Judicial Takings In Vandevere V. Lloyd,
2012
Brigham Young University Law School
Judicial Takings In Vandevere V. Lloyd, Cory S. Clements
BYU Law Review
No abstract provided.
Keep Your Program Out Of My Game: The Ninth Circuit’S Convoluted Copyright Analysis In Mdy Industries, Inc. V. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc,
2012
Brigham Young University Law School
Keep Your Program Out Of My Game: The Ninth Circuit’S Convoluted Copyright Analysis In Mdy Industries, Inc. V. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc, Brandon T. Crowther
BYU Law Review
No abstract provided.
Did Bad Debtors Influence The Tenth Circuit To Make An Unfortunate Decision? Making Reorganization More Difficult For Farmers In United States V. Dawes,
2012
Brigham Young University Law School
Did Bad Debtors Influence The Tenth Circuit To Make An Unfortunate Decision? Making Reorganization More Difficult For Farmers In United States V. Dawes, Laura Jones
BYU Law Review
No abstract provided.
De-Frauding The System: Sham Plaintiffs And The Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine,
2012
University of Michigan Law School
De-Frauding The System: Sham Plaintiffs And The Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine, Matthew C. Monahan
Michigan Law Review
Playing off the strict requirements of federal diversity jurisdiction, plaintiffs can structure their suits to prevent removal to federal court. A common way to preclude removability is to join a nondiverse party. Although plaintiffs have a great deal of flexibility, they may include only those parties that have a stake in the lawsuit. Put another way, a court will not permit a plaintiff to join a party to a lawsuit when that party is being joined solely to prevent removal. The most useful tool federal courts employ to prevent this form of jurisdictional manipulation is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure …
Agenda: A Life Of Contributions For All Time: Symposium In Honor Of David H. Getches,
2012
University of Colorado Law School
Agenda: A Life Of Contributions For All Time: Symposium In Honor Of David H. Getches, University Of Colorado Boulder. School Of Law, University Of Colorado Law Review
A Life of Contributions for All Time: Symposium in Honor of David H. Getches (April 26-27)
On April 26-27, 2012, Colorado Law honored David H. Getches with a symposium to celebrate his life and legacy of trailblazing scholarship. “A Life of Contributions for All Time” featured a keynote address by Distinguished Professor Charles Wilkinson entitled, “Hero for the People, Hero for the Land and Water: Reflections on the Enduring Contributions of David Getches.” Top scholars in the fields of natural resources, water, and American Indian law reflected on Dean Getches’ contributions and their own insights into these fields, including Professor John Leshy, John Echohawk, Professor Carole Goldberg, Professor Joe Sax, Professor Rebecca Tsosie, Justice Greg Hobbs, …
New Mexico Ex Rel. State Engineer V. Aamodt, No. 66cv6639 (D.N.M.),
2012
University of New Mexico
New Mexico Ex Rel. State Engineer V. Aamodt, No. 66cv6639 (D.N.M.), New Mexico State Engineer
Publications
No abstract provided.
Absolute Immunity From Civil Liability: Lessons For Litigation Lawyers,
2012
Pepperdine University
Absolute Immunity From Civil Liability: Lessons For Litigation Lawyers, T. Leigh Anenson
Pepperdine Law Review
The common law doctrine of absolute immunity provided to litigation lawyers is said to be "as old as law." This centuries-old doctrine protects litigators from lawsuits instigated by the adversaries of their clients. It is typically invoked, irrespective of any nefarious or malicious motives, so long as the course of action taken bears some reasonable relation to the lawsuit. This Article examines the historical antecedents of the litigation privilege as well as the policies motivating its creation. It also provides a comprehensive description of the doctrine of absolute immunity, explores the circumstances in which it has been applied, and discusses …
Addressing The "Elephantine Mass" Of Asbestos Cases: Consolidation Versus Inactive Dockets (Pleural Registries) And Case Management Plans That Defer Claims Filed By The Non-Sick,
2012
Pepperdine University
Addressing The "Elephantine Mass" Of Asbestos Cases: Consolidation Versus Inactive Dockets (Pleural Registries) And Case Management Plans That Defer Claims Filed By The Non-Sick, Victor E. Schwartz, Mark A, Behrens, Rochelle M. Tedesco
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Merging Roles: Mass Tort Lawyers As Agents And Trustees,
2012
Pepperdine University
Merging Roles: Mass Tort Lawyers As Agents And Trustees, Charles Silver
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Cumulative Sources Of The Asbestos Litigation Phenomenon,
2012
Pepperdine University
The Cumulative Sources Of The Asbestos Litigation Phenomenon, George L. Priest
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Asbestos Litigation And Bankruptcy: A Case Study For Ad Hoc Public Policy Limitations On Joint And Several Liability,
2012
Pepperdine University
Asbestos Litigation And Bankruptcy: A Case Study For Ad Hoc Public Policy Limitations On Joint And Several Liability, Richard L. Cupp Jr
Pepperdine Law Review
Over a decade ago, the Federal Judicial Conference warned of an asbestos litigation “disaster of major proportions.” The Supreme Court of the United States has described the litigation as a “crisis.” According the RAND Institute for Civil Justice, by the end of 2000, more than 600,000 asbestos claims were filed. RAND estimates that as many as three million more plaintiffs may eventually file claims. Most new claimants are not sick. The flood of claims has forced almost sixty companies into bankruptcy; many of these bankruptcies are very recent. As a result, defendants with only remote connections to asbestos – known …
Lawyer Ethics On The Lunar Landscape Of Asbestos Litigation,
2012
Pepperdine University
Lawyer Ethics On The Lunar Landscape Of Asbestos Litigation, Roger C. Cramton
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Judicial Efficiency In Asbestos Litigation,
2012
Pepperdine University
Judicial Efficiency In Asbestos Litigation, Alfred Chiantelli
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
On The Theory Class's Theories Of Asbestos Litigation: The Disconnect Between Scholarship And Reality?,
2012
Pepperdine University
On The Theory Class's Theories Of Asbestos Litigation: The Disconnect Between Scholarship And Reality?, Lester Brickman
Pepperdine Law Review
More than 100,000 new asbestos claims were filed in 2003, the most ever in one year. Asbestos litigation thus continues to thrive even though 80-90% of claimants have no illness recognized by medical science, let alone suffer any lung impairment. To explain how this disconnect between medical science and tort litigation has come about, I cover the following subjects: 1) medical consequences of exposure to asbestos-containing materials; 2) the phenomenon of the unimpaired claimant; 3) medical evidence with regard to the incidence of asbestosis; 4) the effect on asbestos litigation of the failure of the Manville Trust audit to be …
Alternatives To Asbestos Impairment Standards,
2012
Pepperdine University
Alternatives To Asbestos Impairment Standards, Alan Brayton
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Keeping Junk Science Out Of Asbestos Litigation,
2012
Pepperdine University
Keeping Junk Science Out Of Asbestos Litigation, David E. Bernstein
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Asbestos & The Sleeping Constitution,
2012
Pepperdine University
Asbestos & The Sleeping Constitution, Griffin B. Bell
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Judicial Policing Of Consumer Arbitration ,
2012
Pepperdine University
Judicial Policing Of Consumer Arbitration , Edward A. Dauer
Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal
Adhesive consumer arbitration agreements pose questions that go beyond the problems of adhesion contracting generally. This essay describes why standard-form consumer arbitration requirements may be particularly troublesome. Despite its superficial neutrality, arbitration between individual consumers and business entities may be systematically more favorable to the business entities. The rules of arbitration law, however, inhibit effective judicial policing of the consequences of those inequalities. The federal sources of arbitration law further diminish the ability of state-based contract law to police the more subtle abuses. The result is a particularly difficult jurisprudential problem with a specially weakened legal solution. This essay offers, …
The Dispute Settlement Understanding Of The Wto Agreement: An Inadequate Mechanism For The Resolution Of International Trade Disputes,
2012
Pepperdine University
The Dispute Settlement Understanding Of The Wto Agreement: An Inadequate Mechanism For The Resolution Of International Trade Disputes, Sean P. Feeney
Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal
The 1994 signing of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement marked the initiation of the most far-reaching and comprehensive international agreement on trade in the history of the modern world. The creation of an actual trade organization was a marked improvement over the WTO's predecessor, the 1944 GATT, which never formed an organization per se. Among the many improvements to the GATT, the WTO Agreement substantially changed the mechanism for dispute settlement whenever conflict arose between member states. This change, codified as the Dispute Settlement Understanding ("DSU"), was initially hailed as a great improvement over the GATT dispute settlement provisions. …
First Options Of Chicago, Inc. V. Kaplan And The Kompetenz-Kompetenz Principle ,
2012
Pepperdine University
First Options Of Chicago, Inc. V. Kaplan And The Kompetenz-Kompetenz Principle , Adrianna Dulic
Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal
In 1995, the United States Supreme Court in First Options of Chicago, Incorporated v. Kaplan considered whether arbitral tribunals or courts should have the primary power to decide if parties agreed to arbitrate the merits of the dispute and whether the court of appeals should accept the district court's findings of fact and law or apply a de novo standard of review. The Court unanimously held that, unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise, the question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate is to be decided by the court, not the arbitral tribunal. Furthermore, in such a case, …
