust actions to recover, in addition to treble damages, their reasonable attorneys' fees. Unique when adopted as part of the Sherman Act in 1890, this fee-shifting provision has been imitated, at least in part, in over 100 federal statutes. In providing for attorneys' fees, Congress intended to promote private enforcement of the antitrust laws and to insulate the treble damages recovery from expenditures for legal fees. Fee-shifting is mandatory where a plaintiff prevails, but the court has some leeway in setting the amount of the fee. The controversy …

Eyewitness Identifications And Expert Testimony, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Contribution, Claim Reduction, And Individual Treble Damage Responsibility: Which Path To Reform Of Antitrust Remedies?, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

Antitrust violations traditionally have been viewed as statutory torts, yet tort principles of damage allocation, including contribution and claim reduction, have not been extended by analogy in the federal courts to antitrust cases. Moreover, the principle of joint and several liability, made applicable to antitrust conspirators by judicial fiat some eighty years ago, has gone largely unchallenged. While the federal antitrust laws are nearly a century old, the damage allocation debate is of recent vintage, emerging in the wake of the Electrical Equipment Cases, when the private treble damage remedy came into its own.

The recent emergence of …

“Syndrome” Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Detrebling Antitrust Damages: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

Since the passage of the Sherman Act in 1890, successful plaintiffs in private antitrust actions have been entitled to recover three times the actual damages awarded. Originally embodied in section 7 of the Sherman Act, the mandatory treble damages provision was later incorporated into section 4 of the Clayton Act and made applicable to all actions in which private plaintiffs sought recovery under the federal antitrust laws. In the century since the Sherman Act became law, the antitrust debate has concentrated largely on issues of substantive liability. While the desirability of the mandatory treble damages remedy has been challenged …

Bite Mark Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

A Comment On The Supposed Paradoxes Of A Mathematical Interpretation Of The Logic Of Trials, Dale A. Nance

Faculty Publications

This symposium has renewed discussion of the apparent paradox of at- tempting to apply mathematical probabilities to the logic of trials. Brought to academic attention by the stimulating work of L. Jonathan Cohen,' the debate reflects a more general controversy over the virtues of quantifying legal decisionmaking. In this brief comment I do not intend to take sides either in this debate or in the more general controversy. I want only to draw attention to a weakness in the legal interpretations which underlie much of the debate.

A Policy Analysis Of Fee-Shifting Rules Under The Internal Revenue Code, Gary Myers, Richard L. Schmalbeck

Faculty Publications

Until recently, the costs of litigating federal tax cases were borne exclusively by the parties who incurred them, regardless of whether the government or the taxpayer prevailed in the litigation. This practice reflects the application to tax disputes of the ‘American rule’ against fee shifting. Although the American rule continues to be predominant in the tax area, it has been modified in important respects. An explicit fee-reimbursement rule, benefiting prevailing taxpayers in cases in which the government is found to have acted unreasonably, was added to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) by the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of …

Developing Standards Under Amended Rule 11 Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is designed to ensure the integrity of pleadings and other papers filed in federal district court. The rule was amended in 1983 in response to the widely held perception that its provisions, as originally promulgated, had proven ineffective in deterring strike suits, litigation abuses, and lawsuits used as instruments of delay and oppression. Amended Rule 11 introduces more stringent standards designed to make attorneys stop and think about their legal obligations before signing pleadings and motions. These obligations are reinforced by imposing mandatory sanctions upon violation of the standards. The …

Polygraph And Deception Tests: Part Ii, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Expert Testimony, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Polygraph And Deception Tests, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Firearms And Toolmark Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The August 1, 1983 Amendments To The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure: A Critical Evaluation And A Proposal For More Effective Discovery Through Local Rules, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

The 1983 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1983 amendments) represent by far the most ambitious effort to date to remedy the widely perceived problem of discovery abuse in federal practice. These amendments are designed to improve the conduct of discovery by eliminating improper practices and making discovery more cost-effective for the parties, and thereby helping the pretrial phase of an action to run more smoothly. The 1983 discovery amendments have three basic thrusts: (1) active involvement by the court in the pretrial phases of a case pursuant to rule 16; (2) recognition of specific limitations on …

“Other Acts” Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Admissibility Of Laboratory Reports, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Illinois Brick Dilemma: Is There A Legislative Solution?, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

In Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, the United States Supreme Court held that in price-fixing actions brought under section 1 of the Sherman Act, only first purchasers in the chain of vertical distribution are "injured," within the meaning of section 4 of the Clayton Act, by the full amount of any overcharge. The Court's ruling bars plaintiffs who are "indirect purchasers" from offering proof that they have been injured by defendants' illegal overcharges which have been "passed on" to them by middlemen. The Court's holding reaffirmed the principles previously enunciated in Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery …