Litigation Commons^™

Fish And Federalism: How The Asian Carp Litigation Highlights A Decifiency In The Federal Common Law Displacement Analysis, Molly M. Watters

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

In response to the growing threat posed by the progress of Asian carp up the Mississippi River toward the Great Lakes, and with increased frustration with the federal response to the imminent problem, in 2010, five Great Lakes states sued the Army Corps of Engineers and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago to force a more desirable and potentially more effective strategy to prevent the Asian carp from infiltrating the Great Lakes: closing the Chicago locks. This Note examines the federal common law displacement analysis through the lens of the Asian carp litigation. Both the Federal District Court …

Salad, A Glass Of Red Wine, And A Discussion About How To Effectively Answer Questions In Appellate Argument, Douglas S. Lavine

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Tentative Oral Opinions: Improving Oral Argument Without Spending A Dime, Joshua Stein

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Redeeming A Lost Generation: "The Year Of Law School Litigation" And The Future Of The Law School Transparency Movement, Andrew S. Murphy

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Expansion Of Trademark Rights In Europe, Irina Pak

IP Theory

No abstract provided.

The Granting Clause And Intellectual Property Rights Management In Open-Source Software Licensing, Vikrant N. Vasudeva

IP Theory

No abstract provided.

Explaining The Supreme Court's Interest In Patent Law, Timothy R. Holbrook

IP Theory

No abstract provided.

Some Important Causes For Settlement In American Civil Litigation, Felipe Forte Cobo

LLM Theses and Essays

This paper focuses on pure economic disputes such as contract, real property and tort conflicts, in which the economic efficiency model is very accepted. In this limited scenario, the consensual resolution of disputes is always more efficient than decisions made by a third-party decision-maker, whether from a post-trial or pre-trial perspective.

Considering that lower transaction costs drive parties towards settlement, part II of this essay provides an overview of the American costs of legal disputes, framing several issues that might be determinative to settlements. Part III explores how two specific American procedural institutes – discovery and civil jury trial – …

Buying A Judicial Seat For Appeal: Caperton V. A.T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., Is Right Out Of A John Grisham Novel, Richard Gillespie

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court's Take On Immigration In Nken V. Holder: Reaffirming A Traditional Standard That Affords Courts More Time And Flexibility To Decide Immigration Appeals Before Deporting Aliens, Elizaveta Kabanova

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

California And Uncle Sam's Tug-Of-War Over Mary Jane Is Really Harshing The Mellow, Daniel Mortensen

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

How Lawyers' Intuitions Prolong Litigation, Andrew J. Wistrich, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Most lawsuits settle, but some settle later than they should. Too many compromises occur only after protracted discovery and expensive motion practice. Sometimes the delay precludes settlement altogether. Why does this happen? Several possibilities—such as the alleged greed of lawyers paid on an hourly basis—have been suggested, but they are insufficient to explain why so many cases do not settle until the eve of trial. We offer a novel account of the phenomenon of settling on the courthouse steps that is based upon empirical research concerning judgment and choice. Several cognitive illusions—the framing effect, the confirmation bias, nonconsequentialist reasoning, and …

Class Actions, Heightened Commonality, And Declining Access To Justice, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

A prerequisite to being certified as a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is that there are "questions of law or fact common to the class. " Although this "commonality" requirement had heretofore been regarded as something that was easily satisfied, in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes the Supreme Court gave the requirement new vitality by reading into it an obligation to identify among the class a common injury and common questions that are "central" to the dispute. Not only is such a reading of Rule 23 's commonality requirement unsupported by the text of …

The End Of Shareholder Litigation? Allowing Shareholders To Customize Enforcement Through Arbitration Provisions In Charters And Bylaws, Paul Weitzel

BYU Law Review

Shareholder litigation has been heavily criticized for its inability to compensate harmed shareholders or deter managerial misconduct. While some have suggested abolishing shareholder litigation altogether, this Article takes a more moderate approach. I propose allowing shareholders to enforce charter and bylaw provisions that require arbitration of certain disputes. For example, an acquisitive company may require arbitration of merger-related suits while allowing non-merger suits to proceed in court. Likewise, a company in an industry known for volatile stock prices could require a price drop of three or four standard deviations before the suit could be brought in court, rather than arbitration. …

Symposium: Child Witness In Sexual Abuse Cases, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Shearson V. United States Department Of Homeland Security: The Sixth Circuit Exempts National Security From The Privacy Act, Douglas A. Behrens

Legislation and Policy Brief

“ARMED AND DANGEROUS.” Imagine those words flashing on a Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) agent’s computer screen as you attempt to reenter your country of birth from a relaxing vacation. Reacting to the computerized warning, the CBP agents detain and question you for several hours before you are released from custody—without an explanation—and allowed to continue on your trip home as if nothing had happened.

This hypothetical scenario became very real for Julia Shearson and her four-year old daughter in January 2006, and marked the beginning of her quest for answers. Why was she flagged as “ARMED AND DANGEROUS?” What …

Has The Right To A Jury Trial As Guaranteed Under The Seventh Amendment Become Outdated In Complex Civil Litigation?, Georgiana G. Rodiger

Pepperdine Law Review

Recognizing the continually increasing burden placed on the jury in complex litigation cases, the author undertakes an extensive study of the origins of jury trials in the United States and England. Various arguments in favor of eliminating jury trials in complex litigation are discussed, along with a possible constitutional method of limiting the scope of the seventh amendment guarantee. The author also studies the case of Ross v. Bernhardt where the Supreme Court outlined a seldom used three- pronged test to determine whether or not a jury trial is constitutionally appropriate. The comment concludes that the factors in favor of …

Punitive Damages And The Drunken Driver, William C. Cooper

Pepperdine Law Review

A discussion of the history and theory of punitive damages which results in advocating their application in a drunk driving context after giving due consideration to the pros and cons of such a sanction. An analysis of case law will reveal the underlying rationale that has motivated certain jurisdictions in applying this severe penal approach in an attempt to deter and curtail the senseless destruction on our nation's highways as well as exploring the impetus behind those other jurisdictions that do not utilize the remedy of punitive damages. The culminating focus is on California's position in this regard. Finally, there …

Bundy V. Jackson: Eliminating The Need To Prove Tangible Economic Job Loss In Sexual Harassment Claims Brought Under Title Vii, Terence J. Bouressa

Pepperdine Law Review

In the case of Bundy v. Jackson, the federal appellate court eliminated the need to prove tangible job loss in claims under Title VII relating to sexual harassment. The holding in Bundy thus promotes the viability of sexual harassment claims under Title VII and deters employers from engaging in subtle sexual harassment as "part of the job." The decision provides a model for the nation to follow in the pursuit of the worthy goal of eliminating sexual harassment in the workplace.

Aviation Litigation: Federal Preemption And The Creation Of A Federal Remedy As A Means To Extinguish The Current Confusion In The Courts, Deborah J. Olsen

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.