Civil Procedure Commons^™

Attorney-Client Privilege: Minnesota Recognizes The Common-Interest Doctrine, George H. Singer

University of St. Thomas Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Black Lives Matter And The Push For Colonial-Era Cultural Heritage Restitution, Kathryn Speckart

Catholic University Law Review

The influence of the Black Lives Matter movement extends into U.S. museums in the form of calls for “decolonization” of collections comprised of art and artifacts from Africa and other colonized areas. As a result, the accompanying legal and ethical questions surrounding these artifacts now figure prominently in the museum industry. This Comment analyzes why the current U.S. cultural heritage law framework does not accommodate colonial-era African artifacts. This is due to few of these artifacts being subject to legal claims under current laws, African artifacts not having protection as a special classification, and the lack of enforcement mechanisms in …

Reducing Recidivism Through Rehabilitation: An Observational Study On Rehabilitative Programming During And After Incarceration To Determine Best Practices For Successful Reintegration Into Society, William R. Balestrino

Merge

No abstract provided.

Your Biometric Data Is Concrete, Your Injury Is Imminent And Particularized: Articulating A Bipa Claim To Survive Article Iii Standing After Transunion V. Ramirez, Kelsey L. Kenny

Maine Law Review

Biometric data is a digital translation of self which endures in its accuracy for one’s entire lifespan. As integral elements of modern life continue to transition their operations exclusively online, the verifiable “digital self” has become indispensable. The immutable and sensitive nature of biometric data makes it peculiarly vulnerable to misappropriation and abuse. Yet the most frightening is the unknown. For an individual who has had their digital extension-of-self covertly stolen or leaked, the dangers that lie in the technology of the future are innumerable. The Illinois legislature recognized the danger associated with the cavalier collection and handling of biometric …

Playing Monopoly With The Neighborhood: Impact Of Series Limited Liability Companies On Nuisance Abatement Actions And Housing Code Enforcement, Lauren Williams

Cleveland State Law Review

The City of Cleveland has been one of the most active cities in combating the negative effects of the 2008 financial crisis, utilizing nuisance abatement actions in combination with municipal programs aimed at assisting homeowners and renters. However, the Ohio Revised Limited Liability Company Act ("ORLLCA"), passed in 2021, may reverse the progress made in cities like Cleveland by enabling real estate investors to conceal assets in several series under the same limited liability company, resulting in rising vacancy rates and unstable communities. This will negatively impact the effectiveness of nuisance abatement actions and traditional housing code enforcement in curbing …

Is The Contempt Power Obsolete?, Nino C. Monea

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Contempt power has been with us for as long as we’ve had courts in this country. Through summary contempt proceedings, judges may imprison any person they deem insufficiently respectful to the authority of the court—with significantly less due process than a person would be entitled to under any other criminal offense. In theory, this is necessary to maintain order in the court. But in practice, summary contempt power is serially and seriously abused. Judges use incarceration to deal with piddling offenses or for no real reason at all. This Article argues that the concept of allowing judges nearly unbridled discretion …

Cultural Identity And Territorial Autonomy: U.S. Virgin Islands Jurisprudence And The Insular Cases, Dolace Mclean

Fordham Law Review

This Essay utilizes the lens of postcolonial theory to analyze the development of U.S. Virgin Islands jurisprudence. This Essay asserts that the United States’s acquisition of the territory served the purpose of helping to construct an American narrative of moving from colony to colonial power that surpassed its European forebears. The colonial narrative is fractured by instances of the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands re-narrating territorial space by utilizing legal principles that are informed by local cultural expressions. Consequently, Virgin Islands jurisprudence is transformed from “colonial dependent” to “postcolonial independent” based on intersectional, progressive principles.

Duped By Dope: The Sackler Family’S Attempt To Escape Opioid Liability And The Need To Close The Non-Debtor Release Loophole, Bryson T. Strachan

University of Richmond Law Review

The opioid epidemic continues to rage on in the United States, ravaging its rural populations. One of its main causes? OxyContin. Purdue Pharma (“Purdue”), the maker of OxyContin, aggressively marketed opioids to the American public while racking up a fortune of over $13 billion dollars for its owners,3 the Sackler family. As a result, roughly 3,000 lawsuits were filed against Purdue and members of the Sackler family. Generally, the lawsuits alleged that Purdue and members of the Sackler family knew OxyContin was highly addictive yet aggressively marketed high dosages of the drug and misrepresented the drug as nonaddictive and without …

Overview Of Missouri Appellate Briefing Rules And The Case Of Hicks V. Northland-Smithville, Steve Lockwood

SLU Law Journal Online

Starting with the Missouri Supreme Court's 2022 opinion in Lexow v. Boeing Co., appellate courts have put renewed emphasis on the requirements of Rule 84.04. The recent opinion by the Western District Court of Appeals, Hicks v. Northland-Smithville, and several predecessor opinions to Hicks, are a lesson and reminder to practitioners to strictly adhere to the Missouri Rules of Appellate Procedure, specifically Rule 84.04. In this article, Steve Lockwood will discuss Hicks and the implications of the opinion.

The Failure Of Judicial Recusal And Disclosure Rules: Evidence From A Field Experiment, Dane Thorley

Northwestern University Law Review

U.S. courts rely predominately on judicial self-recusal and in-court disclosure to address judicial conflicts of interest and maintain a critical perception of impartiality. But these approaches fail to account for the legal, institutional, and social dynamics that surround the relationship between judges, attorneys, and the adjudicative process. In reality, judges rarely use their discretion to disclose conflicts or recuse themselves, and attorneys do not ask them to do so. If we understand both the legal and extralegal incentives at play in these decisions, none of these outcomes should be surprising. The shortcomings of recusal and disclosure rules are particularly salient …

The Eleventh Amendment And Nondiverse Suits Against States, Collin Hong

University of Cincinnati Law Review

Since Hans v. Louisiana (1890), the Supreme Court has maintained that the Eleventh Amendment protects states from suits by plaintiffs who are citizens of other states and by citizens of that state, despite the text of the Eleventh Amendment specifying that only suits from citizens of other states are barred. Scholars have noted that what therefore protects the states from suits against their own citizens is not the Eleventh Amendment, but rather a common-law immunity that existed between nations at the founding. That immunity applied both to states and to foreign nations. This article argues that just as Congress has …

Home Court Advantage? An Empirical Analysis Of Local Bias In U.S. District Court Diversity Jurisdiction Cases, Kyle C. Kopko, Christopher J. Devine

West Virginia Law Review

In granting diversity of citizenship jurisdiction to the federal courts, there is an underlying assumption that federal courts will be less biased toward out-of-state litigants as compared with state courts. While this may be true, the assumption fails to consider an important empirical question: to what extent do federal courts favor home state litigants or disfavor out-of-state litigants when deciding diversity jurisdiction cases? Relying on the Integrated Database (IDB) compiled by the Federal Judicial Center and the Administrative Offices of the U.S. Courts, we present an original, empirical analysis of diversity jurisdiction case outcomes in the U.S. districts courts from …

Prioritizing Patients Or Impropriety?: Why The 8th Circuit’S Cairns Decision Sets A Dangerous Precedent Jeopardizing Patient Protection And Government Investment In Federal Programs, Nicole Beachboard

SLU Law Journal Online

In July 2022, the 8th Circuit established a stricter causation standard for plaintiffs alleging a False Claims Act claim through a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute in United States ex rel. Cairns v. D.S. Medical LLC. The requirement that a plaintiff demonstrate but-for causation stands in stark contrast to the 3rd Circuit’s “at least one claim standard.” In this article, Nicole Beachboard addresses how the 8th Circuit’s decision enforces an onerous burden on the plaintiff, undermines statutory authority, and facilitates defendant misconduct.

Why Standing Matters, Jeffrey G. Casurella

Mercer Law Review

On December 12, 2020, Donald Trump tweeted:

The Supreme Court had ZERO interest in the merits of the greatest voter fraud ever perpetrated on the United States of America. All they were interested in is “standing[,]” which makes it very difficult for the President to present a case on the merits. 75,000,000 votes

President Trump’s outburst du jour came on the heels of a Supreme Court of the United States case filed in the wake of the 2020 presidential election. That case was brought by the State of Texas against four defendants—the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the States of Georgia, …

“Hey, Google, What Are The Elements Of Homicide By Vehicle In The First Degree?”: The Supreme Court Of Georgia Reinforces The Prohibition On Extrajudicial Information Considered By A Jury In Criminal Trials, Savannah Hall

Mercer Law Review

In a criminal trial, the presentation of evidence and the instruction of law to the jury are of crucial importance to ensure that a person is only convicted based upon sound understandings of the factual and legal framework under which they were charged. The complexities surrounding the rules of evidence are in place so that jurors are only allowed to consider the facts and testimony permissible under the rules of evidence, meaning it is of utmost importance for the jury to consider solely those things which a judge deems admissible, relevant, and helpful to understanding the case. However, given the …

Rationalizing Relatedness: Understanding Personal Jurisdiction's Relatedness Prong In The Wake Of Bristol-Myers Squibb And Ford Motor Co., Anthony Petrosino

Fordham Law Review

Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court marked a watershed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s personal jurisdiction jurisprudence. There, the Court came to a reasonable conclusion: Ford, a multinational conglomerate carrying on extensive business throughout the United States, was subject to personal jurisdiction in states where it maintained substantial contacts that were related to the injuries that prompted the suits. This was so, even though the business it conducted in those states was not the direct cause of the suit. While justifying that conclusion, however, the Court drastically altered the personal jurisdiction inquiry’s relatedness prong, which concerns whether …

“Fundamental Fairness”: Finding A Civil Right To Counsel In International Human Rights Law, Meredith Elliott Hollman

University of Richmond Law Review

Every other Western democracy now recognizes a right to counsel in at least some kinds of civil cases, typically those involving basic human rights. The World Justice Project’s 2021 Rule of Law Index ranked the United States 126th of 139 countries for “People Can Access and Afford Civil Justice.” Within its regional and income categories, the United States was dead last. The United Nations and other international treaty bodies have urged the United States to improve access to justice by providing civil legal aid. How did we fall behind, and what can we learn from the rest of the world? …

Shielded Book Launch, Cardozo Center For Rights And Justice

Event Invitations 2023

Professor Alexander Reinert, Director of the Center for Rights and Justice, will moderate a discussion on Shielded: How the Police Became Untouchable. He will be joined by the author, Joanna Schwartz, Professor of Law at the University of California, Los Angeles. Schwartz is one of the country's leading scholars on policing.

In Shielded, Schwartz explores how the legal system protects the police from being held accountable, with insightful analyses about subjects ranging from qualified immunity to no-knock warrants. By weaving true stories of people seeking restitution for violated rights, cutting across race, gender, criminal history, tax bracket, and …

Theseus In The Labyrinth: How State Constitutions Can Slay The Procedural Minotaur, Marcus A. Gadson

Washington Law Review

Civil procedure is one of the biggest hurdles to access to justice. An array of rules and interpretations of those rules have turned lawsuits into meandering mazes with a procedural minotaur waiting to gobble up meritorious claims. The problem is especially acute for the many Americans without abundant resources or access to a lawyer. Fortunately, there is a ready remedy, albeit one access to justice advocates have ignored: state constitutions. Forty state constitutions, which protect hundreds of millions of Americans, generally guarantee “[t]hat all courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his person, property …

Asymmetric Review Of Qualified Immunity Appeals, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

This article presents results from the most comprehensive study to date of the resolution of qualified immunity in the federal courts of appeals and the US Supreme Court. By analyzing more than 4000 appellate decisions issued between 2004 and 2015, this study provides novel insights into how courts of appeals resolve arguments for qualified immunity. Moreover, by conducting an unprecedented analysis of certiorari practice, this study reveals how the US Supreme Court has exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in the area of qualified immunity. The data presented here have significant implications for civil rights enforcement and the uniformity of federal law. …