Litigation Commons^™

Hearsay In High Definition: Body-Worn Cameras And The Future Of Intimate Partner Violence Prosecutions, Kenechukwu Okocha

Working Papers

Technological advances in documenting police encounters with the public have outpaced evidentiary hearsay rules. Specifically, the rapid adoption of body-worn cameras (BWCs), fueled by racial justice and police reform advocates, has produced previously unavailable, vivid, and timely recordings of IPV victims’ accounts of abuse. Unfortunately, state and federal rules governing hearsay often prevent juries from considering these out-of-court statements. Such restrictions carry particular force in IPV cases, where victims frequently recant or decline to testify at trial due to abuser manipulation or distrust of the criminal justice system.

Courts and legislatures have eased some evidentiary restrictions in IPV cases in …

Joinder’S Diversity Asymmetry, Jason J. Jarvis

Fordham Law Review

In federal diversity cases, plaintiffs are barred from joining nondiverse supplemental parties or claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b). Defendants, however, can expand the case without the same restriction. Section 1367(b) codified the U.S. Supreme Court’s concern in Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger: Plaintiffs might so prefer federal court that they would “sneak” nondiverse parties in by hiding them until after diversity jurisdiction is established, only then springing them on unsuspecting courts and defendants. This Article challenges the justification for that asymmetry in three ways.

First, it explores the history of the asymmetry, starting with how joinder …

Controlling Shareholder Primacy, Naveen Thomas

Fordham Law Review

In just eight months, Delaware’s legislature upended over fifty years of corporate law. Its courts had long upheld shareholder primacy, treating shareholders equally in proportion to their ownership. But after several controversial decisions reinforced this principle, sudden amendments to the corporate code shifted the law toward a distinct paradigm: controller primacy.

While motivated by legitimate concerns, the legislation went too far, threatening to fundamentally realign corporate power and purpose. Contrary to shareholder primacy, the new regime disproportionately prioritizes controlling shareholders above all others. It authorizes contracts that cede the board’s managerial authority to controllers, insulates their self-dealing from shareholder approval …

Royal Canin And The Jurisdiction It Left Behind: The Class Action Fairness Act, Nicole Brosnan

Fordham Law Review

Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger created waves in the federal litigation world by setting forth a new rule, declaring that a plaintiff’s amendment of a complaint following removal is capable of destroying federal jurisdiction. Prior to this case, courts generally followed the “time-of-filing rule” by which federal jurisdiction attached at the time of removal. The U.S. Supreme Court was clear that this rule applies to federal claim jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but the Court remained generally silent on its application to jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.

This Note explores this lack of clarity and proposes …

Crossing The Toll Bridge: American Pipe And The Fate Of State Law Claims After Class Certification Denial In Federal Court, Alexander Schnur

Fordham Law Review

Rule 23(c)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) provides that, “At an early practicable time after a person sues . . . as a class representative, the court must determine by order whether to certify the action as a class action.” In American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the interplay of this FRCP 23(c)(1)(A) class certification decision and statutes of limitations, holding that the commencement of a putative class action suspends the statute of limitations for putative class members while class certification is pending. Over the last fifty years, the American …

Multistate Litigation Networks, Elysa M. Dishman, Kristina Bishop

Texas A&M Law Review

State lawsuits challenging executive orders and agency regulations not only disrupt executive policymaking but also reshape constitutional structures. States sue the federal government in highly coordinated multistate coalitions led by state attorneys general. These state coalitions target federal agencies and officials in strategically selected courts seeking sweeping injunctions to block executive actions. Following the Supreme Court’s opinion curtailing universal injunctions for private litigants without class certification, states are uniquely poised to obtain broad injunctive relief against the federal government. This Article theorizes that multistate litigation involves a series of network relationships among state plaintiffs, federal defendants, and federal courts and …

الإجتهاد اللبناني, Poej

Proche-Orient, Études juridiques

No abstract provided.

الإجتهاد اللبناني, Poej

Proche-Orient, Études juridiques

No abstract provided.

Le Refus De Paiement Par Une Banque D’Un Compte Créditeur Ne Réalise Pas En Soi L’État De Cessation Des Paiements De La Dite Banque Au Regard De La Loi N° 2/67, Michel Soumrani

Proche-Orient, Études juridiques

No abstract provided.

La Notion D’Intérêt Pour Agir Dans Le Recours Pour Excès De Pouvoir, Antoine Moarbès

Proche-Orient, Études juridiques

No abstract provided.

Life After Moelis: A Trulia Moment For Governance Claims?, Kyle A. Pinder

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

At the height of the merger-tax litigation bubble, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued its In re Trulia Stockholder Litigation decision, which disincentivized meritless M&A disclosure claims. Similarly, for the past several years, Delaware corporations have faced a wave of facial validity challenges to charter, bylaw, and governance-agreement provisions. Most of these claims end the same way: The corporation amends the challenged provision and pays a mootness fee, often while maintaining that the provision was lawful all along. Two recent Delaware Supreme Court decisions may disrupt that sequence. Kellner v. AIM ImmunoTech Inc. confirmed that a facial validity challenge fails …

Bibliographie, Ibrahim Najjar

Proche-Orient, Études juridiques

No abstract provided.

الإجتهاد اللبناني, Poej

Proche-Orient, Études juridiques

No abstract provided.

Bibliographie, Poej

Proche-Orient, Études juridiques

No abstract provided.

Les Clauses Attributives De Compétence Et Les Clauses Compromissoires En Droit International Privé Libanais, Nasri Antoine Diab

Proche-Orient, Études juridiques

No abstract provided.

Les Effets Du Jugement Étranger Invoqué Indépendamment De L'Exequatur, Abdo Ghossoub

Proche-Orient, Études juridiques

No abstract provided.

Fabricating The Crime Of Undocumented Presence, Eric S. Fish, Doug Keller

Fordham Law Review

In 2025, the Trump administration’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) declared that it is a federal crime simply to be an undocumented immigrant. Congress has enacted no such crime. Congress has made it a crime for an immigrant to enter the United States in a manner that “eludes examination or inspection.” For nearly 100 years, this “elude” offense has been understood to occur only at the moment an immigrant enters the country. But the Trump administration’s OLC has reinterpreted this crime as a continuing offense. Under this new reading, an immigrant who entered unlawfully eludes examination until the moment of …

What Can States Teach? The Right To Education After Mahmoud, Will Simon

Fordham Law Review

In the summer of 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court set new limits on what public schools could require students to learn. Mahmoud v. Taylor pitted a school district interested in promoting pluralism against religious parents who wished to withdraw their children from classroom instruction that promoted celebration and acceptance of LGBTQ+ people. The Court found a violation of those parents’ constitutional right to freely exercise their religion, which both expanded the control parents can exert over their child’s public school education and increased the likelihood of similar claims going forward. As federal courts hear this newly expanded set of First …

Splitting The Baby: Determining The Causation Standard In Family And Medical Leave Act Retaliation Claims, Eliana C. Singer

Fordham Law Review

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) guarantees employees unpaid leave following certain qualifying events. The FMLA not only provides substantive rights but also prohibits retaliation against employees who exercise those rights. When employees face unlawful retaliation, they can bring retaliation claims against their employers. However, there is disagreement among courts as to how to evaluate these claims. More precisely, courts are split concerning whether employees must prove their use of leave was a but-for cause of retaliation, or merely that it was one of an employer’s mixed motives for retaliating. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and …

The Mirage Of Meta Pixel Code: Redefining Pii In The Era Of Generative Ai, Sophie Venter

Fordham Law Review

Data privacy laws are intended to put consumers in control of whether their identifying data can be sold and used for targeted advertising. However, these laws do not provide adequate protections in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI). This Note examines one way that existing privacy law permits companies to profit from selling data for targeted advertising without obtaining user consent: transferring video watching data in a pixel code. Some U.S. Courts of Appeals have determined that these data transfers do not sufficiently identify users and the videos they watched to constitute violations of user privacy. This has led …