Courts Commons^™

Building A Taxonomy Of Litigation: Clusters Of Causes Of Action In Federal Complaints, Christina L. Boyd, David A. Hoffman, Zoran Obradovic, Kosta Ristovski

Scholarship@WashULaw

This project empirically explores civil litigation from its inception by examining the content of civil complaints. We utilize spectral cluster analysis on a newly compiled federal district court dataset of causes of action in complaints to illustrate the relationship of legal claims to one another, the broader composition of lawsuits in trial courts, and the breadth of pleading in individual complaints. Our results shed light not only on the networks of legal theories in civil litigation but also on how lawsuits are classified and the strategies that plaintiffs and their attorneys employ when commencing litigation. This approach permits us to …

Litigating Toward Settlement, Christina L. Boyd, David A. Hoffman

Scholarship@WashULaw

Civil litigation typically ends when the parties compromise. While existing theories of settlement primarily focus on information exchange, we instead examine how motion practice, especially non-discovery motions, can substantially shape parties’ knowledge about their cases and thereby influence the timing of settlement. Using docket-level federal district court data, we find a number of strong effects regarding how motions can influence this process, including that the filing of a motion significantly speeds case settlement, that granted motions are more immediately critical to settlement timing than motions denied, and that plaintiff victories have a stronger effect than defendant victories. These results provide …

Paved With Good Intentions: Sentencing Alternatives From Neuroscience And The Policy Of Problem-Solving Courts, Emily R. Murphy

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

General Law In Federal Court, Bradford R. Clark, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.

Journal Articles

Conventional wisdom maintains that the Supreme Court banished general law from federal courts in 1938 in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins when the Court overruled Swift v. Tyson. The narrative asserts that Swift viewed the common law as a “brooding omnipresence,” and authorized federal courts to disregard state common law in favor of general common law of their own choosing. The narrative continues that Erie constrained such judicial lawmaking by banishing general law from federal courts. Contrary to this account, Swift and Erie represent compatible conceptions of federal judicial power when each decision is understood in historical context. At the …

When Is Finality Final? Second Chances At The Supreme Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Front-Of-Package Nutrition Claims: Trustworthy Facts Or Deceptive Marketing? Closing The Loopholes In Labeling, Kathryn E. Hayes

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The note argues that front-of-package (FOP) labeling on children's food products is insufficient and often misleading, failing to meet basic nutritional standards. It advocates for the adoption of uniform, science-based labeling standards developed by an objective body like the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to help parents make healthier choices. The analysis highlights the limitations of self-regulation by manufacturers and the need for stronger governmental oversight to address deceptive practices and improve public health outcomes.

Why Can't We Be (F)Rands?: The Effect Of Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory Commitments On Standard-Essential Patent Licensing, Robert D. Keeler

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

This Note explores the effect of a patent holder's reasonable and non-discriminatory ("RAND") commitments to standard-setting organizations on their patent claims which are declared "standard-essential" by the standard-setting organization. It also analyzes the current standard-essential patent ("SEP") licensing system used by the majority of standard-setting organizations around the world and proposed modifications thereto.

This Note looks toward the current case of Microsoft v. Motorola Mobility, the recent Google Settlement with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), and various calls for reform from other areas of the government. The Note concludes that it appears that we are moving toward a system in …

Judging The Flood Of Litigation, Marin K. Levy

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court has increasingly considered a particular kind of argument: that it should avoid reaching decisions that would “open the floodgates of litigation.” Despite its frequent invocation, there has been little scholarly exploration of what a floodgates argument truly means, and even less discussion of its normative basis. This Article addresses both subjects, demonstrating for the first time the scope and surprising variation of floodgates arguments, as well as uncovering their sometimes-shaky foundations. Relying on in-depth case studies from a wide array of issue areas, the Article shows that floodgates arguments primarily have been used to protect three institutions: …

The Role Of Courts In "Making" Law In Japan: The Communitarian Conservatism Of Japanese Judges, John O. Haley

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Professor Haley is an outstanding international and comparative law scholars, widely credited with having popularized Japanese legal studies in the United States. In 1969, Haley received a fellowship from the University of Washington and was in one of the first classes to graduate from the Asian Law Program, now, the Asian Law Center. After working for several years in law firms in Japan, he joined the law faculty at the University of Washington, where he remained for nearly twenty-six years during which time he directed the Asian and Comparative Law Program. In June 2012, Professor Haley was awarded The Order …

Undue Burdens In Texas, Jennifer S. Hendricks

Publications

No abstract provided.

Spatial Legality, Due Process, And Choice Of Law In Human Rights Litigation Under U.S. State Law, Anthony J. Colangelo, Kristina Kiik

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Framing the topic of this symposium as “Human Rights Litigation in State Courts and Under State Law” effectively orients the discussion around the rights of plaintiffs from the outset, the central question being whether they have enforceable rights in U.S. state courts under state law. Standing in the way are various legal doctrines. In broad strokes, the relevant questions become: Which doctrines do, or should, either facilitate or obstruct human rights litigation in U.S. state courts and under state law? How are courts applying these doctrines? How should courts apply these doctrines?

Many of the doctrines that potentially stand in …

Prison Is Prison, Brooke Coleman

Faculty Articles

Two indigent men stand before two separate judges. Both will be sent to prison if they lose their cases. One receives appointed counsel, but the other does not. This discrepancy seems terribly unjust, yet the Supreme Court has no problem with it. It recently affirmed in Turner v. Rogers, that where an indigent individual is subject to criminal charges that can result in incarceration, he has a right to appointed counsel, but where an indigent individual is subject to civil proceedings where incarceration is a consequence, he does not. In other words, criminal and civil proceedings have different rules, and …

A Twice-Told Tale: Plausibility And Narrative Coherence In Judicial Storytelling, Chris Rideout

Faculty Articles

What makes the stories told in court believable, and thus convincing? Part of the answer, this article suggests, lies in narrative coherence. Stories “make sense” and are plausible, not because they necessarily correspond in a direct way to “what really happened,” but rather because they seem structurally whole, consistent, and complete. They have achieved narrative coherence. After considering the role of narrative coherence in the plausibility of narratives, the article presents a typology for narrative coherence, breaking it down into external and internal coherence, with further component parts to each one. The article then turns to the Supreme Court case …

Casual Ostracism: Jury Exclusion On The Basis Of Criminal Convictions, Anna Roberts

Faculty Articles

Statutes in forty-eight states permit the exclusion of those with felony convictions from criminal juries; thirteen states permit the exclusion of those with misdemeanor convictions. The reasons given for these exclusions, which include the assumption that those with convictions are embittered against the state, do not justify their costs. Procedural justice theories indicate that embitterment of those with criminal convictions need not – and should not – be assumed. Rather, policymakers should do what they can to avoid such embitterment. This article therefore proposes that automatic statutory exclusions on the basis of criminal convictions should be abandoned. If a juror …

Full Disclosure: Cognitive Bias, Informants, And Search Warrant Scrutiny, Mary Bowman

Faculty Articles

This article posits that cognitive biases play a significant role in the gap between the rhetoric regarding Fourth Amendment protection and actual practices regarding search warrant scrutiny, particularly for search warrants based on informants’ tips. Specifically, this article examines the ways in which implicit bias, tunnel vision, priming, and hindsight bias can affect search warrants. These biases can affect each stage of the search warrant process, including targeting decisions, the drafting process, the magistrate’s decision whether to grant the warrant, and post-search review by trial and appellate courts. These biases create room for informant falsehoods to go unchecked, with a …

Lafler And Frye: A New Constitutional Standard For Negotiation, Rishi Batra

Faculty Articles

The Sixth Amendment guarantees "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." In 1984, the Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington established the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel that is a violation of this right. In a pair of decisions handed down in 2012, Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye the Supreme Court extended the holding in Strickland to cover ineffective assistance by defense counsel in the plea-bargaining phase. Recognizing that pleas account for ninety-five percent of all criminal convictions, the court stated that "the negotiation …

Protecting The Innocent - The Need To Adapt Federal Asset Forfeiture Laws To Protect The Interests Of Third Parties In Digital Asset Seizures, Elizabeth Friedler

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Logic, Not Evidence, Supports A Change In Expert Testimony Standards: Why Evidentiary Standards Promulgated By The Supreme Court For Scientific Expert Testimony Are Inappropriate And Inefficient When Applied In Patent Infringement Suits, Claire R. Rollor

Journal of Business & Technology Law

No abstract provided.

Understanding The Obstacles To The Recognition And Enforcement Of U.S. Judgments Abroad, Samuel P. Baumgartner

Akron Law Faculty Publications

Questions of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments have entered center stage. Recent empirical work suggests that there has been a marked increase in the frequency with which U.S. courts are asked to recognize and enforce foreign judgments. The U.S. litigation surrounding a multibillion-dollar Ecuadoran judgment against Chevron indicates that the stakes in some of these cases can be high indeed. This rising importance of questions of judgments recognition has not been lost on lawmakers. In November of 2011, the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee held hearings on whether to …

Issue 2: Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.