Litigation Commons^™

Haze Gray, Stay Away: How Extending The Feres Doctrine To Ship Collisions Usurps Justice In Admiralty, Caroline Stanton Chlaupek

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Another Look At Judicial Review Of Labor Arbitration Awards In Rhode Island, William E. Smith, Stefanie Fischer, Kai Wiggins, Sam Jaksa

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Front Matter, Jtaa Editors

Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents, Jtaa Editors

Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy

No abstract provided.

Masthead, Jtaa Editors

Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy

No abstract provided.

The Federal Rules Of Evi-Dance: Exploring And Reimagining Evidence Law Through Music, And Proposing Amendments To Rule 604, Brian C. Potts

Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy

No abstract provided.

Want To Rig An Election? Why The ‘Eve Of An Election’ Loophole Should Be Closed, Maxwell White

Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy

No abstract provided.

Shotspotter In The Courtroom: Addressing The Evidentiary Challenges Of Acoustic Gunshot Detection Technology, Samantha Mazzone

Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure—When Procedure Overrides Purpose: The Fight Over Judicial Authority To Modify Restitution—United States V. O’Hara, 114 F.4th 557 (6th Cir. 2024), Alexandria Cormier

Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law—What Was Its Intent? First Circuit Presumes Mens Rea For Machinegun Provision, Ignoring Congress’S Purpose—United States V. Pérez-Greaux, 83 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2023), Allison O’Heany

Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy

No abstract provided.

Jon E. Krupnick Award, Notre Dame Law School

Student, Faculty, and Staff Awards

Chosen by the Trial Advocacy faculty or excellence in trial advocacy.

Access Denied: The Injustice Of Plra Exhaustion, Rachel Kincaid

Marquette Law Review

Law students learn to “think like a lawyer” by studying appellate decisions that contain extensive reasoning and result from vigorous advocacy by lawyers on both sides. These well-reasoned decisions allow students to learn how to distill legal rules from judicial opinions: to focus on the rationale behind a court’s decision so that they might be able to predict how the court would deal with a different factual scenario. But this focus on extensively reasoned and argued appellate court opinions obscures the access-to-justice crisis plaguing our legal systems; most people cannot even afford to pay a lawyer to represent them, let …

What Makes Federal Circuit Opinions Influential?, Jason Reinecke

Marquette Law Review

This Article provides the results of an empirical study assessing the determinants of a patent opinion’s influence at the Federal Circuit. I draw on a novel, largely hand-coded dataset of nearly 2,700 decisions issued by the Federal Circuit over a period of more than seven years. I find that some judges are more likely than others to issue binding opinions favoring patent owners (and others favoring patent challengers). In addition, drawing on case citation counts, I find limited evidence that extremely pro-patentee panels tend to write slightly more influential pro-patentee precedential decisions. Perhaps most striking and surprising, however, is how …

Ain’T Nothing Like The Real Thing: How Legal Research Programs Can Provide The Needed Safety Rails For Pro Se Litigants Using Ai In Litigation, Nicole Belbin

Faculty Scholarship

An estimated 92% of legal needs go unmet in America, leaving a growing number of pro se litigants to “manage their own cause.” Between 2000 and 2019, 27% of all civil cases filed in U.S. District Courts, totaling 1,501,079 cases, had at least one party without attorney representation. The legal profession is abuzz about the potential for generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools to “smooth out any mismatch between available resources and urgent needs in our court system”; however, “hallucinations” have quickly proved a limitation to reaching this technology’s full potential. The complexity of legal research and analysis increases the chance …

Massachusetts Community Mediation Center (Cmc) Grant Program: Fiscal Year 2025 Evaluation Report, Madhawa Palihapitiya, Karina Zeferino

Massachusetts Office of Public Collaboration Publications

The CMC Grant Program remains a vital statewide investment in equitable access to justice and community well-being in Massachusetts. In FY2025, the Commonwealth allocated $3,100,202 to the Program, with $2,376,002 awarded directly to 12 community mediation Centers for operational support, technical assistance, and participation in statewide initiatives. These funds continued to serve as the financial foundation of the community mediation system, accounting for half of Centers’ collective revenue and enabling them to leverage an additional $2,435,797 from private, municipal, state, and federal partners—demonstrating strong public return on state appropriations. Despite a funding reduction in FY2025, the Program generated …

Eroding Protections: The Decline Of Miranda Rights And Its Impact On Due Process In Contemporary America, Autumn G. Pelfrey

Honors Undergraduate Theses

This thesis examines whether the protections established in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), remain robust within contemporary criminal justice practice or have been weakened through doctrinal and practical developments. Miranda warnings were originally designed to mitigate the risk that coercive custodial interrogation would produce compelled or unreliable self-incrimination. Since 1966, however, both judicial interpretation and evolving law-enforcement practices have created a growing gap between Miranda’s formal legal promise and its practical operation in real-world interrogations.

The study evaluates the erosion of Miranda’s protective force through three primary mechanisms. First, doctrinal developments have narrowed Miranda’s scope by redefining …

Reconstituting A Constitution, And A Republic: The Architecture Of Authoritarian Rule, J. Maria Glover

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

A constitution can be remade without tearing it down, or even changing a single word. It is done by law. It is being done now—by the Supreme Court.

In each case, real people win, real people lose, real people suffer. Outcomes matter. But across the span of cases, the Court is tearing down our constitutional order of divided power—taking authority from the courts below, from Congress, the agencies, the states, and us, the people—and building a structure of unchecked power in itself. Procedure and remedies are constitutive of the judicial power. In a time of authoritarian threat, they are the …

The Civil Justice Business, J. Maria Glover

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Our civil justice system rests on foundational commitments: to make rights real for those the law protects, whatever their station; to hold wrongdoers accountable, whatever their power; and to deter misconduct in a system that depends heavily on private enforcement. We put great faith in these values.

Civil justice, for all its lofty goals, is also a business. Attorneys and liability insurers have long held economic stakes in litigation, bounded by their own professional and regulatory norms. Now, a new litigation finance industry has arisen: outside investors supply equity capital—divorced from legal representation and liability management—and take returns directly from …

Third-Party Funding: Balancing Transparency, National Security, And Access To Justice, Victoria Sahani

Faculty Scholarship

Many lawmakers who have recently become aware of the multi-billion-dollar global third-party funding industry are raising new national security concerns that further complicate preexisting, longstanding debates about transparency, disclosure, access to justice, and the best way to regulate third-party funding. In response, this Article briefly asserts three main points relating to the question of how best to regulate third-party funding. First, this Article explains the third-party funding industry, including its global regulatory landscape and how it serves three distinct populations: consumers, businesses, and law firms. Second, this Article explains that third-party funding is one tool that can help expand access …

Taking Off The “Blindfold”: Exploring Montana’S Public Trust Doctrine And The Right To A Clean And Healthful Environment After Held V. Montana, Lizzy Gazeley

Lewis & Clark Law Review

As global average temperatures continue to rise, the threat of climate change looms closer. To evade climate catastrophe, greenhouse gas emissions will need to be substantially reduced. Despite climate change’s imminent risks, in the United States, both the federal government and states remain resistant to transitioning away from fossil fuel energy sources. To combat this government inaction, some litigants have turned to an ancient doctrine. The public trust doctrine provides that sovereigns must protect natural resources from substantial impairment to ensure the public’s right to use those resources.

In Held v. Montana, youth plaintiffs alleged that the State of Montana …

Adequate Representation In Group Litigation, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Scholarly Works

This article examines the inherent tension between the legal system's desire for "global peace" (finality) and the constitutional requirement for adequate representation in collective lawsuits. While Rule 23 class actions provide structural safeguards—such as judicial oversight of counsel and settlement, and opt-out rights—alternative mechanisms like multidistrict litigation (MDL) and parens patriae suits often lack these protections . Using the In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation as a primary case study, the article illustrates how informal, "backroom" leadership selection in MDLs empowers a small circle of elite "repeat players" at the expense of marginalized groups, such as Native American tribes and …

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

Faculty Publications

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 …

It’S (Not All) Personal: Civil Litigation And The Values Of Rights Of Action, Hanoch Dagan, Avihay Dorfman, Issi Rosen-Zvi

American University Law Review

Existing approaches to civil litigation, both regarding its theoretical underpinnings and its practical instantiations, take diametrically opposing perspectives on the value of personal rights of action. Some view them as inviolable and thus vehemently oppose any mandatory arbitration clauses and treat class actions as presumptively dubious. Others have no principled objection to either, as they perceive personal rights of action as mere technologies that are painlessly dispensable if the substantive values underlying the claim at hand can be realized more effectively through a more efficient mechanism.

In this Article, we reject both of these ‘all or nothing’ approaches and offer …

“Necessary” Jurisdiction: Veterans’ Rights In Article Iii Courts, Dana Montalto

American University Law Review

U.S. veterans should possess the same access to courts as other Americans, but a misreading of a federal law has led many veterans to be denied an opportunity to assert their civil rights in any judicial forum. That law—38 U.S.C. § 511—grants exclusive jurisdiction over certain federal veterans benefits appeals to a specialized Article I court, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. But federal judges and Department of Veterans Affairs leaders have mistakenly interpreted that grant of exclusive jurisdiction to also close the door to Article III courts, leading veterans’ meritorious claims of systemic discrimination and injustice to be …

Tyranny Of A Feather: Asymmetry In Civil Burdens Of Proof, Thomas O. Main

American University Law Review

Civil litigation suffers from a paradox that is at once self-evident, unfair, and overlooked: the trial process promises equality between plaintiffs and defendants under the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, even as the pretrial process is skewed dramatically in defendants’ favor. At trial a plaintiff needs only “50% plus a feather” to tip the scales and prevail, reflecting a commitment to equal treatment of the parties. Pretrial, however, the playing field tilts steeply: plaintiffs alone must navigate a procedural gauntlet of motions that impose pleading and production burdens for which defendants face no equivalent. This entrenched asymmetry in pretrial practice has become so …

Forum Selling As A Threat To The Rule Of Law, Brian Iverson

FIU Law Review

Forum shopping has long been a feature of federal litigation, but recent years have brought a more troubling dynamic in which federal courts compete for cases by “forum selling.” Judges engage in forum selling by adopting plaintiff-friendly procedures, reliably issuing plaintiff-leaning decisions, and publicly soliciting certain types of cases. These practices transform localized procedural discretion into a structural risk for the federal judicial system.

This Article makes two novel contributions to the federal forum-selling literature. First, it expands the discussion beyond bankruptcy and patent practice to examine ideological influences. Drawing on empirical scholarship and illustrative judicial profiles, the Article identifies …

Integrating Human Rights Into State And Federal Court Litigation, Lauren E. Bartlett

All Faculty Scholarship

Human rights have never been more important in the United States as they are today. After more than 10 years of dormancy, the seminal work that guides public interest attorneys in incorporating human rights work has been finally updated. The Human Rights in the U.S. Handbook for Public Interest Attorneys is a handbook that provides practical direction to public interest attorneys, including clinical law teachers, legal aid attorneys, public defenders, and others, on how to use human rights in their everyday work. The Handbook invaluably advises attorneys on best practices for using human rights arguments before U.S. state and federal …

Hryniak’S Erosion: Summary Judgment In Ontario, Suzanne Chiodo, Gerard J. Kennedy, Alyssa S. King

All Papers

No abstract provided.

Uncertain Enforcement And Standing To Sue, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

Plaintiffs with strong claims that a law is unconstitutional may yet fail to establish standing when the law is rarely enforced. Other statutes, like Texas’s unusual abortion law, may render challenges difficult by delegating enforcement to private parties who are difficult to identify in advance. Both problems arise from the assumption that the law shapes behavior only through sanctions imposed in enforcement proceedings. This view is mistaken, both jurisprudentially and empirically. Worse, it requires courts to ask two unanswerable questions: How likely is enforcement? And how likely does Article III require it to be? It also asks standing doctrine to …

Coached By A Custom Chatgpt And Ready For Trial, Staci J. Pratt

Publications

No abstract provided.