Thursday, November 11, 2010

Sherry on Doctrinal Change

Prof. Suzanna Sherry (Vanderbilt) has posted on SSRN a draft of her forthcoming article, Foundational Facts and Doctrinal Change, to be published in the University of Illinois Law Review (January 2011). Here’s the abstract:

Doctrine is at the center of law and legal analysis. This Article argues that we have fundamentally misunderstood its nature. The conventional approach to legal doctrine focuses on theory and applications. What is the doctrine designed to do and how does it function? But many doctrines cannot be adequately understood or evaluated under the conventional model because they contain an additional, hidden element. They are built on foundational facts: potentially contested factual assumptions embedded in the doctrinal structure itself. Foundational facts are judges' generalized and invisible intuitions about how the world works. Whether a defendant acted in a particular way out of a particular motive are decisional, rather than foundational, facts. But the likelihood of actors in defendant's position acting that way or having that motive are foundational facts, and doctrinal rules - including burdens of proof and standards of review - will be structured differently depending on whether judges assume a high or low likelihood. Foundational facts thus drive doctrine. Without an understanding of a doctrine's foundational facts, we cannot adequately understand the doctrine and its changes over time. Foundational facts only come to light when doctrine shifts, seemingly inexplicably and often without judicial acknowledgment that anything has changed. That doctrinal shift serves as a cue to look for changed foundational assumptions that might be driving the doctrinal change. Identifying those foundational facts, in turn, allows us to better understand and evaluate both the doctrine and its underlying assumptions.

Our readers may be particularly interested in Professor Sherry’s discussion of changes in summary-judgment doctrine (the 1986 trilogy) and pleading doctrine (Twombly/Iqbal).

--A

November 11, 2010 in Recent Scholarship, Twombly/Iqbal | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

SCOTUS Oral Argument in Class Action Arbitration Case: AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion

We covered earlier the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (09-893), which presents the issue:

Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts States from conditioning the  enforcement of an arbitration agreement on the availability of particular procedures—here, class-wide arbitration—when those procedures are not necessary to ensure that the parties to the arbitration agreement are able to vindicate their claims.

The transcript from today’s oral argument is available here. SCOTUSblog’s casefile has links to the briefs and the Ninth Circuit’s opinion.

--A

November 9, 2010 in Class Actions, Supreme Court Cases | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, November 8, 2010

NYTimes Sunday Magazine Cover Story about BP Litigation

The Sunday Magazine of the New York TImes has a long and interesting feature on the role on organization of lawyers in the BP litigation with a particular emphasis on the personalities involved and their past association with complex litigation.  A very interesting read.

RJE

November 8, 2010 in In the News, Mass Torts, MDLs | Permalink | Comments (0)