Courts Commons^™

A Trilogy Of "Difficult And Complex" Arbitration Issues In 2012, Darius Chan

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

At the end of 2011, the Singapore High Court in Re David Joseph QC [2011] SGHC 262 (per VK Rajah JA) permitted the admission of an English Queen’s Counsel, David Joseph QC, to represent eight entities of the Astro Group, a Malaysian broadcasting and media entity, in proceedings arising from an arbitration with three subsidiaries of Indonesia’s Lippo Group. Under Singapore’s current statutory scheme, the court may admit QCs on an ad hoc basis if a matter contains issues of fact or law of “sufficient difficulty and complexity”, and if the circumstances of the case warrant it. The High Court …

The Evolution Of The Summary Trial: A Flexible Tool To Meet A Variety Of Needs, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Nicole L. Waters

Faculty Publications

Are summary jury trials a viable forum for dispute resolution? The National Center for State Courts studied summary trials in six state courts to understand how these programs work and to determine the benefits and detriments of this approach to dispute resolution.

Judicial Engagement Through The Lens Of Lee Optical, Randy E. Barnett

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Keynote remarks at the symposium on "Judicial Engagement and the Role of Judges in Enforcing the Constitution", delivered on March 22, 2012 at the George Mason University School of Law.

Advisory Adjudication, Girardeau A. Spann

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court decision in Camreta v. Greene is revealing. The Court first issues an opinion authorizing appeals by prevailing parties in qualified immunity cases, even though doing so entails the issuance of an advisory opinion that is not necessary to resolution of the dispute between the parties. And the Court then declines to reach the merits of the underlying constitutional claim in the case, because doing so would entail the issuance of an advisory opinion that was not necessary to the resolution of the dispute between the parties. The Court's decision, therefore, has the paradoxical effect of both honoring …

Incitement To Riot In The Age Of Flash Mobs, Margot E. Kaminski

Publications

As people increasingly use social media to organize both protests and robberies, government will try to regulate these calls to action. With an eye to this intensifying dynamic, this Article reviews First Amendment jurisprudence on incitement and applies it to existing statutes on incitement to riot at a common law, state, and federal level. The article suggests that First Amendment jurisprudence has a particularly tortuous relationship with regulating speech directed to crowds. It examines current crowd psychology to suggest which crowd behavior, if any, should as a matter of policy be subject to regulation. It concludes that many existing incitement-to-riot …

Work-Family Conflict And The Pipeline To Power: Lessons From European Gender Quotas, Julie C. Suk

Articles

The article examines the persistent gender disparities at the top of the legal profession, attributing them to work-family conflict and the disproportionate impact of caregiving responsibilities on women. It explores European gender quotas as a potential solution, arguing that such measures address the legitimacy and effectiveness of institutions by ensuring gender parity in leadership positions. While acknowledging the challenges in implementing quotas in the U.S., the analysis suggests that European approaches offer valuable insights for addressing the "leaky pipeline" and advancing gender equality in the legal profession.

New York Tax Warrants: In The Strange World Of Deemed Judgments, David G. Carlson

Articles

No abstract provided.

Suing Courts, Frederic Bloom, Christopher Serkin

Publications

This Article argues for a new and unexpected mechanism of judicial accountability: suing courts. Current models of court accountability focus almost entirely on correcting legal errors. A suit against the court would concentrate on something different--on providing transition relief, by way of legal remedy, to those bearing the heaviest burdens of desirable legal change. These suits may at first appear impossible. But suing courts is conceptually rational and mechanically reasonable, a tool that eases legal transitions while navigating the many hurdles modern doctrine puts in the way. This Article sets out the first complete account of how, where, and why …

The Second-Class Class Action: How Courts Thwart Wage Rights By Misapplying Class Action Rules, Scott A. Moss, Nantiya Ruan

Publications

Courts apply to wage rights cases an aggressive scrutiny that not only disadvantages low-wage workers, but is fundamentally incorrect on the law. Rule 23 class actions automatically cover all potential members if the court grants plaintiffs' class certification motion. But for certain employment rights cases--mainly wage claims but also age discrimination and gender equal pay claims--29 U.S. C. § 216(b) allows not class actions but "collective actions" covering just those opting in affirmatively. Yet courts in collective actions assume a gatekeeper role just as they do in Rule 23 class actions, disallowing many actions by requiring a certification motion proving …

State Amici, Collective Action, And The Development Of Federalism Doctrine, Michael E. Solimine

Georgia Law Review

State attorneys general (SAGs) have been individually
and collectively active on many legal and regulatory fronts
in recent years. One of those activities has been the filing
of amicus curiae briefs in the United States Supreme

Court, especially in cases impacting the states and
federalism doctrine. Frequently SAGs will join in one
amicus brief, and briefs signed by forty or more states are
not uncommon. This phenomenon has been the subject of
attention by legal scholars and political scientists, but the
normative jurisprudential significance of such briefs has
not. In their opinions, the Justices vary in how much legal
weight, …

The Pragmatic Court: Reinterpreting The Supreme People’S Court Of China, Taisu Zhang

Faculty Scholarship

This Article examines the institutional motivations that underlie several major developments in the Supreme People's Court of China's recent policy-making. Since 2007, the SPC has sent off a collection of policy signals that escapes sweeping ideological labeling: it has publically embraced a populist view of legal reform by encouraging the use of mediation in dispute resolution and popular participation in judicial policy-making, while continuing to advocate legal professionalization as a long-term policy objective. It has also eagerly attempted to enhance its own institutional competence by promoting judicial efficiency, simplifying key areas of civil law, and expanding its control over lower …

Trademark Dilution And Corporate Personhood, Stacey Dogan

Shorter Faculty Works

It’s become almost passé to decry our federal trademark dilution laws. The laws – first passed in 1995 and amended in 2006 – protect “famous trademarks” against uses that are likely to dilute their distinctiveness, without regard to any confusion among consumers or competition between the parties. Early critics warned that passage of the anti-dilution statute marked a turning point in trademark law: by giving famous trademark holders rights against even non-confusing uses of their marks, the law created “property”-like rights in trademarks. The initial commentary on the statute focused mainly on the costs associated with this increasingly absolutist approach …

Reflecting On Appeals On Questions Of Law Arising Out Of Domestic Arbitration Awards, Darius Chan, Paul Tan

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

Domestic arbitration awards rendered under the Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) can be subject to appeal on a question of law arising out of an award. Unless parties consent, an appeal can only be brought with the leave of court.

The Judicial Power And The Inferior Federal Courts: Exploring The Constitutional Vesting Thesis, A. Benjamin Spencer

Scholarly Articles

The third branch of our federal government has traditionally been viewed as the least of the three in terms of the scope of its power and authority. This view finds validation when one considers the extensive authority that Congress has been permitted to exercise over the Federal Judiciary. From the beginning, Congress has understood itself to possess the authority to limit the jurisdiction of inferior federal courts. The Supreme Court has acquiesced to this understanding of congressional authority without much thought or explanation.

It may be possible, however, to imagine a more robust vision of the Judicial Power through closer …

Rebel Without A Clause: The Irrelevance Of Article Vi To Constitutional Supremacy, Gary Lawson

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

With Stare Decisis and Constitutional Text, Jonathan Mitchell has produced what I think is the most interesting and creative textual defense (or at least partial defense) to date of the use of horizontal precedent in federal constitutional cases. Mitchell's careful analysis of the Supremacy Clause is fascinating and instructive, and he does an impeccable job of drawing out the implications of his premise that the Supremacy Clause prescribes only a very limited choice-of-law rule-a rule that does not, by its own terms, specifically elevate the Constitution above federal statutes and treaties. His innovative and intriguing framework yields four distinct conclusions …

Accessing Justice: The Availability And Adequacy Of Counsel Removal Proceedings: New York Immigrant Representation Study Report, Stacy Caplow, Peter L. Markowitz, Jojo Annobil, Peter Z. Cobb, Nancy Morawetz, Oren Root, Claudia Slovinsky, Zhifen Cheng, Lindsay C. Nash

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Legitimate Exercises Of The Police Power Or Compensable Takings: Courts May Recognize Private Property Rights, Terence J. Centner

Journal of Food Law & Policy

Under their police power, governments regulate nuisances and take actions in emergency situations. For protecting humans, animals, and plants from diseases and other pests (jointly referred to as diseases), governments order inoculations, quarantine items and people, and seize and destroy property.' With respect to plants and animals, the United States Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to prohibit the importation and movement of items than may be infested. The Secretary also has the authority to hold, treat, and destroy items to prevent the dissemination of plant and animal pests. State governments take additional actions to prevent the introduction and dissemination of …

Hybridizing Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson

Faculty Publications

Federal jurisdiction – the “power” of the court – is seen as something separate and unique. As such, it has a litany of special effects that define jurisdictionality as the antipode of nonjurisdictionality. The resulting conceptualization is that jurisdictionality and nonjurisdictionality occupy mutually exclusive theoretical and doctrinal space. In a recent Article in Stanford Law Review, I refuted this rigid dichotomy of jurisdictionality and nonjurisdictionality by explaining that nonjurisdictional rules can be “hybridized” with any – or even all – of the attributes of jurisdictionality.

This Article drops the other shoe. Jurisdictional rules can be hybridized, too, and in myriad …

To Dollars From Sense: Qualitative To Quantitative Translation In Jury Damage Awards, Valerie P. Hans, Valerie F. Reyna

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This article offers a new multistage account of jury damage award decision making. Drawing on psychological and economic research on judgment, decision making, and numeracy, the model posits that jurors first make a categorical gist judgment that money damages are warranted, and then make an ordinal gist judgment ranking the damages deserved as low, medium, or high. They then construct numbers that fit the gist of the appropriate magnitude. The article employs data from jury decision-making research to explore the plausibility of the model.

Unfit For Prime Time: Why Cable Television Regulations Cannot Perform Trinko's 'Antitrust Function', Keith Klovers

Michigan Law Review

Until recently, regulation and antitrust law operated in tandem to safeguard competition in regulated industries. In three recent decisions-Trinko, Credit Suisse, and Linkline-the Supreme Court limited the operation of the antitrust laws when regulation "performs the antitrust function." This Note argues that cable programming regulations-which are in some respects factually similar to the telecommunications regulations at issue in Trinko and Linkline-do not perform the antitrust function because they cannot deter anticompetitive conduct. As a result, Trinko and its siblings should not foreclose antitrust claims for damages that arise out of certain cable programming disputes.