Litigation Commons^™

Class Problem!: Why The Inconsistent Application Of Rule 23'S Class Certification Requirements During Overbreadth Analysis Is A Threat To Litigant Certainty, David I. Berman

Fordham Law Review

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is home to the class action device. It is well-documented that this rule significantly impacts our legal system. As a result, the need for its effective utilization has been apparent since its introduction. Despite this, federal courts have inconsistently applied the rule during their analyses of overbroad class definitions at the class certification stage. Consequently, parties involved in such litigation have been exposed to unnecessary costs and the potential for forum shopping. Nonetheless, this judicial inconsistency has gone largely unrecognized because it does not implicate the results of class certification. Hence, …

To Sue And Be Sued: Capacity And Immunity Of American Indian Nations, Richard B. Collins

Publications

Can American Indian nations sue and be sued in federal and state courts? Specific issues are whether tribes have corporate capacity to sue, whether a Native group has recognized status as a tribe, and whether and to what extent tribes and their officers have governmental immunity from suit. Tribal capacity to sue is now well established, and federal law has well-defined procedures and rules for tribal recognition. But tribal sovereign immunity is actively disputed.

This Article reviews retained tribal sovereignty in general and summarizes past contests over tribal capacity to sue and their resolution into today’s settled rule. Next is …

Less Due Process Than Terrorists: An Analysis Of The Eric C. Conn Fiasco, Chelise L. Conn Greer

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Litigation Privilege As A Shelter For Miscreant Legal Counsel, Marc I. Steinberg, Logan J. Weissler

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This article focuses on a pressing issue of national importance related to attorney conduct (or misconduct). The Litigation Privilege is a long-recognized immunity fashioned for attorneys to enable them to perform their functions as zealous advocates and litigators, without having to consider prospective non-client lawsuits aimed at their conduct in the course of representation. However, recent case law purports to expand the Litigation Privilege outside of its traditional contexts, posing a nationwide threat to attorney ethical standards. Broad readings of what sorts of legal assistance constitute “litigation” for the purposes of the application of the Litigation Privilege have recently been …

The Difficulty Of Discerning The Effect Of Neuroscience: A Peer Commentary Of Shen Et Al. 2018, John B. Meixner Jr.

Scholarly Works

Neuroscience is often considered to have a certain ‘seductive allure’.1 Its mystique should not besurprising. Seeking to understand the network of nearly 100 billion neurons that make up the human brain, neuroscience examines some of the most difficult questions imaginable. And yet, it is also a deeply personal discipline—questions like, ‘How do we create memories?’ and ‘What causes emotions?’ touch on experiences shared by all people.

Does the mystique of neuroscience cause individuals to ascribe undue weight to neuroscientific findings, or assume that neuroimages indicate research quality? Over the past decade, a literature has sprung up seeking to answer questions …

Publicly Funded Objectors, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Scholarly Works

On paper, class actions run like clockwork. But practice suggests the need for tune-ups: sometimes judges still approve settlements rife with red flags, and professional objectors may be more concerned with shaking down class counsel than with improving class members’ outcomes. The lack of data on the number of opt-outs, objectors, and claims rates fuels debates on both sides, for little is known about how well or poorly class members actually fare. This reveals a ubiquitous problem — information barriers confront judges, objectors, and even reformers. Rule 23’s answer is to empower objectors. At best, objectors are a partial fix. …

Practitioners' Perception Of Court-Connected Mediation In Five Regions: An Empirical Study, Shahla F. Ali

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Courts throughout the world face the challenge of designing court mediation programs to provide opportunities for party-directed reconciliation on the one hand, while ensuring access to formal legal channels on the other. In some jurisdictions, mandated programs require initial attempts at mediation, while in others, voluntary programs encourage party-selected participation. This Article explores the attitudes and perceptions of eighty-three practitioners implementing court mediation programs in five regions in order to understand the dynamics, challenges, and lessons learned from the perspectives of those directly engaged in the work of administering, representing, and mediating civil claims. Given the highly contextual nature of …

Adr And Access To Justice: Current Perspectives, Ellen E. Deason, Michael Z. Green, Donna Shestowsky, Rory Van Loo, Ellen Waldman

Faculty Scholarship

Access to justice is a broad topic, and we cannot cover everything. You will notice a few major omissions. Most notably, we are not going to emphasize consumer pre-dispute arbitration agreements. This is not because they are not important, but because much has been written and said on this topic, and it could easily swallow the whole discussion. Also, we are probably not going to say very much about restorative justice, and I am sure you will notice some other holes. We invite you to raise missing issues in your comments.

Let me start with a few opening remarks. We …

How Should Damages Be Calculated For Design Patent Infringement?, Mark D. Janis

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

The False Allure Of Settlement Pressure, Nicholas Almendares

Articles by Maurer Faculty

The threat of “blackmail” or “in terrorem” settlements have shaped the law, leading courts to conclude that if the plaintiff does not appear likely to win the case, then the litigation should be halted at an early stage. This Article questions the established logic of settlement pressure. After clarifying the concept and presenting the strongest case for it, I show that it cannot serve as the basis for wide-ranging civil procedure doctrines. Doing so has perverse results, such as privileging the defendant’s idiosyncratic tastes and helping corporate managers hide important facts from their shareholders. In addition, settlement pressure is not …

Resolving The Crisis In U.S. Merger Regulation: A Transatlantic Alternative To The Perpetual Litigation Machine, Dan Awrey, Blanaid Clarke, Sean J. Griffith

Faculty Scholarship

Regulation by litigation has driven U.S. merger regulation to crisis. The reliance on private lawsuits to police disclosures and potential conflicts of interest in mergers, takeovers, and other control transactions has resulted in the filing of claims after every major transaction. However, it has failed to achieve meaningful benefits for shareholders and has instead deprived them of potentially valuable rights. Regulation by litigation has devolved into attorney rent-seeking, and the raft of substantive and procedural reforms aimed at resolving the crisis has failed. There is an alternative to regulation by litigation. Drawing upon the code and panel-based models of merger …

Expanding The Search For America's Missing Jury, Richard Lorren Jolly

Michigan Law Review

A review of Suja A. Thomas, The Missing American Jury: Restoring the Fundamental Constitutional Role of the Criminal, Civil, and Grand Juries.

Waiver, Work Product, And Worry: A Case For Clarifying The Waiver Doctrine In Oklahoma, Mitchell B. Bryant

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Will The Jury System Survive The Peña-Rodriguez Exception To Rule 606(B)?: The Court’S Response To Racial Discrimination By A Juror Leaves The Future Of The American Jury Trial System In Jeopardy, Taurus Myhand

Scholarly Works

The enforcement of no-impeachment rules has been a long-standing tradition in the United States preventing jurors from offering testimony as to impeach their own verdict. In March 2017, the Supreme Court changed course from centuries of jurisprudence and superseded the Federal Rules of Evidence with a new exception to Rule 606(b) in the Court’s decision in Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado. The Court’s effort to “root out” racial bias in the justice system resulted in the debunking of the legislative authority granted to the Congress while creating an exception that does little, if anything, toward eliminating racial bias during jury deliberations. In …

State Public-Law Litigation In An Age Of Polarization, Margaret H. Lemos, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

Public-law litigation by state governments plays an increasingly prominent role in American governance. Although public lawsuits by state governments designed to challenge the validity or shape the content of national policy are not new, such suits have increased in number and salience over the last few decades — especially since the tobacco litigation of the late 1990s. Under the Obama and Trump Administrations, such suits have taken on a particularly partisan cast; “red” states have challenged the Affordable Care Act and President Obama’s immigration orders, for example, and “blue” states have challenged President Trump’s travel bans and attempts to roll …

Brief Of Professors William Baude And Stephen E. Sachs As Amici Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, William Baude, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

This case presents the question whether to overrule Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979). That question requires careful attention to the legal status of sovereign immunity and to the Constitution’s effect on it, which neither Hall nor either party has quite right. The Founders did not silently constitutionalize a common-law immunity, but neither did they leave each State wholly free to hale other States before its courts. While Hall’s holding was mostly right, other statements in Hall are likely quite wrong—yet this case is a poor vehicle for reconsidering them.

Hall correctly held that States lack a constitutional immunity …

The Litigators: Perceptions Of Predictability, Definitions Of A Good Outcome, And An Alternative To Mass Tort Trials, Lisa K. Dicker, Shane K. Hebel

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

A pervasive theme in our understanding of civil legal disputes is the “big case”; that is, the generic mass tort that pits sympathetic clients against shadowy, villainous corporations. In John Grisham’s stories about these cases, a David-and-Goliath legal battle ensues, the parameters of the law shift, the attorneys’ ethics stretch, and the author uses characters to reveal both sides’ deep secrets unwillingly—and sometimes unwittingly. Ultimately, the case leads to a “win” for one side or the other—either a huge payday for the clients and a large percentage-based fee for the lawyers who stumbled across it, or a corporation that …

Arbitration Law Update: 2017-2018, Teresa J. Verges, Elissa Germaine

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

This article summarizes the leading federal and state arbitration cases during the last year that are of particular relevance to the securities arbitration practitioner. In its sole arbitration decision during the 2017-18 term, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis that employers could require their employees to waive their right to class actions and collective arbitration. Courts also addressed a host of novel issues, including whether investors can force a non-FINRA member and municipal bond indentured trustee to arbitrate before FINRA, the arbitrability of claims against a cryptocurrency exchange, and the applicability of a state's …

Courts As Information Intermediaries: A Case Study Of Sovereign Debt Disputes, Sadie Blanchard

Journal Articles

When foreign sovereigns default on their debt, creditors sometimes sue them. These creditors are sophisticated actors, and they sue even though courts can do little to force a sovereign to satisfy a judgment. Why do they sue? This Article argues that courts serve as information intermediaries that strengthen reputational enforcement in the international sovereign debt market. It shows, through a case study of sovereign debt defaults and disputes, three ways in which courts play this role. First, in hard cases, courts clarify reputational signals by publicly determining whether breach occurred. Second, through discovery and fact finding, they mitigate information asymmetries …

Public Defense Litigation: An Overview, Lauren Sudeall Lucas

Faculty Publications By Year

No abstract provided.