Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Lots of coverage on Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, which is being argued today:
- Kenneth Anderson (Volokh Conspiracy)
- Lyle Denniston (SCOTUSblog)
- Jonathan Hafetz (ABA Preview)
- Julian Ku (Point of Law)
- Juan Mendez (Opinio Juris)
- David Savage (Los Angeles Times)
- Nina Totenberg (NPR)
- Peter Weiss (New York Times)
- David Weissbrodt (Point of Law)
- Stephen Wermiel (SCOTUSblog)
One issue that isn’t squarely raised by the questions presented is whether the Alien Tort Statute applies to claims brought by one alien against another (as in Kiobel). Amanda Frost’s Academic Round-up for SCOTUSblog covers an essay by Anthony Bellia and Bradford Clark, which argues that the Alien Tort Statute applies only to claims brought by an alien against a U.S. citizen. Marco Simons has a response on Concurring Opinions.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Now available on the Courts Law section of JOTWELL is an essay by Prof. Lonny Hoffman (Houston) entitled A Modest Proposal on Preservation. It reviews an article by Prof. William Hubbard (Chicago), Preservation Under the Federal Rules: Accounting for the Fog, the Pyramid, and the Sombrero.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Now available on the Courts Law section of JOTWELL is an essay by Prof. Jay Tidmarsh (Notre Dame) entitled Access to Courts and the Democratic Order. It reviews a recent article by Prof. Judith Resnik (Yale), Fairness in Numbers: A Comment on AT&T v. Concepcion, Wal-Mart v. Dukes, and Turner v. Rogers, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 78 (2011), covered earlier here.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Florida International University College of Law is hosting the Fourth Annual Junior Faculty Federal Courts Workshop in Miami on February 2 - 4, 2012. From the announcement:
The workshop pairs a senior scholar with a panel of junior scholars presenting works-in-progress. Five senior scholars have confirmed participation this year: Susan Bandes (University of Miami), Lee Epstein (USC), Theodore Eisenberg (Cornell University), Martin Redish (Northwestern University), and Suzanna Sherry (Vanderbilt University). . . .
The workshop is open to non-tenured and recently tenured academics who teach and write in Federal Courts, Civil Rights Litigation, and associated topics. Those who do not currently hold a faculty appointment but expect to do so beginning in fall 2012 are welcome. The program is also open to scholars wanting to attend, read, and comment on papers but not present. There is no registration fee. . . .
Those wishing to present a paper must submit an Abstract by November 15. Papers will be selected by a committee of past participants; presenters will be notified by December 10. Those planning to attend must register by January 10, 2012. The program is also open to non-presenters who want to attend, read and comment on papers, and participate in the discussion.
More details available at PrawfsBlawg.
(Hat Tip: Howard Wasserman)
Monday, September 12, 2011
Friday, September 9, 2011
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
We are very pleased to welcome Professor Brendan Maher as a guest-blogger for the month of September. Brendan is an Assistant Professor of Law at Oklahoma City University School of Law (and not to be confused with the famous Irish hurler).
Great to have you on board, Brendan!
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Beginning today, SCOTUSblog is hosting a symposium on the future of class action lawsuits. From the introductory post:
In the wake of several recent decisions from the Court – such as Wal-Mart v. Dukes, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, and Smith v. Bayer– involving class actions, SCOTUSblog has solicited posts from experts in the field to the effects that these decisions (as well as others relating to class actions) will have on cases that are currently pending in the lower courts, as well as the future of class action lawsuits more generally.
We are grateful to our contributors, who are listed below, for their hard work:
- Sergio Campos, University of Miami School of Law
- Sarah Crawford, National Partnership for Women and Families
- Scott Dodson, William & Mary Law School
- Allen Erbsen, University of Minnesota Law School
- Ted Frank, Center for Class Action Fairness, LLC
- J. Russell Jackson, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
- Paul Karlsgodt, Baker Hostetler
- Charles Silver, University of Texas Law School
- Andrew J. Trask, McGuire Woods
Links to the symposium posts will be available here.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Monday, August 22, 2011
Friday, August 19, 2011
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Over at TaxProf Blog, Paul Caron (Cincinnati) reports on two class action lawsuits that were filed today against New York Law School and Thomas M. Cooley Law School. Here are links to the complaints in Gomez-Jiminez v. New York Law School and MacDonald v. Thomas M. Cooley Law School.
If you’re wondering about subject-matter jurisdiction and the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), you’re not alone. The Cooley class action was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan and invokes CAFA diversity jurisdiction [28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)]. The NYLS class action was filed in New York state court (in Manhattan), and the first paragraph of the complaint preemptively addresses the possibility of CAFA removal with an allegation that seems geared toward CAFA’s local-controversy and/or home-state exceptions [See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)]. The complaint states: “Upon information and belief, more than two-thirds of all members of the putative class, at all material times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, were residents of the State of New York and are current or former students of Defendant New York Law School.”
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Currently running on the Courts Law section of JOTWELL is my review of a recent article by James E. Pfander (Northwestern), Collateral Review of Remand Orders: Reasserting the Supervisory Role of the Supreme Court, 159 U. Pa. L. Rev. 493 (2011). The review is entitled A New Solution to an Old Problem: Section 1447(d) and Appellate Review of Remand Orders. It begins:
It may not be the most headline-grabbing issue on the Supreme Court’s docket. But it has occupied more of the Court’s attention during the past half-decade than abortion, affirmative action, the Commerce Clause, or the Second Amendment. It is 28 U.S.C § 1447(d)’s command that “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” This apparent ban on appellate review has generated an awkward line of cases, beginning with Thermtron Products v. Hermansdorfer in the 1970s, which struggle to determine when § 1447(d) “means what it says.” In the Court’s most recent decisions on the issue, several Justices have penned separate opinions voicing their frustration with current doctrine. Enter Jim Pfander and his recent article Collateral Review of Remand Orders: Reasserting the Supervisory Role of the Supreme Court. Pfander expertly diagnoses what is wrong with the jurisprudence surrounding § 1447(d) and, more importantly, offers a new solution to this long-standing puzzle.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Over at PrawfsBlawg, Allan Erbsen (Minnesota) has a post entitled Personal Jurisdiction, Goodyear v. Brown, and Homely Line Drawing. From the post:
The determinative question in Goodyear was whether the Turkish defendant's contacts with North Carolina were "continuous and systematic" or merely "sporadic" and "limited." That will also be the pivotal question in future cases involving a state's attempt to assert general jurisdiction. So one would hope to see language in the opinion explaining how lower courts should draw lines between "continuous" and "sporadic," and between "systematic" and "limited." And yet such guidance is missing.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
From Elie Mystal (Above The Law) comes the story Beverly Hills Brawl: Escape From The Deposition Room! It begins:
Have you ever been to a deposition that got physical? Maybe some fisticuffs, or a little shoving? No? Well, obviously you’ve been hanging out in the wrong conference rooms. A complaint filed in Santa Monica Superior Court and reported on by Courthouse News Service accuses a Drinker Biddle partner of “robust, unlawful force” that resulted in opposing counsel breaking his wrist.
The story includes excerpts from the deposition transcript as well.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Over at Prawfsblawg, Professor Howard Wasserman (Florida International) has a post entitled Clarifying personal jurisdiction . . . or not, which discusses Monday’s Supreme Court decisions in Goodyear v. Brown and J. McIntyre v. Nicastro.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Last week’s Supreme Court decision in Camreta v. Greene (09-1454) involved a section 1983 action for damages based on alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment in the interview of a nine-year-old elementary-school student by state officials without a warrant or parental consent. The Ninth Circuit held that the officials violated the Fourth Amendment but were entitled to qualified immunity “because the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established under existing law.” [Slip Op. 2]
What makes the case particularly interesting from a Federal Courts standpoint is that the officials (who ultimately won in the Ninth Circuit on qualified immunity grounds) sought certiorari to challenge the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that their conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. So the first question the Court had to address was: “may government officials who prevail on grounds of qualified immunity obtain our review of a court of appeals’ decision that their conduct violated the Constitution?” [Slip Op. 2] The answer: yes, according to the majority opinion authored by Justice Kagan and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Ginsburg and Alito. (One commentator described it as an “interesting lineup.”)