Litigation Commons^™

Rwu First Amendment Blog: Diana Hassel's Blog: How Will Supreme Court Slice Wedding Cake Case 01-11-2018, Diana Hassel

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

The Legal Fate Of Internet Ad-Blocking, Russell A. Miller

Scholarly Articles

Ad-blocking services allow individual users to avoid the obtrusive advertising that both clutters and finances most Internet publishing. Ad-blocking's immense - and growing - popularity suggests the depth of Internet users' frustration with Internet advertising. But its potential to disrupt publishers' traditional Internet revenue model makes ad-blocking one of the most significant recent Internet phenomena. Unsurprisingly, publishers are not inclined to accept ad-blocking without a legal fight. While publishers are threatening suits in the United States, the issues presented by ad-blocking have been extensively litigated in German courts where ad-blocking consistently has triumphed over claims that it represents a form …

The Office Of The Prosecutor: Seeking Justice Or Serving Global Imperialism?, Shannon Fyfe

Scholarly Articles

The international criminal courts and tribunals, especially the ICC, have been strongly criticized for their susceptibility to political influence. Some have argued that the ICC has a distinctly Western bias and is participating in a new kind of imperialism in Africa. Others argue that history and the complicity of the West should disqualify the international community from demanding the prosecution of individuals participating in conflicts resulting directly from colonialism. Many have focused on the nature of the creation of the judicial bodies and the inherent political nature of judicial decisions regarding whom to prosecute. In this article, I offer a …

Artis V. District Of Columbia—What Did The Court Actually Say?, Doron M. Kalir

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

This Comment does not follow the many constitutional and jurisprudential intricacies of the fascinating battle of Artis v. District of Columbia. Instead, it intends to point to what seems to be a glaring misunderstanding of the majority opinion by the dissent. This Comment also raises the possibility that the majority itself did not understand the full implications of its own opinion, as evidenced by its response to the dissent. If this is indeed the state of affairs, an inevitable question arises: What did the Court actually say in Artis v. District of Columbia?

Stricken: The Need For Positive Statutory Law To Prevent Discriminatory Peremptory Strikes Of Disabled Jurors, Jordan Benson

Cornell Law Review

A representative jury ensures a truly impartial trial and that all groups are able to share in this valuable opportunity for civic engagement.Though the disabled constitute a minority of the population, their viewpoint is no less necessary to securing the benefits of a representative jury than that of groups already afforded protection from discriminatory strikes. As the disabled become more represented in many areas of society, their continued underrepresentation on juries will become even more difficult to justify. Discriminatory peremptory strikes are a significant, discretionary means by which the disabled can continue to be excluded from juries even when other …

“Nationwide” Injunctions Are Really “Universal” Injunctions And They Are Never Appropriate, Howard Wasserman

Faculty Publications

Federal district courts are routinely issuing broad injunctions prohibiting the federal government from enforcing constitutionally invalid laws, regulations, and policies on immigration and immigration-adjacent issues. Styled “nationwide injunctions,” they prohibit enforcement of the challenges laws not only against the named plaintiffs, but against all people and entities everywhere.

The first problem with these injunctions is one of nomenclature. “Nationwide” suggests something about the “where” of the injunction, the geographic scope in which it protects. The better term is “universal injunction,” which captures the real controversy over the “who” of the injunction, as courts purport to protect the universe of all …

Pran Justice: Social Order, Dispute Processing, And Adjudication In The Venezuelan Prison Subculture, Manuel A. Gomez

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The New Settlement Tools, Bernard Chao, Christopher Robertson, David Yokum

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

By protecting the right to a jury, the state and federal constitutions recognize the fundamental value of having civil and criminal disputes resolved by laypersons. Actual trials, however, are relatively rare, in part because parties seek to avoid the risks and cost of trials and courts seek to clear dockets efficiently. But as desirable as settlement may be, it can be a difficult way to resolve a dispute. Parties view their cases from different perspectives, and these perspectives often cause both sides to be overly optimistic and to expect unreasonably large or unreasonably small resolutions.

This article describes a novel …

Clarifying The “Probate Lending” Debate: A Response To Professors Horton And Chandrasekher, Jeremy Kidd

Articles

The debate over third-party funding of legal claims just got more interesting. The debate already had plot twists, such as free-market scholars lining up in opposition to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and alongside proplaintiff scholars who they oppose in tort reform debates. Now add to the mix a recent paper by Professors Horton and Chandrasekher that introduced an entirely new angle to the debate: funding of probate disputes. Now that this parallel area of funding has been identified, comparing and contrasting probate funding with litigation funding should illuminate the incentives that funders/recipients face in both scenarios. By pointing out …

Determining Enhanced Damages After Halo Electronics: Still A Struggle?, Veronica Corcoran

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

35 U.S.C. § 284 of the Patent Act allows district courts to use their discretion to award enhanced damages up to three times the amount found or assessed in the case of patent infringement. This Comment will consider how the Supreme court of the United States’ holding in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse electronics, Inc. changed the landscape of enhanced damages awards in light of willful infringement.

First, this Comment will examine the Federal Circuit’s approach that now embraces both an objective and subjective inquiry in determining enhanced damages, which may resolve the concern over the rigidity in the Seagate …

Patent Eligibility's Doctrinal Exclusions... Lately, A Scary Movie Too Difficult To Watch: Concrete Solutions And Suggestions, Kristy J. Downing

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

Patent eligible subject matter is defined by the legislature’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.” Since the nineteenth century, however, United States (U.S.) courts have considered certain otherwise eligible subject matter excludable from patent protection. The judiciary’s doctrinal exclusions’ purpose was to protect fundamental building blocks to science and useful arts ensuring that such information could not be monopolized by one entity. Presently, however, the judicial exclusions have been used to exclude fewer fundamental building blocks and more ordinary brick-and-mortar innovations after two U.S. supreme court decisions (Mayo …

Negligent Entrustment In Gun Industry Litigation: A Primer, Kate E. Britt

Law Librarian Scholarship

Deep pocket jurisprudence, where plaintiffs name corporations as codefendants of less wealthy individual tortfeasors, is not uncommon in tort litigation. When the plaintiffs are victims of gun violence and the corporate defendants are firearms manufacturers, however, these suits are particularly controversial. Instead of aiming to make the victims whole, these suits are opposed (or supported) as attempts to regulate the firearms industry on a widespread basis. This article explores some of the resources available to understand the recent history of suits against firearms manufacturers.

Front Matter, Jtaa Editors

Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy

No abstract provided.

Class Certification Through 23(B)(3) Discrimination Class Actions - The Fine Line Between Class-Wide Racial Discrimination And Isolated Incidents Of Racial Discrimination - Brown V. Nucor Corp., 785 F.3d 895 (4th Cir. 2015), William Grigas

Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy

No abstract provided.

Equity Or Inequality: Defining Bad Faith In Involuntary Bankruptcy, Carlos Wilder

Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy

No abstract provided.

Ignoring Legislative Intent, Double Standard Or Protecting International Tension - Rico After Rjr Nabisco, Hannah Tavella

Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law - One Step Closer To Affordability As Sjc Rules Judges Must Now Consider A Defendant's Financial Resources As A Factor When Making Bail Determinations - Brangan V. Commonwealth, 80 N.E.3d 949 (Mass. 2017), Jennifer Amaral

Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy

No abstract provided.

Expert Report Of Catherine Smith, J.D.: Juliana V. United States, Catherine Smith

Scholarly Articles

The Founders created the architecture for the rights of children to self-determination and protection from the sins of their forebears. A central tenet of our democracy is that government, including these federal defendants, should not deprive children (the next generation) of the foundational elements of their lives, liberties or property and should not impose hardships on them for matters of which they have no control. This historical tradition and intent of the Founders of our nation has not always been realized, but has evolved over time as our society gains new insights and understandings of children and our notions of …

A Bridge Between Copyright And Patent Law: Towards A Modern-Day Reapplication Of The Semiconductor Chip Protection Act, Timothy T. Hsieh

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

This Paper analyzes the history of the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act (SCPA), 17 U.S.C. §§ 901–914, and asks why the statute is so seldom used in intellectual property litigation. Afterwards, this Paper makes the argument that the SCPA should be used more in intellectual property litigation, perhaps in tandem with patent litigation, and can be a viable form of protection for semiconductor micro-fabrication companies or integrated circuit design companies engaged in pioneering innovations within the cutting-edge field of semiconductor technology.

Ousted: The New Dynamics Of Privatized Procedure And Judicial Discretion, Robin Effron

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.