Litigation Commons^™

The Realities Of Takings Litigation, Dave Owen

BYU Law Review

This Article presents an empirical study of takings litigation against the United States. It reviews the cohort of takings cases filed against the federal government between 2000 and 2014, tracing each case from filing through final disposition. The result is a picture of takings litigation that is at odds with much of the conventional wisdom of the field. That conventional wisdom suggests that most takings cases will involve alleged regulatory takings; that the most intellectually challenging issues will arise within the field of regulatory takings; and, more broadly, that takings litigation will play an important role in the United States ...

Is Trade Sexist? How “Pink” Tariff Policies’ Harmful Effects Can Be Curtailed Through Litigation And Legislation, Miranda Hatch

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

International Litigation, Aaron Marr Page, Jonathan I. Blackman, Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Theodore J. Folkman, Phillip B. Dye Jr., Matthew D. Slater, Howard S. Zelbo, Igor V. Timofeyev, Charles A. Patrizia, Joseph R. Profaizer

The Year in Review

No abstract provided.

A Tipping Point In Ohio: The Primacy Model As A Path To A Consistent Application Of Judicial Federalism, The Honorable Pierre Bergeron

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Examination Of Eviction Filings In Lancaster County, Nebraska, 2019–2021, Ryan Sullivan

College of Law, Faculty Publications

The study examined and analyzed eviction filings and proceedings in Nebraska, with a specific focus on Lancaster County—the home to the State’s capital, Lincoln. The primary objective of this study is to place eviction proceedings under a microscope to gain a better understanding of the volume of evictions in Nebraska, and whether the statutorily mandated processes are being followed. The study also attempts to capture the impact of certain external factors present during the period examined. Such factors include the COVID-19 pandemic and various eviction moratoria in place during 2020 and 2021, as well as the increased availability ...

Calling Strikes: The Sixth Circuit’S Interpretation Of The Prison Litigation Reform Act, Emily O'Hara

Boston College Law Review

On May 3, 2021, in Simons v. Washington, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a court’s non-binding “strike” recommendation under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) did not violate the PLRA or Article III of the United States Constitution. Courts agree that binding strikes are impermissible, but disagree on the underlying reasoning. The Sixth Circuit reasoned that the PLRA, which revokes in forma pauperis filing from indigent prisoner-litigants after three qualifying dismissals, renders binding strikes impermissible before a prisoner accrues three strikes. By resolving the issue using the PLRA, the Sixth Circuit found ...

Class Actions, Thomas M. Byrne, Stacey Mcgavin Mohr

Mercer Law Review

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s 2021 class-action work featured an important decision on the existence of an independent ascertainability requirement for class certification. In an abrupt reversal of two unpublished opinions acknowledging the existence of such a requirement, the court aligned itself with most circuits that have addressed the question in demoting the ascertainability of class membership to a factor to be considered in establishing the manageability of a class action, rather than an independent requirement. The court’s other significant cases concerned class settlements and standing.

Government Discretion Advised (Even If It’S Unconstitutional): How The Eleventh Circuit Has Expanded The United States’S Immunity From Tort Suits, John Rodriquez

Mercer Law Review

Mackie Shivers, a sixty-four-year-old man, was stabbed in the eye by his mentally-ill cellmate with a pair of scissors. Although the attack left Shivers permanently blind, he received no legal remedy to compensate him for his injuries. This result is due, at least in part, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s decision to interpret the discretionary function exception to the Federal Torts Claim Act (FTCA) in a broader way than virtually all of its sister circuits. The holding by the Eleventh Circuit in Shivers v. United States bars FTCA claims under the exception even ...

No More “Heads Defendants Win, Tails Plaintiffs Lose”: How The Georgia Supreme Court’S Relation Back Decision In Cannon Rebalances Pleading Power, Jordan Lipp

Mercer Law Review

Imagine your daughter dying in a high-speed police chase—when she was not even the driver that evaded police or caused the crash. You want to hold someone accountable, but you do not know who the right person is if you sue: the deputy, the sheriff in his personal capacity, the sheriff in his official capacity, the county, the sheriff’s office, the county commissioners, the insurer of the police car? You sue the wrong one, and it is too late. Now what?

Thankfully for you, Georgia has forgiving pleading standards. Relation back is a legal fiction that assumes a ...

So Help Me, God, Decide This Case: The Eleventh Circuit’S New Standard For Dismissing Religious Jurors During Deliberations, Amanda Claxton

Mercer Law Review

You are on trial for a crime. Maybe you did precisely what the government claims, though perhaps not. However, a judge will not decide your fate because you exercised your constitutional right to a jury trial. During deliberations, you hear that a juror practices a religion condemning those who commit the crime you are accused of. You feel the juror would unfairly prejudice your chances of walking away freely. To your dismay, the judge refuses to dismiss the juror. You ask whether allowing this prejudicial juror to determine your fate is legal. After United States v. Brown, it is.

The ...

Trial Practice And Procedure, John O'Shea Sullivan, Leesa M. Guarnotta

Mercer Law Review

The 2021 Survey period yielded decisions involving issues of first impression relating to federal trial practice and procedure in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. This Article analyzes recent trial practice developments in the Eleventh Circuit, including significant rulings in the areas of consumer debt collections, removal, jurisdiction and abstention, arbitration, and sanctions.

It’S Time To Resolve The Circuit Split: Unconstitutional Actions By Federal Employees Should Not Fall Within The Scope Of The Discretionary Function Exception Of The Ftca, Laney Ivey

Mercer Law Review

The Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) is an avenue for United States citizens to sue the federal government for torts committed by government employees within the scope of their work. Congress designed the FTCA to allow citizens to overcome the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which allows citizens to recover from injuries suffered at the hands of government agents. Under the FTCA, there are exceptions where recovery is not allowed; the most prominent exception is known as the discretionary function exception, under which discretionary actions by government employees are immune from liability under the FTCA.

Creating A Civil Remedy In Georgia For Survivors Of Out-Of-State Childhood Sexual Abuse, Alexandra H. Bradley

Mercer Law Review

Sexual abuse casts long shadows and causes long-lasting effects on its survivors, particularly children. Especially tragic, most abused children are abused by an adult whom that child knows and trusts. This abuse by anyone, especially by a child’s parents or close family friend, often causes lifelong emotional damage. Survivors generally do not recognize the extent of their abuse until many years later.

This late onset or delayed discovery has made it difficult for courts to provide redress. Although technically children could sue their abuser when the abuse occurs, children generally do not know they have a cause of action ...

Foreign Antisuit Injunctions And The Settlement Effect, Connor Cohen

Northwestern University Law Review

International parallel proceedings, which are concurrent identical or similar lawsuits in multiple countries, often ask courts to balance efficiency and fairness against the speculative fear of insulting foreign nations. Some litigants abuse foreign duplicative litigation to exhaust their opponents’ resources and pressure them into settling out of court. This Note provides the first empirical evidence of such abuse of international parallel proceedings: when courts deny motions to enjoin foreign parallel litigation, the settlement rate rises significantly. Considering the results of this empirical project and its limitations, I encourage future studies on international parallel proceedings and settlement. I also argue for ...

When To Bite: Why Hasn’T Argentina Terminated Its Bilateral Investment Treaties?, Selene I. Bonczok Sotelo

CUREJ - College Undergraduate Research Electronic Journal

Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) commit governments to behave “politely” towards foreign investors’ property rights and grant the latter the right to sue governments when violations occur. Some studies show that the greater the exposure to investment arbitration, the more likely states are to terminate their BITs. Other studies show that progressive governments are more likely to terminate treaties than economically liberal ones. In this paper, I argue that both ideology and exposure to investment arbitration are necessary but not sufficient conditions for countries when exiting BITs. As the case of Argentina shows, not all progressive governments prefer to exit the ...

Upper Missouri Waterkeeper V. Epa, Clare Ols

Public Land & Resources Law Review

State water quality standards developed under the Clean Water Act play a key role in curtailing the negative environmental, economic, and human health impacts of water pollution. Under the state water quality regulatory framework, EPA may grant variances to state standards should the state demonstrate the compliance with its standards is infeasible for a certain pollutant discharger or waterbody. Montana DEQ developed a variance for nutrients based on evidence that compliance with those standards would cause economic harm. EPA approved Montana's nutrient pollutant variance, and Upper Missouri Waterkeeper challenged EPA's approval on the grounds that the variance violates ...

Groups And Rights In Institutional Reform Litigation, David Marcus

Notre Dame Law Review

Lawsuits pursue institutional reform when plaintiffs ask courts to issue broad, systemic remedies to improve the performance of malfunctioning government programs. Once thought in decline, this litigation persists. Plaintiffs continue to seek judicial protection from dysfunctional prisons, immigration enforcement regimes, foster care systems, and other institutions. But an important aspect of the substantive law that institutional reform litigation involves has gone overlooked. This substantive law often vests rights in groups. An institutional reform lawsuit does not always—or even often—bundle large numbers of individual rights violations. Rather, a group of incarcerated people or children in foster care sues to ...

The Objection Exception Is Overruled! The Georgia Supreme Court Makes A Course Correction By Reviving The Contemporaneous Objection Rule, Ryan Read

Mercer Law Review

What comes to mind when you think of evidence being presented at jury trials? Typically, both sides prevent evidence to the jury, and both sides fight hard to make sure no prejudicial evidence is allowed in that would bias the jury against their client. Both sides also work hard to prepare persuasive openings and closings to further affect the jury’s perception of their client, the opposition, and the evidence that has been presented. So, when an attorney on one side makes prejudicial statements about the opposing counsel’s client, one would naturally expect an objection to be made, right ...

The Future Of Testamentary Capacity, Reid Kress Weisbord, David Horton

Washington and Lee Law Review

Recently, the #FreeBritney saga cast a harsh spotlight on state guardianship systems. Yet despite their serious flaws, guardianship regimes have benefited from waves of reform. Indeed, since the 1970s, most jurisdictions have taken steps to protect the autonomy of people with cognitive, intellectual, or developmental disabilities (CIDD). Likewise, lawmakers are currently experimenting with supported decision-making (SDM): an alternative to guardianship designed to help individuals with CIDD make their own choices. These changes are no panacea, but they have modernized a field that once summarily denied “idiots” and “lunatics” power over their affairs.

However, in a related context, the legal system ...

The Party Respectfully Requests A Jury Trial On All Issues So Triable: What Issues Are Triable To A Jury And What Issues Should Be Triable To A Jury? A Comment On The Right To A Jury Trial, With A Focus On Civil Trials, And When The Right Exists, Michael Downing

Mercer Law Review

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . .” But what about civil prosecutions? What about prosecutions under state law, not federal? What does the universally expected “right to a jury trial” really mean or afford the parties to a trial?

Under federal law and the United States Constitution, by the time the Bill of Rights was drafted, the ideal of an accused’s right to a jury trial was already deeply rooted within society. However, the ...