Common Law Commons^™

Taking The English Right To Counsel Seriously In American Civil Gideon Litigation, Scott F. Llewellyn, Brian Hawkins

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Courts have rejected a right to counsel for indigent civil litigants under the U.S. Constitution. But in some American states, that right arguably already exists as a matter of common law, albeit derived from centuries-old English common and statutory law. This Article analyzes the viability of arguments for incorporating the old English right to counsel in the twenty-seven American states that continue to recognize old English common and statutory law as a source of binding authority. Such "originalist" arguments may be appealing to judges who are more willing to revive a historically based right than establish a new right based …

New York's Property Condition Disclosure Act: Extensive Loopholes Leave Buyers And Sellers Of Residential Real Property Governed By The Common Law, Philip Lucrezia

St. John's Law Review

No abstract provided.

Advocacy In Charity: A Breakaway From The Common Law, Fiona Martin

Social Space

Can advocacy work be considered charitable? Common law systems don’t think so, but Australia is the first to break this convention. Fiona Martin examines the whys and the hows of this historic event.

The Evolution Of The Common Law And Efficiency, Nuno Garoupa, Carlos Liguerre

Faculty Scholarship

The efficiency of the common law hypothesis has generated a large bulk of literature in the last decades. The main argument is that there is an implicit economic logic to the common law; the doctrines in common law provide a coherent and consistent system of incentives which induce efficient behavior.

We start by observing that if the common law is overall evolutionarily efficient, we are left with no explanation for the important doctrinal differences across common law jurisdictions. The observation is more striking if we keep in mind that presumably the de jure initial condition was the same, namely English …

Restore Colorado's Repair Doctrine For Construction- Defect Claims, Michael F. Lutz

University of Colorado Law Review

The "repair doctrine" is a common law defense to statutes of limitations. It protects defective product and property buyers who delay suit due to sellers' promises to make repairs. Recently, in Smith v. Executive Custom Homes, the Colorado Supreme Court rejected the repair doctrine for construction-defect claims due to an apparent redundancy between the doctrine and the notice-and-opportunity-to repair provision of Colorado's Construction Defect Action Reform Act. This Note explains why Smith was wrongly decided.

Necessity Defense To Felon-In-Possession Charges: The Third Circuit Justifies A Federal Justification Defense In Virgin Islands V. Lewis, Kathryn Maza

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

The article presents information on the conceptions of morality and justice and the maximization of social welfare. The defense of necessity, its common law justification and the recognition of federal justification defense are discussed. The decisions made by the Third Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals in the trial of Virgin Islands v. Lewis, the judicial duty and the justification doctrine are also discussed.

Quasi-Property: Like, But Not Quite Property, Shyamkrishna Balganesh

Faculty Scholarship

Quasi-property interests refer to situations in which the law seeks to simulate the idea of exclusion, normally associated with property rights, through a relational liability regime, by focusing on the nature and circumstances of the interaction in question, which is thought to merit a highly circumscribed form of exclusion. In this Article, I unpack the analytical and normative bases of quasi-property interests, examine the primary triggering events that cause courts to invoke the category, and respond to potential objections to the recognition of quasi-property as an independent category of interests in the law.

The Uncertain Future Of "Hot News" Misappropriation After Barclays Capital V. Theflyonthewall.Com, Shyamkrishna Balganesh

Faculty Scholarship

In this Essay, I attempt to disaggregate the Second Circuit’s decision in Barclays Capital to show that while the court may have reached the right conclusion in the end (a position I have argued for previously), its reasoning to reach that conclusion is rather confusing, while at the same time a rich source of information about the future of hot news doctrine. At every stage of its analysis, the Second Circuit went to significant lengths to cabin the reach of the doctrine quite considerably, despite reiterating that it was not abrogating it altogether. In analyzing the opinion, I thus consider …

Prosecution Appeals Of Court-Ordered Midtrial Acquittals: Permissible Under The Double Jeopardy Clause?, David S. Rudstein

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Taking, Tort, Or Crown Right?: The Confused Early History Of Government Patent Policy, 12 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 145 (2012), Sean M. O'Connor

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

From the early days of the Republic, Congress and the federal courts grappled with the government’s rights to own or use patents it issued. Courts rejected the British “Crown Rights” rule that allowed the sovereign to practice whatever patents it issued. Instead, the federal government was conceptualized as a legal person on par with any other persons with regard to issued patents. But, this simple rule presented challenges as complexities arose in three intertwined patent rights scenarios. The first involved inventions by government employees. The second revolved around government and government contractor use of patents held by private citizens. And …

Debunking The Myth That Insurance Coverage Is Not Available Or Allowed For Intentional Torts Or Damages, Christopher French

Faculty Scholarship

Over the years, a myth has developed that insurance coverage is not available or allowed for intentional injuries or damage. This myth has two primary bases: one, the “fortuity” doctrine, which provides that insurance should only cover losses that happen by chance; and two, public policy, which allegedly disfavors allowing insurance for intentional injuries or damage. This article dispels that myth. Many types of liability insurance policies expressly cover intentional torts including trademark infringement, copyright infringement, invasion of privacy, defamation, disparagement, and improper employment practices such as discrimination. In addition, punitive damages, which typically are awarded for intentional misconduct, are …

Is Canada The New Shangri-La Of Global Securities Class Actions?, Tanya Monestier

Law Faculty Scholarship

There has been significant academic buzz about Silver v. Imax, an Ontario case certifying a global class of shareholders alleging statutory and common law misrepresentation in connection with a secondary market distribution of shares. Although global class actions on a more limited scale have been certified in Canada prior to Imax, it can now be said that global classes have "officially" arrived in Canada. Many predict that the Imax decision means that Ontario will become the new center for the resolution of global securities disputes. This is particularly so after the United States largely relinquished this role in Morrison v. …

A Fundamental Flaw With Uncitral's Approach To Cross-Border Secured Transactions: The Failure To Address Creditor Due Diligence Issues, John J. Chung

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Three Principles For Federal Housing Policy, David Reiss

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Embracing Administrative Common Law, Gillian E. Metzger

Faculty Scholarship

This Foreword begins with the descriptive claim that much of administrative law is really administrative common law: doctrines and requirements that are largely judicially created, as opposed to those specified by Congress, the President, or individual agencies. Although governing statutes exert some constraining force on judicial creativity, the primary basis of these judge-fashioned doctrines lies in judicial conceptions of appropriate institutional roles, along with pragmatic and normative concerns, that are frequently constitutionally infused and developed incrementally through precedent. Yet the judicially created character of administrative law is rarely acknowledged and often condemned by courts.

Turning from descriptive to more normative, …

Message In Mortgage: What Dodd-Frank's 'Qualified Mortgage' Tells Us About Ourselves, David Reiss

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Codifying Custom, Timothy Meyer

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Codifying decentralized forms of law, such as the common law and customary law, has been a cornerstone of the positivist turn in legal theory since at least the nineteenth century. Commentators laud codification’s purported virtues, including systematizing, centralizing, and clarifying the law. These attributes are thought to increase the general welfare of those subject to legal rules, and therefore to justify and explain codification. The codification literature, however, overlooks codification’s distributive consequences. In so doing, the literature misses the primary motive for codification: to define legal rules in a way that advantages individual codifying institutions, regardless of how codification affects …

Response: There Is No Common Law Of Severability, Kevin C. Walsh

Scholarly Articles

In this solicited response to The New General Common Law of Severability, I first offer an interpretation of Ayotte and subsequent Supreme Court decisions as continuous with existing doctrine instead of a departure from it. I then suggest that much of Scoville’s evidence for a federalization of severability doctrine is better viewed as evidence of doctrinal looseness rather than of doctrinal change. I conclude by returning to the lessons of severability’s doctrinal history, suggesting that the prehistory of severability doctrine may supply a better guide for how courts should deal with problems of partial unconstitutionality in the future.

Legal Medievalism In Lex Mercatoria Scholarship, Ralf Michaels

Faculty Scholarship

This short reaction piece to an article by Emily Kadens asks why a long-refuted story of an alleged uniform medieval lex mercatoria is still being maintained. The answer is that the story serves not as an actual history but instead as a foundation myth. Attempts to falsify the myth with historical data are therefore futile: the myth derives its value not from its truth value but from its symbolic power.

Constitutional Backdrops, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

The Constitution is often said to leave important questions unanswered. These include, for example, the existence of a congressional contempt power or an executive removal power, the role of stare decisis, and the scope of state sovereign immunity. Bereft of clear text, many scholars have sought answers to such questions in Founding-era history. But why should the historical answers be valid today, if they were never codified in the Constitution's text?

This Article describes a category of legal rules that weren't adopted in the text, expressly or implicitly, but which nonetheless have continuing legal force under the written Constitution. These …