Litigation Commons^™

Climate Lies And Unjust Profits, Vanessa Casado-Pérez, Yotam Kaplan, Yael Lifshitz, Niv Meyerson

Faculty Scholarship

The climate crisis has reached a perilous tipping point. Our entrenched reliance on fossil fuels remains unchecked, as fossil fuel corporations wield their power to block meaningful reform and entrench their profits. The political horizon offers little relief—an incoming administration is poised to dismantle vital environmental protections, stripping away the few safeguards that stand between us and climate catastrophe.

In this grim landscape, communities across the nation are turning to the courts with renewed urgency, seeking justice and reform through climate litigation. Yet past efforts have fallen short, stymied by two formidable barriers. First, by centering on greenhouse gas emissions …

A Meta-Analysis On Joinder Effects: Do They All Have The Same Magnitude?, Amelia M. Tisk

Student Theses

The present meta-analysis examined whether different forms of joinder and procedural consolidation produce varying levels of prejudice in adjudicative decision-making. Although joinder procedures improve judicial efficiency, psychological research has suggested that combining charges, defendants, or plaintiffs within a single proceeding may increase conviction likelihood, liability judgments, and broader perceptions of wrongdoing. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted across 22 independent study effects examining charge joinder, defendant consolidation, plaintiff consolidation, multiple-complainant procedures, and related aggregation paradigms. Effect sizes were converted to Pearson’s r whenever possible. Overall, procedural aggregation produced a moderate effect on adjudicative outcomes, r = .27, 95% CI [.22, .32]. …

The Quiet Revival Of The Effective Vindication Of Rights Doctrine, Myriam Gilles

Fordham Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurantwas widely seen as the death knell for the “effective vindication of rights” doctrine—a judicially created rule that arbitration agreements are enforceable only “so long as the prospective litigant effectively may vindicate its statutory cause of action in the arbitral forum.” By upholding a class action–banning arbitration provision that rendered arbitration economically irrational, Italian Colors appeared to extinguish any meaningful limits on the enforcement of arbitration agreements.

But reports of the doctrine’s demise were premature. This Article uncovers how, in the decade since Italian Colors, lower …

Foreign Judgments In U.S. Courts, Yanbai Andrea Wang

Fordham Law Review

American law on foreign judgments is at an inflection point. For over a century, the doctrine has been shaped by concerns about outgoing U.S. judgments seeking asset collection in the civil law countries of continental Europe. But shifting trade flows and changing litigation tactics have carved a new landscape, demanding a return to foreign judgments law’s conceptual and doctrinal underpinnings. This Article first maps the new landscape, in which China is rapidly rising as a foremost foreign judgments interlocutor. Meanwhile, litigants are increasingly pursuing parallel litigation in multiple countries. The impact of incoming judgments and the interactions between related litigations …

Revocation Reconsidered: Probation Advocacy Through A Litigation Lens, Shira M. Diner

Faculty Scholarship

Being found in violation of probation has dire consequences. The person found in violation can be imprisoned, upending them from their job, family, and community. Unlike incarceration after a criminal trial, a sentence after a violation of probation is not the result of a legal process characterized by robust due process protections. It is also often not the result of a forceful and thorough defense. It is instead the consequence of a hearing where lawyers with the fixed mindset of an inevitable finding of a violation don’t engage in the same preparation that they would if it was a trial. …

Scotus Rules For Whistleblowers: What Eliminating The Retaliation Requirement For A Sarbanes-Oxley Discrimination Claim Means For The Future Of Corporate Whistleblowing, Abigail Pezzolo

The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law

This comment analyzes the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC. The author examines how the Court addressed the significant "information asymmetry" that often leaves employees unable to prove an employer's specific retaliatory intent. By confirming that plaintiffs are not required to provide proof of "retaliatory animus," the decision reinforces the "contributing-factor" burden-shifting framework established under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). Pezzolo argues that this holding is a critical victory for whistleblowers, as it lowers the evidentiary hurdles for those reporting financial misconduct and encourages corporations to implement more robust internal transparency systems. Ultimately, the article situates this …

Diverging Views On Class Certification In The Insurance Industry: Uniform Valuation Methods For Totaled Vehicles, Celine Makhani

The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law

This comment explores the legal challenges surrounding how insurance companies calculate the "actual cash value" of totaled vehicles . The author focuses on the controversial use of "negotiation adjustments"—deductions insurers apply based on the assumption that buyers typically negotiate car prices downward—which policyholders argue systematically undervalues their claims. The central conflict of the article is a significant circuit split: while the Ninth Circuit in Jama v. State Farm recently allowed these claims to proceed as class actions, the Fifth Circuit in Sampson v. USAA reached the opposite conclusion, requiring individual proof of harm for each policyholder . Makhani analyzes these …

Relevance Matters After Patel: Where The Economic Substance Doctrine Goes From Here, Daniel Chung

The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law

This article examines the modern Economic Substance Doctrine (ESD) through the framework of the Tax Court's decision in Patel v. Commissioner. The author argues that Patel serves as a "doctrinal reset," restoring the ESD to its intended role as a narrow, purpose-driven judicial backstop rather than a generalized anti-abuse tool. Central to this analysis is the reemergence of a "relevance" inquiry, which requires courts to determine if the ESD applies to a transaction at all—based on pre-codification common law—before engaging the statutory two-prong test under Section 7701(o) . While the court in Patel ultimately found the doctrine relevant and sustained …

Public Perceptions Of The Use Of Artificial Intelligence In Voir Dire, Carson Snyder

Honors Projects

Attorneys have increasingly utilized AI tools to improve efficiency, and one area of application is in jury selection, or voir dire. Public concerns involving AI can have negative implications on how the use of AI tools in voir dire would be received. This study seeks to answer how an attorney’s use of AI in voir dire impacts the public’s perception of the process. Previous research is limited, though findings relating to privacy being a leading concern, increased perception of risk for when error outcomes are more serious, and historical abuse of peremptory challenges outline potential reasons for public disapproval of …

Commonsense And Convoluted: Revisiting Scott V. Harris And Its Effect On Summary Judgment, Zachary P. Novak

Catholic University Law Review

The traditional summary judgment standard across state and federal courts has long been that facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant; this has developed as both a baseline measure to test whether the claims are even fit for a trial, but also as a measure of fairness – it is the movant who wants to dispose of the case before trial, so this standard gives the nonmovant a more level playing field. However, the Supreme Court decision of Scott v. Harris carved out a unique exception to this standard: when there is video evidence that so …

Transparency In Third-Party Litigation Funding: A Pathway To Protect America’S National Security Interests, Madison D. Gonzalez

Catholic University Law Review

Third-party litigation funding (TPLF) has opened the courtroom doors for many Americans who may otherwise not be able to afford to seek justice in America’s civil court system. The democratization of the civil court system has benefitted many Americans but the lack of transparency as to the true identities of those behind the litigation has sparked concerns that America’s foreign adversaries may weaponize TPLF to harm America’s national security interests through lengthy and costly litigation. To address this threat, Congress and state legislatures have begun to explore policy changes to increase transparency in TPLF. Several states have adopted disclosure requirements …

A Pervasive Principle And A Proposal For Postconviction Procedures: Res Judicata, Pro Se Petitions, And A Defendant's Right To Counsel In Ohio, Lila Robinson

Cleveland State Law Review

“A postconviction petition is very difficult to win.” This is especially true in Ohio. Many postconviction petitions are submitted by incarcerated pro se petitioners who draft and file petitions without the assistance of counsel, leaving the doctrine of res judicata free to overwhelm their claims and inhibit future relief. The American Bar Association advises states to impose a right to counsel in postconviction proceedings, and specifically at the early drafting and filing phase of postconviction litigation, to help remedy this issue. Ohio does not follow this suggestion. As a result, petitioners with valid claims of innocence or manifest injustice are …

A Tale Of Two Credits: The Post-Nestlé Alien Tort Statute And Carbon Credit Externalities, Stephanie Mao

Northwestern University Law Review

As companies increasingly embrace carbon-neutrality commitments, many rely on the voluntary carbon market to offset their emissions rather than reduce them directly. Regulatory and consumer scrutiny has focused on the widespread use of “phantom” carbon credits, i.e., credits that fail to produce meaningful climate benefits. But less attention has been paid to what this Note terms “colonial” carbon credits: those that may technically reduce emissions but do so at the expense of communities abroad. These projects may contribute to land dispossession, human rights abuses, and threats to public and environmental health. Yet, current regulatory and legal frameworks, with their focus …

The Ex Parte Young Cause Of Action: A Riddle, Wrapped In A Mystery, Inside An Enigma, Andrew S. Oldham, Adam I. Steene, John W. Tienken

Northwestern University Law Review

Ex parte Young ushered in a new era of the American judicial system. Most famously, the decision allowed plaintiffs, in certain circumstances, to sue state officials without having to worry about sovereign immunity. Young’s other holding, though perhaps lesser known, is no less important: individuals, the Supreme Court held, have an equitable cause of action to sue government officials for injunctive relief.

Even today, that second holding remains something of a riddle. Did this cause of action always exist in American law? Or was it an invention of the Young Court? And, at any rate, does the Ex parte …

Law School News: Roger Williams University School Of Law Receives Historic $4 Million Gift From Mark Mandell To Establish Premier Trial Advocacy Center 4-9-2026, Hillary Lima, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Parallel Proceedings Between International Commercial Litigation And Arbitration: Existing Tools And Comparative Perspective, Joanna Ma

Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business

This Article examines parallel proceedings in international commercial disputes, focusing on situations in which the same parties and substantially the same issues are simultaneously before a national court and an arbitral tribunal. It surveys the principal tools that jurisdictions have developed to address this problem, including the priority-in-time rule, the prioritization of arbitral tribunals, tolerance of parallel proceedings, anti-suit injunctions, and anti-arbitration injunctions. After evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, the Article argues that prioritizing arbitral tribunals provides the most coherent and workable framework for managing such conflicts. In particular, the model of granting full priority to arbitral …

Ai, Antitrust, And The Marketplace Of Ideas, Maurice E. Stucke

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

All I Really Need To Know About The Ethics Of Third-Party Litigation Funding, I Learned From Watching Hulk Hogan, Alex B. Long

West Virginia Law Review

The Hogan/Gawker litigation occupies a special place in public discussions concerning third-party litigation funding, the practice of investors who fund litigation with the goal of earning a profit. While nearly a decade has passed since the conclusion of the case, the Hogan/Gawker litigation is still regularly referenced in academic literature and popular media. Since the jury verdict, the practice of third-party litigation funding has grown exponentially. Within just the past year, there have been several state legal ethics opinions concerning the practice, and several state legislatures passed legislation that addresses some of the ethical concerns associated with the practice. On …

Leeds V. Norfolk Southern Railway Company—In Undoing Late Removal, District Court Gives Guidance On Evaluating Whether Defendants Were Joined In “Bad Faith”, Geoffrey D. Kearney

SLU Law Journal Online

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, defendants typically have one year to remove to federal court a case filed in state court. The landscape for removal changed somewhat with a 2011 amendment to this statute, which extends that one-year deadline upon a showing “that the plaintiff has acted in bad faith in order to prevent a defendant from removing the action.”

But the question of what sort of conduct satisfies this provision persists. Since its passage, courts—primarily district courts—have grappled with just what it means for a plaintiff to act in bad faith to thwart removal. Leeds v. Norfolk Southern …

Harmless In Name Only: Prosecutorial Misconduct And The Right To A Fair Trial, Jennifer Brinkman

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

Prosecutorial misconduct during trial—particularly improper questioning of witnesses and improper argument—occurs in front of the jury and directly shapes its deliberations. Yet appellate courts routinely dismiss such misconduct as “harmless error,” allowing convictions to stand even when prosecutors violate defendants’ rights. This Article contends that the harmless error framework both underestimates the impact of misconduct on jurors and undermines the Constitutional guarantee of a fair trial. It proposes that certain instances of misconduct that occur during trial should be classified as structural error, requiring automatic reversal. This would protect defendants’ right to a fair trial and maintain the integrity of …