Litigation Commons^™

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 …

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 …

Antitrust, Vampires And Bloody Acquisitions, Theodosia Stavroulaki

Fordham Law Review

Private equity has rapidly seized control of large swaths of the U.S. healthcare system. This Essay argues that its takeover is not a story of efficiency or innovation but one of extraction. Drawing on a substantial body of research, it shows that private equity acquisitions are associated with rising healthcare costs, inferior care, reduced access to essential services, and deteriorating working conditions for physicians and nurses—harms that fall most heavily on marginalized communities.

These outcomes are not accidental. They stem from the private equity business model, which relies on leveraged buyouts, aggressive cost cutting, and roll-up strategies designed to generate …

Playing The Hermès Game: Quota Bags, Antitrust Law, And The Limits Of Consumer Protection In Luxury Markets, Madeleine Chou

William & Mary Business Law Review

Luxury fashion retail has become a behemoth of an industry. Through acquisitions and strong brand recognition, some brands have developed significant market power in the luxury retail space. Chief among these brands is Hermès, a luxury leather retail boutique known for its highly sought after quota bags, like the Birkin and the Kelly. Quota bags are handbags that can generally only be bought by customers who have developed a substantial purchase history and relationship with the brand. Through this sales model, Hermès has created what plaintiffs have alleged to be an antitrust tying scheme, in which the purchase of one …

Zombie Litigation: Claim Aggregation, Litigant Autonomy And Funders' Intermeddling, Maya Steinitz

Faculty Scholarship

The main debate surrounding litigation funding in recent years has focused on the question of disclosure of funding agreements.  While the issue is important, predominantly because of its effects on the course and outcome of individual cases, far more important are bigger, interrelated questions that have systemic effects on the civil justice system, the legal profession, and the nature of the attorney-client relationship.  The rise of litigation funding has had profound effects.  The subsequent rise of portfolio funding—which I here propose to  view as a new form of undisclosed and unregulated claim  aggregation—has broader-still effects including clients’ potential, and at …

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

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Status Of Private Covenants In Gross In Maine, Geoffrey Forney

Maine Law Review

In State v. Moosehead Mountain Resort, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court recently held that the State may enforce a restrictive covenant in gross. The decision appears to create new law by departing from the established rule in Maine, as laid down in an earlier decision in Brown v. Heirs of Fuller, that restrictive covenants in gross are not enforceable in equity. Although the holding in Moosehead Mountain is arguably narrow because the case only addressed the government's ability to enforce covenants in gross, the Law Court's omission of any reference to or discussion of its decision in Brown leaves open …

The Arbitration Web Ensnaring Every Consumer: The Next Evolution In Corporate Strategy To Compel Arbitration, Michael Conklin

Maine Law Review

This first-of-its-kind Article uses a novel hypothetical to explore the expanding role of compelled arbitration. The hypothetical involves numerous large corporations agreeing to cross-reference each other in their arbitration agreements, thus attempting to create a massive arbitration web ensnaring nearly every American and allowing corporations to compel arbitration against parties with whom they never interacted. This Article presents the case that courts might enforce such a scheme based on the judicial trend toward ever-expanding compelled arbitration jurisprudence, the docket-clearing incentives faced by judges, existing case law allowing some non-signatories to enforce arbitration agreements, the strong assumption in favor of arbitration, …

Curbing Common Benefit Fees, Matthew Lyness

Brooklyn Law Review

Multidistrict litigation (MDL) courts routinely use common benefit orders and fee assessments to compensate the attorneys who generate work product that benefits the broader plaintiff class. Courts’ largely unguided approach to setting assessment percentages—often justified through invocation of a court’s inherent authority—leaves participating counsel uncertain about their eventual recovery, invites arbitrary midstream changes, and risks windfalls unconnected to the actual utility of common benefit work product. This Note argues that in order to guarantee the continued efficiency of the MDL system, judges should adopt a standardized fee assessment framework that is predictable from the outset and proportionate to the ultimate …

Law School News: Isiah Dipina L'27: From Personal Experience To Policy Change 3-26-2026, Jane Govednik

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Cardozo Stands Alone With A+ In Trial Advocacy From Above The Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law

Cardozo Law News Archive

Cardozo School of Law received an A+ in Trial Advocacy from Above the Law in its 2026 law school rankings, becoming the only law school in the nation to earn the highest distinction. The recognition highlights Cardozo's Intensive Trial Advocacy Program (ITAP), experiential curriculum, simulation courses, clinics, and competitive advocacy programs that prepare students for courtroom practice.