Civil Procedure Commons^™

Who Determines What Is Egregious? Judge Or Jury: Enhanced Damages After Halo V. Pulse, Brandon M. Reed

Georgia State University Law Review

Enhanced damages in patent law are a type of punitive damage that can be awarded in the case of “egregious misconduct” during the course of patent infringement. Authorization for enhanced damages comes from 35 U.S.C. § 284, which allows the district court to increase total damages up to three times the amount of actual damages found by the jury. It is well understood that, since enhanced damages are punitive in nature, enhancement should only be considered for cases of “wanton” or “deliberate” infringement. However, determining what constitutes this “egregious” misconduct has vastly transformed over time to include a negligence standard, …

Motion To Dismiss For Failure To Succeed On The Merits: The Eeoc And Rule 12(B)(6), Perry F. Austin

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Quinn V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 5 (Feb. 8, 2018) (En Banc), Shaneka J. Malloyd

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) a writ of mandamus/prohibition is appropriate when a party does not have an adequate relief in the ordinary course of the law and it is necessary to prevent improper disclosure of privileged and confidential information; (2) a Nevada district court has no authority to compel an out-of-state non-party to appear in Nevada for a deposition; and (3) specifically, a Nevada district court does not have subpoena power over a non-resident attorney that has practiced law in Nevada.

Expert Testimony And Professional Licensing Boards: What Is Good, What Is Necessary, And The Myth Of The Majority-Minority Split, Timothy P. Mccormack

Maine Law Review

Defendants regularly argue that a Review Board's decision must be overturned because it is not supported by expert testimony. Boards counter that they are qualified, by virtue of their role as the guardians of the standards for their profession, to determine the appropriateness of a defendant's conduct without the assistance of expert testimony. When courts address these arguments, they routinely ask if expert testimony is necessary to establish the standard of care in disciplinary hearings before a professional licensing board. Courts answer this question differently. In fact there is a seeming schism among the states about the importance of expert …

Personal Jurisdiction And The Web, Joseph S. Burns, Richard A. Bales

Maine Law Review

Courts have struggled in determining precisely when a defendant should be subject to suit in a particular forum based on his or her Web activity. Although most jurisdictions have applied some form of the “minimum contacts” test, the test has been applied inconsistently. A new standard is needed to resolve personal jurisdiction disputes arising out of Web activity. This Article examines the ways in which modern courts have attempted to resolve personal jurisdiction issues based on Web activity, as well as the inconsistencies that have resulted from the inherent difficulty in conceptualizing the Web.

How The Law Court Uses Duty To Limit The Scope Of Negligence Liability, Paul F. Macri

Maine Law Review

The element of duty is the least understood and most amorphous element of negligence. One reason that duty is not well understood is that duty analysis combines consideration of fact-specific issues of foreseeability of harm, relationship between the parties, and seriousness of injury with analysis of the public policy implications of finding a duty in the specific case, including the burden that will be placed on defendants by imposing a duty. This is a delicate balancing act for most courts. Over the last eleven years, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, has employed duty analysis in …

Castillo V. United Fed. Credit Union, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 3 (Feb. 1, 2018), Jocelyn Murphy

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) in a class action suit parties may not aggregate putative class member claims to reach the statutorily required jurisdictional amount for subject matter jurisdiction; (2) NRS § 104.9625(3)(b) permits an individual to combine the amount of sought statutory damages with the proposed deficiency amount in consumer transactions to obtain the jurisdictional amount for subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) district courts possess original jurisdiction over all claims for injunctive relief, even those that fail to meet the jurisdictional amount.

Mdl V. Trump: The Puzzle Of Public Law In Multidistrict Litigation, Andrew D. Bradt, Zachary D. Clopton

Northwestern University Law Review

Litigation against the Trump Administration has proliferated rapidly since the inauguration. As cases challenging executive actions, such as the “travel ban,” multiply in federal courts around the country, an important procedural question has so far not been considered—Should these sets of cases be consolidated in a single court under the Multidistrict Litigation Act? Multidistrict litigation, or MDL, has become one of the most prominent parts of federal litigation and offers substantial benefits by coordinating litigation pending in geographically dispersed federal courts. Arguably, those benefits would also accrue if “public law” cases were given MDL treatment. There also are some underappreciated …

California V. United States Bureau Of Land Management, Molly M. Kelly

Public Land & Resources Law Review

After President Trump’s Executive Order No. 13783 encouraging relaxing regulatory burdens on energy production, the Bureau of Land Management reevaluated its 2016 “Waste Prevention Rule” which addressed waste of natural gas from venting, flaring, or other leaks resulting from oil and natural gas production activities. The BLM sought to postpone the Rule’s compliance date to give the agency time to promulgate a new rule—effectively overruling the 2016 Rule. Plaintiffs challenged the agency’s compliance under the Administrative Procedures Act, and the court found the BLM did not properly follow APA requirements.

Rwu First Amendment Blog: Diana Hassel's Blog: How Will Supreme Court Slice Wedding Cake Case 01-11-2018, Diana Hassel

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Discouraging Frivolous Copyright Infringement Claims: Fee Shifting Under Rule 11 Or 28 U.S.C. § 1927 As An Alternative To Awarding Attorney’S Fees Under Section 505 Of The Copyright Act, David E. Shipley

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

The United States Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons resolved a disagreement over when it is appropriate to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant under section 505 of the Copyright Act, and ended a perceived venue advantage for losing plaintiffs in some jurisdictions. The Court ruled unanimously that courts are correct to give substantial weight to the question of whether the losing side had a reasonable case to fight, but that the objective reasonableness of that side’s position does not give rise to a presumption against fee shifting. It made clear that other factors …

Disbelief Doctrines, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Employment discrimination law is riddled with doctrines that tell courts to believe employers and not workers. Judges often use these disbelief doctrines to dismiss cases at the summary judgment stage. At times, judges even use them after a jury trial to justify nullifying jury verdicts in favor of workers.

This article brings together many disparate discrimination doctrines and shows how they function as disbelief doctrines, causing courts to believe employers and not workers. The strongest disbelief doctrines include the stray comments doctrine, the same decisionmaker inference, and the same protected class inference. However, these are not the only ones. Even …

Patagonia Vs. Trump, Richard Henry Seamon

Articles

No abstract provided.

Ousted: The New Dynamics Of Privatized Procedure And Judicial Discretion, Robin Effron

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Ballad Of Harry James Tompkins, Brian L. Frye

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

At about 2:30 a.m. on Friday, July 27, 1934, William Colwell of Hughestown, Pennsylvania was awakened by two young men banging on his front door. When he went downstairs, they told him that someone had been run over by a train. Colwell looked out his side window. In the moonlight, he saw someone lying on the ground near the railroad tracks. He went back upstairs and told his wife that there had been an accident. She told him “not to go out, that them fellows was crazy,” but he dressed and went out to help anyway. Colwell's house was at …

Federal Rule 26(A)(2) Expert Witness Disclosures: Strategies For Composing And Attacking Expert Disclosures, Douglas B. Bates, Chelsea R. Stanley, James L. Burt Iii

Journal of Air Law and Commerce

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(A)(2) governs disclosure of expert testimony. The rule purports to create a clear delineation between experts that must provide a written report and those that do not. The rule then outlines the disclosure requirements that must be satisfied as to each type of expert. This article focuses on the implications of Rule 26(A)(2) in practice, with an emphasis on the field of aviation litigation. The article begins by discussing the general difference between non-retained experts and retained experts and the disclosure requirements associated with each. The article then progresses into a series of practice pointers …

2017 Patent Law Decisions Of The Federal Circuit, Laura C. Whitworth

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Teaching And Learning Personal Jurisdiction After The Stealth Revolution, Deborah Challener

Journal Articles

In this Response [to Professor Michael Hoffheimer’s article The Stealth Revolution in Personal Jurisdiction], Professor Challener points out one additional cost of the stealth revolution: the substantially increased difficulty of teaching and learning the law of personal jurisdiction which, in turn, erodes law students’ confidence in the Supreme Court as an institution.

Uniform Enforcement Or Personalized Law? A Preliminary Examination Of Parking Ticket Appeals In Chicago, Randall K. Johnson

Faculty Works

This article is one in a series of papers that sets the record straight about the type, quality and quantity of information that U.S. cities may employ, in order to make more informed policy decisions. It does so, specifically, by examining information that is collected by the City of Chicago. The goal is to gauge the uniformity, as well as the relative cost-effectiveness, of the parking ticket appeals process. The article has six (VI) parts. Part I is the introduction, which sets the stage for a preliminary examination of the parking ticket appeals process in Chicago. Part II describes the …

Florida's Controlling Summary Judgment Rule 1.510(C) Contrasted With The Common Law-Created Rule Grounded On Two Conflicted Federal Cases, H Michael Muñiz

St. Thomas Law Review

Florida litigators, who are familiar with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, should not be surprised that the prescribed, controlling procedural rule to be followed as well as for a Florida state trial court to adjudicate a motion for summary judgment ("MSJ") is presumptively set forth within Rule 1.510 of the modem-day Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The current rule expressly provides, in material part, "the judgment sought must be rendered immediately if the pleadings and summary judgment evidence on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled …