Search

The article seeks to seeks to clarify existing Kansas law concerning when a state district court should reconsider a motion to suppress, as of June 2016. It offers a offers a three-part test, based on existing Kansas case law that district court judges can apply when evaluating whether to reconsider a motion to suppress.

The article focuses on redefining "other property" under the economic loss doctrine with reference to the court case CHMM, LLC v. Freeman Marine Equipment, Inc. (Freeman). Topics include buyer company CHMM LLC stated to have brought several products liability claims against Freeman seeking to recover the loss sustained from the failure of the door, and the U.S. district court stated to have decided that the CHMM could not bring such an action in tort and dismissed the claims.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 1938 diversity jurisdiction case Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (Erie) in relation to a debate about whether a U.S. federal district court that is hearing a case under its diversity jurisdiction is required to use the preliminary injunction standard that would be applied by a court of general civil jurisdiction where the federal court is located. American civil procedure, forum shopping, and legal presumptions are assessed.

The article discusses the court case Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services. Particular focus is given to how this case relates to constitutional law, the Origination Clause and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Details relating to how the court case took place in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia are also offered.

The article focuses on the decision of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California Mathew Enter., Inc. v. Chrysler Grp. LLC. regarding the antitrust law. It mentions that price discrimination claims against the automobile dealer Chrysler Group LLC. It mentions that the price reductions in violation of Section 2(a) of the Robinson Patman Act (RPA).

We test the proposition that litigation outcomes in the Ninth Circuit are significantly more activist and liberal on all federal court cases filed over a 20-year time period in which a U.S. executive agency, the USDA Forest Service, was a defendant in a lawsuit challenging a land management decision. Our results reveal that the Ninth Circuit was not significantly more likely to reverse agency decisions in the liberal direction; however, the District Courts located in the Ninth Circuit were. Additionally, opinions that all Circuits', including the Ninth Circuit, judicial panels opted to publish were significantly more likely to reverse agency action and be in the liberal direction. One consistent and statistically significant finding was that any reversal of agency action, not just those that are published, were much more likely to be in the liberal direction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With a federal bankruptcy judge's grant of chapter 9 protection to the City of Detroit, Michigan, in December 2013, came questions regarding the bankruptcy's implication for myriad stakeholders. Though media attention focused primarily on bondholders, labor unions, and pensioners, one stakeholder received comparatively little attention—the 36th District Court. Located in Detroit, the Court, one of the nation's largest and busiest, is funded via a model requiring local government responsibility for sizable contributions to local courts. As this type of funding model is not unique to Michigan, we analyze key issues presented by the Detroit case in the context of the funding model, and implications not only for it but for other states using similar models, both in terms of court administration and larger issues inherent in federal forms of government such as separation of powers and inherent powers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historically very few Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) investigations have resulted in federal district court proceedings pursuant to an investigative target's election to proceed under the provisions in Section 31(d)(3) of the Federal Power Act (FPA).1 In the last few years, however, FERC has filed six such separate actions in four different federal district courts as of the date of this writing.2 This increased frequency is not surprising given the higher stakes now involved.3 Particularly when coupled with the recent changes to FERC's substantive authority, however, the increasing number of judicial proceedings is exposing some novel and significant issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There have been recent conflicting decisions in U.S. district courts of New York, Delaware, and others states regarding to the enforceability of make-whole provisions in bankruptcy. The ambiguity created by the courts' decisions has caused uncertainty for all parties involved in these kinds of loan documents. This comment is an analysis of the enforceability of make-whole provisions in the context of bankruptcy in light of the recent decisions. In order for a makewhole or a no-call provision to be upheld, a number of hurdles must be cleared. The provisions must be valid under both state law and bankruptcy law. Make-whole provisions are generally enforceable outside of bankruptcy under state law to the extent that they are not true penalties under a liquidated damages analysis. Once bankruptcy comes into play, the provisions must withstand a number of hurdles. In order to be enforceable in bankruptcy, a make-whole provision must be a valid liquidated damages claim under state law, it must be provided for and triggered under the contractual agreement, and it must not be tantamount to unmatured interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on submerged precedents, reasoned opinions which are only available on court dockets and not on Lexis and Westlaw commercial databases. Topics include comparison of district court decisions on dockets and in Westlaw in the U.S., implications of submerged precedents for the role of district courts in shaping law and for precedent theory, and influence of technology on precedent-based civil justice system.

This Article undertakes a broad-based empirical review of intellectual property ("IP") litigation in U.S. federal district courts from 1994 to 2014. Unlike the prior literature, this study analyzes federal copyright, patent, and trademark litigation trends as a unified whole. It undertakes a systematic analysis of the records of more than 190,000 cases filed in federal courts and examines the subject matter, geographical, and temporal variation within federal IP litigation over the last two decades. This Article analyzes changes in the distribution of IP litigation over time and their regional distribution. The key findings of this Article stem from an attempt to understand long-term patterns in the filing data as well as short-term deviations from various trends. This data-driven approach has yielded insights in relation to such diverse topics as Internet filesharing litigation, the true impact of patent trolls on the level of patent litigation, and the extent of forum shopping and forum selling patent litigation. Just as importantly, this Article lays the foundation for planning and evaluating future empirical studies of IP litigation with a narrower focus. Many of the results and conclusions herein demonstrate the dangers of basing empirical conclusions on narrow slices of data from selected regions or selected time periods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This case comment analyses the appropriateness of the 60/40 written/oral weighting of the promotional exams challenged by Briscoe. The plaintiff claimed that the oral exam had less disparate impact on African Americans, was a better way to access candidates' ability and hence should be weighted more. The comment shows that when more weight is given to the oral exam, the number of African American promotions 'increases', but the number of Hispanic promotions and the total number of minority promotions 'decreases'. Furthermore, the analysis demonstrates that for most of the written/oral weightings, including the one advocated by the plaintiff, the number of African Americans who would be promoted to lieutenant remains the same, supporting district court's conclusion that the weighting used by the City did not have disparate impact on African Americans 'as a race'. In addition, the comment illustrates that even though the oral exam had less disparate impact on African Americans, it had 'more' disparity on Hispanics. Considering minority candidates as a whole group, the disparities of the oral and the written exams were about the same. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont case Jimmo v. Sebelius (Jimmo) which deals with local coverage determinations (LCDs) regarding Medicare health insurance coverage, and it mentions the potential impact that a settlement in the Jimmo case might have the medical care that is provided to minimally conscious state (MCS) patients and people with severe brain injuries. Improvement and maintenance medical treatment standards are also assessed.

This study of federal court decisionmaking asks whether characteristics of a jurist including age, race, gender, and work experience, can affect results in the context of the nation's most frequently litigated administrative law dispute--social security disability claims. SSDI cases by and large are similar, turning most frequently on claims of mental illness and muscular skeletal pain. Thus, there is ample room for discretion among ALJs and federal judges in determining whether an applicant is entitled to benefits. The results are remarkable both in what they showed and did not show. First, decisionmaking patterns among district court judges and magistrates both reveal the same kind of inconsistencies that plague ALJ adjudication more generally. The results of an SSDI appeal might turn more on the hap of which judge or magistrate is slated to review the appeal than on the merits of the case. Second, if the cases are similar, the question arises as to what explains the difference in outcomes. Again, the results are striking in that no correlation can be drawn between results and the race, gender, seniority, and job experience of the jurist. Nor can they be explained by geography or the percentage of disabled within the region. Third, although sociological attributes did not explain much of the variation in resolution of the cases, we noted a substantial correlation between remand rates and the circuit in which the judges and magistrates sat. Remand rates from both judges and magistrates in the Tenth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, for instance, were almost double those from judges and magistrates in the First and Fourth Circuits. The statistics strongly suggest that the "culture' within a particular judicial circuit makes a substantial difference in such decisionmaking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In its 2005 decision in Granholm v. Heald, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that state alcoholic beverage laws that discriminate against outof- state entities are unconstitutional restrictions of interstate trade under the dormant Commerce Clause. Despite this holding, lower courts have split in their analyses and conclusions regarding protectionist alcoholic beverage laws. Specifically, the Eighth Circuit recently upheld Missouri's residency requirements for alcoholic beverage distributors. Meanwhile, a district court in Michigan has found that a similar law imposing residency requirements on alcoholic beverage retailers was an unconstitutional restriction of interstate commerce. This confusion adversely affects both consumers and smaller producers of alcoholic beverages. Therefore, this Note argues the Supreme Court should, in the appropriate case, clarify that Granholm applies to residency requirements for wholesalers and retailers, thereby subjecting these restrictions to heightened Commerce Clause scrutiny. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Comment considers whether the federal conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac transformed these entities into state actors subject to constitutional constraints. In particular, it analyzes whether Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must provide homeowners with due process -- namely, notice and an opportunity to be heard -- when they initiate nonjudicial foreclosures. This Comment surveys and applies five state action tests set forth by the Supreme Court to determine whether nonjudicial foreclosures initiated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must satisfy due process requirements. Application of the state action tests from Lebron and Brentwood Academy most persuasively suggest that nonjudicial foreclosures initiated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must satisfy due process requirements. Although a number of federal district courts and one circuit court of appeals hold that the test embodied by Lebron requires permanent government control to render the entity a state actor, this Comment argues that indefinite control -- exhibited by the federal conservatorship -- suffices. Alternatively, this Comment argues that pervasive federal entwinement with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac renders their conduct state action under the test set forth in Brentwood Academy, notwithstanding satisfaction of the Lebron test. To the author's knowledge, no case or academic work has explicitly applied the entwinement test to post-conservatorship Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This Comment concludes that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are state actors under the entwinement test. However, because courts are reluctant to find state action where the government regulates the secondary mortgage market, it remains unlikely that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be required to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to homeowners facing nonjudicial foreclosure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent hacks into Sony, Ashley Madison, and other large companies have directed consumers' attention to the fact that their data may not be as secure as they previously expected. As it turns out, many of the world's largest companies are not even employing minimal data security measures to protect sensitive personal information, like credit card and social security numbers, which has not gone unnoticed by the Federal Trade Commission. The F.T.C. has been taking action against companies for having these unfair data security practices. While various companies have challenged the F.T.C.'s authority to take these actions, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey decided--and was later affirmed by the Third Circuit--in F.T.C. v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp. that the F.T.C. Act did give the agency the authority to regulate practices in this area. This article posits that the holding of F.T.C. v. Wyndham, as well as other existing data security law, support the argument that the F.T.C. Act authorizes the F.T.C. to regulate unfair data security practices. It will also discuss the inefficiencies of other methods of data security regulation and why it is imperative that the F.T.C. continue to have enforcement authority in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article identifies and organizes the circumstances in which national courts play a role in international commercial arbitrations--border crossings. It then records and analyzes empirical data of these border crossings in cases filed in a key national court for international arbitration-related litigation: the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Data were collected from the date of entry into force for the United States of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the "New York Convention") on December 29, 1970 to September 15, 2014. Based on interpretation of these data, the Article suggests how to regulate the border crossings to best balance the policy goals of international commercial arbitration with reasonable allowances for national sovereignty and fidelity to the New York Convention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last several years, data breaches have become increasingly more common, due in no small part to the failures of organizations charged with storing and protecting personal data. Consumers whose data has fallen victim to these breaches are more often turning to federal courts in attempts to be made whole from the loss of their information, whether simple credit card information or, as breaches become more sophisticated, social security information, medical and financial records, and more. These consumers are often being turned away from the courthouse, however, due to a failure of many federal courts to find that the plaintiffs have Article III standing to pursue claims. Many of the district courts hearing data breach claims have refused to grant standing because of their interpretation of a recent case addressing constitutional standing, Clapper v. Amnesty International. These courts have concluded that Clapper represents a "tightening" of the traditional standing test under which data breach plaintiffs ' claims that they will suffer harm are too speculative. These courts are misguided in their analyses. First, the Supreme Court's decision in Clapper was based on an especially rigorous application of the traditional standing test due to constitutional and national security concerns present in the case. Data breach claims should not be subject to this same level of rigor. Second, these district courts are misreading Clapper to require a demonstration of an injury in data breach cases that is not necessary. These courts are looking for some type of quantifiable injury stemming from the data breach when all that Clapper requires is a demonstration that the plaintiffs' data was lost in the breach. Courts should subscribe to this more accurate application o f the standing test and of Clapper to grant data breach plaintiffs the day in court to which they are entitled. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many have expressed concern over the working conditions of federal district court judges who face comparatively low salaries in contrast to those in peer professions. As a means of enticing new judges of the highest quality, Chief Justices Rehnquist and Roberts have urged Congress and the president to increase judicial pay. However, scholars have not conducted a systematic, empirical investigation of whether higher salaries do, in fact, attract better prospective judges. We turn our attention to this issue. We first develop an exhaustive dataset of ABA ratings for over 1,800 nominees to the federal district courts from 1964 to 2012. We next model the effects of salary on the quality of nominations and confirmations. We find that salary is an important determinant of both the quality of candidates nominated and those confirmed to the federal bench. Our findings have critical implications for public policy, as our results confirm the need for better pay for federal judges. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses the decisions of the several court cases in the Utah. Topics discussed include decision of the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in case Ortiz v. United States ex ret. Evans Army Cmty. Hosp. related to compensation for injuries, decision of the district court in case Barneck v. Utah Dep't of Transp. related to negligence and wrongful death and decision of the Utah Court of Appeals in case State v. Ludlow related to theft.

The article focuses on various challenges and changes in the patent system, following decision in Blonder-Tongue case and the enactment of the reexamination statute. It discusses the need of mandating primary jurisdiction doctrine in all district court litigation concerning the validity of patents. It also discusses differences between civil proceedings and reexamination proceedings.

The article discusses the utilization of familiarization expert witnesses during medical malpractice cases in Idaho, and it mentions the scope of further discovery in the aftermath of the Idaho Supreme Court case Quigley v. Kemp which deals with a debate about whether a defendant health care provider is entitled to discover the identity of a local consultant. Depositions and Idaho's district courts are examined, along with a strict locality rule in medical malpractice litigation.

American trial court judges’ roles and behavior vary greatly from their appellate court brethren. One such area of difference has to do with opinion writing behavior, an area where trial judges hold a great deal of discretion in determining whether to write an opinion and, if they do, how long the opinion should be. To examine what factors determine opinion writing behavior among district court judges, this study relies on analyses of an original dataset of civil cases that terminated in eighteen federal district courts from 2000 to 2006. The results indicate that legal, hierarchical, and institutional features are critical in motivating opinion writing and opinion length and that personal factors have very limited effects. The fruits of this exercise have important implications for how we view and model the behavior of trial court judges in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This study seeks to determine if the partisan affiliation (Democrat or Republican) of a plaintiff challenging a local, state, or federal campaign finance policy influences the case votes of U.S. district court judges. Using an original database of campaign finance cases decided between 1971 and 2007, I find that judges do not systematically favor challenges filed by plaintiffs who share the judge's partisan affiliation. However, judges are statistically less likely to favor challenges filed by plaintiffs who are members of an opposing major political party. These results indicate that plaintiffs who do not share a judge's partisan affiliation are at a disadvantage when challenging campaign finance policies. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

"Racial mirroring" refers to efforts by one group to match the primary racial composition of another group. In contrast to racial balancing, which takes place when two groups are adjusted simultaneously to achieve a desired degree of racial equilibrium between them, racial mirroring occurs when the racial makeup of one group is adjusted so as to reflect the predominant racial identity of the second group. Employers and even federal courts engage in racial mirroring. For example, in order to generate trust among customers, employers have hired or promoted individuals of the same race as the employers' primary customer base. Further, in order to ensure that attorneys can fairly and adequately represent the interests of their clients, a federal district court judge required counsel in class action cases to staff attorneys that reflect the racial diversity of the clients. Federal appellate courts have approved these twin forms of racial mirroring. This Article challenges employer and judicial attempts to match the racial identity of one group to the primary racial identity of another. It argues that these practices, however intuitive and wellintentioned, violate the Equal Protection Clause, embody harmful racial stereotypes, and generate significant social costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the decisions of the several courts related to violation of the Environmental laws. Topics discussed include decision of the U.S. District Court in case Alaska Community Action on Toxics v. Aurora Energy Services LLC related to violation of Clean Water Act, decisions of the Ninth Circuit court in Columbia Riverkeeper v. U.S. Coast Guard related to violation of the Natural Gas Act and in WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency related to violation of Clean Air Act.

The article discusses the court case U.S. v. Mcfadden. Topics include the U.S. Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, denied a rehearing, and construction worker Stephen McFadden subsequently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court having granted McFadden certiorari on January 16, 2015 to determine whether to convict a defendant of distribution of a controlled substance analogue.

The article focuses on opinions related to bankruptcy by several courts in the U.S. including the Eleventh Circuit court. It states that findings from Stern v. Marshall can be used for de novo review by districts courts. It mentions that retirement funds can be exempted from the bankruptcy estate while discussing Clark v. Rameker. It highlights that attorney fees can be paid through Chapter 13 while discussing Brown v. Gore.

President Obama's 2013 veto of a US International Trade Commission (ITC) exclusion order, issued to address Apple Inc.'s infringement of a patent owned by Samsung, thrust the ITC's public interest inquiry into the spotlight. Historically, however, these factors rarely weighed against a remedy at the ITC. Likewise, US district courts have rarely declined to issue a permanent injunction after finding a patent valid and infringed due solely to the public interest factor--the last of the four factors that the Supreme Court put in place in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. More recent decisions addressing the public interest in both forums, however, show a willingness by the adjudicators to weigh both traditional public interest issues, such as health and well-being, and non-traditional arguments, such as public reliance and environmental concerns, against a patent owner's right to exclude. In this Article, we examine some of the successful traditional and non-traditional public interest arguments, both at the ITC and in US district courts. From this analysis, the Article outlines how parties involved in high-stakes patent litigation in either forum can craft public interest arguments to combat the threat of a permanent injunction or an ITC exclusion order. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on laws related to liabilities of cruise ship owners to their passengers for medical malpractices of physicians of the ships, citing example of the U.S. Circuit Court's decision in the case Barbetta v. S/S Bermuda Star. Topics discussed include the Barbetta rule set by Fifth Circuit court of the U.S., the U.S. court case Gliniecki v. Carnival Corp. related to medical practices on a cruise ship and rejection of attempts to modify the Barbetta rule by U.S. district courts.

The article focuses on the creation of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in order to deal the criminal cases involve illegal immigration and drug trafficking and the U.S. Congress amended the immigration laws.

Recently, in Gary Friedrich Enterprises v. Marvel Characters, Inc., Gary Friedrich ("Friedrich") sued Marvel Characters, Inc. ("Marvel") for infringement on his copyright of the "Ghost Rider" comic book character. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of Marvel stating that Friedrich had assigned any rights he had to Ghost Rider to Marvel in a work-for-hire agreement six years after the initial publication. Friedrich appealed this action to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the Second Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for issues of fact, including the ambiguous terms of the work-for-hire agreement, Friedrich's renewal rights in the work-for-hire agreement, the timeliness his ownership claim, and authorship of the Ghost Rider copyright. In doing so, the Second Circuit missed an opportunity to clarify the Copyright Act of 1909 and protect the rights of artists. This Comment, in attempting to determine how the district court would have ruled, argues that the District Court should have ruled that Friedrich retained the copyright for Ghost Rider. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses appellate practices in Florida in relation to the elements that make a legal case or issue one of exceptional importance, and it mentions the court rules which limit the legal matters which can be adjudicated by Florida's district courts of appeal (DCA). The attitudes of DCA judges are mentioned, along with examinations of DCA orders denying parties' motions for rehearing en banc. Several legal cases and Florida's Rules of Appellate Procedure are examined.

The article focuses on the court case Pinpoint IT Services LLC v. Rivera of the first circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals in which the court rejected earlier jurisdiction of a court regarding stay relief. Topics discussed include filing a lawsuit by information technology services provider Pinpoint at the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and petitions filed at bankruptcy court.

The article discusses several court decisions in Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) lawsuits against telemarketers, creditors, and debt collectors. Topics include revocation of consent by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Osorio v. State Farm Bank, cell phone verification issue addressed in Levy v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC, and issues related to the definition of Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) for the federal district courts.

In Krys v Farnum Place, the Second Circuit ruled that, in a chapter 15 ancillary proceeding, a SIPA claim is within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and its sale by the foreign representative must be subjected to review under Bankruptcy Code section 363. In so holding, the court vacated an earlier decision of the Bankruptcy Court, which held that that the SIPA claim was not within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and that principles of comity could trump the requirements of section 363, as applied by section 1520. Two peculiarities in the facts limit the precedential impact of the decision: the claim sale agreement required approval by the Bankruptcy Court and the foreign court specifically deferred to the Bankruptcy Court to approve the sale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Martinez v. Ryan opened a door previously closed to federal habeas petitioners. In the past, where attorney negligence or a pro se defendant's lack of legal knowledge caused ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims to be procedurally defaulted, those claims were likely lost forever. Now, following Martinez, petitioners get a second chance should they satisfy the Supreme Court's four-pronged test. The Martinez test, however, is not a simple one. This Comment addresses some problems concerning the four-pronged test, including multiple and conflicting standards for the same element, tensions between Martinez and the underlying Strickland v. Washington ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard, and confusion where the same term of art is used in different contexts. The proposed modifications would simplify Martinez for petitioners--ideally resulting in more evidentiary hearings exploring underlying ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims in federal district court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article compares the differences in the use of the all writs authority that is granted to federal district courts and bankruptcy courts. Topics discussed include use of Section 105 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code for resolving conflict under the principles of equity and bankruptcy law, a bankruptcy courts cased In re Aldan Industries, Inc. related to the arbitration and the U.S. Supreme Court case Travelers Indemnity Company v. Bailey related to release of nondebtors from claims.

• The purpose of this analysis is to provide systematic and up-to-date data on the frequency of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2012) court decisions on a state-by-state basis, not only overall, but in relation to special education enrollments. • This empirical analysis revealed notable differences among state rankings in the frequencies of court decisions under the IDEA on overall and per capita bases for the period of 1979-2013. • The findings reveal that on an overall basis, 10 jurisdictions, led by New York, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia, accounted for almost two thirds of the IDEA court decisions, while the 10 jurisdictions with the fewest number of decisions, led by North Dakota, Wyoming, and Utah, accounted for less than 3% of decisions. • The findings fill an existing gap in the research and provide special education administrators and policy makers the most comprehensive available data on the frequency of the judicial decisions, which is the most costly level of dispute resolution under the IDEA. • The primary policy recommendation is to put a concerted priority on the limited number of jurisdictions in the high frequency per capita group rather than investing efforts on revising the adjudicative procedures in the next IDEA reauthorization. • The primary research recommendation is for follow-up studies to identify the factors that contribute to the wide variation in frequency of judicial litigation rates among and within the states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article argues that the U.S. Fourth Circuit court should have jurisdiction to review the vessel's owner's constitutional claims in its "Angelex Ltd. v. United States" case. Topics discussed include abuse of discretion by federal agencies; jurisdiction of district court over the agencies' actions; and the constitutional claims of the firm owner in the case.

The article provides an overview of the increased use of administrative proceedings and enforcement powers by the Security Exchange Commission (SEC) and outlined some of the challenge and criticism faced by the SEC's along with its history, benefits and the growth. SEC claims that Administrative Law Courts (ALCs) offer benefits over traditional district courts and provides less protections than the federal courts for defendants and due to this it suffers a number of losses in court.

The article discusses the decision of Jack B. Weinstein, Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in the case 'In re Agent Orange'. Topics discussed include his contribution in the construction of the tort laws in the U.S.; judicial responsibility concerning tort laws; and implications of the Agent Orange litigation on the U.S. tort laws.

The article presents an essay that discusses the career of Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Topics discussed include his views on the use of class actions to deal with mass torts; his use of tactics described by writer Walter Murphy to attain influence for his opinions; and presentation of the Edward J. Devitt Award to Weinstein's achievements.

This Article is part of the University of Miami Law Review's Leading from Below Symposium. It canvasses prisoners' lawyers' strategies prompted by the 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). The strategies comply with the statute's limits yet also allow U.S. district courts to remain a forum for the vindication of the constitutional rights of at least some of the nation's millions of prisoners. After Part I's introduction, Part II summarizes in several charts the PLRA's sharp impact on the prevalence and outcomes of prison litigation, but demonstrates that there are still many cases and situations in which courts continue to play a role. Part III looks at three methods by which plaintiffs and defendants can jointly obtain injunctive-type relief in prison cases--by crafting stipulations that comply with the PLRA's constraints, by structuring the relief as a conditional dismissal, or by setting up the possibility of state-court enforcement. Part IV examines plaintiffs' coping methods for the PLRA's provisions that ease the path to termination of decrees, whether litigated or by consent. Two types of preparation for a termination motion have emerged: First, the parties sometimes agree to stretch out the remediation period more than the PLRA's default two years. Second, plaintiffs have worked to ensure that they are collecting sufficient information to inform their potentially hurried response to a termination motion. It is my hope that the examples presented below can help counsel and judges in prisoners' rights cases thread the needle that the PLRA presents. More theoretically, the examples demonstrate that litigation tactics and procedures are dynamic--that rule changes affect the parties' bargaining positions but rarely eliminate bargaining altogether. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the decision of the Illinois Third District Court in case Kalkman v. Nedved related to the Residential Real Property Disclosure Act in which court dismissed the claim made by plaintiff. Topics discussed include information on the Residential Real Property Disclosure Act that mandates the seller to disclose any defects in materials, information on the seller-friendly caveat emptor doctrine and consequences of the Kalkman ruling.

What factors explain when federal trial court judges will be influenced and constrained by their direct superiors in the judicial hierarchy? To empirically test this hierarchical relationship, this study utilizes an original database of cases terminated in 29 federal district courts from 2000 to 2004 and a research design that naturally incorporates hierarchical interactions through a focus on cases that were appealed to the U.S. courts of appeal and later reversed and remanded. After controlling for litigant, judge, political, and case characteristics, the results indicate that the likelihood of a district court case having an altered outcome after circuit court intervention is greatly affected by the content and context of the supervising circuit panel's opinion. These results have implications for the function and constraining ability of the judicial hierarchy and provide new insight into how judging significantly differs by court level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses America's civil and criminal jury systems in relation to Internet use and the claim that the Internet is becoming inseparable from the lives of current and prospective jurors in the U.S. as of 2015. Potential judicial responses to the Internet's role in the American jury system are addressed, along with efforts to limit juror bias. The ways in which U.S. lawyers use the Internet to select and sway jurors are examined, along with juror good faith and U.S. district courts.

Gossip about judges is an essential source of information to civil litigators. Hearing third-party assessments of a judge's personality, demeanor, intelligence, curiosity, and openness to new interpretations of the law can substantially affect a lawyer's strategic decisions during the course of litigation, and sometimes whether litigation occurs at all. Yet gossip about judges rarely merits mention and has evaded serious study. This Article brings attorney gossip about judges out into the open, identifying its strategic benefits and drawbacks and explaining how attorneys use gossip (and other secondhand information on judges) to anticipate the likely outcome of judicial decisions. It further explains how common attorney practices in modern civil litigation unintentionally compromise the accuracy and reliability of gossip about judges and offers some thoughts on restoring the full value of this little-discussed resource. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This case study of Lee v. Macon County Board of Education demonstrates that a federal district court in Alabama, enforcing Brown v. Board of Education, brought about significant social change despite constraints on the courts. The court's application of Brown played a decisive role in ending the racial caste system in this Alabama Black Belt county. The court, by adding the U. S. Department of Justice as a party, overcame constraints that had precluded the executive branch from pursuing school desegregation. Change came through the courts before Congress legislated against school segregation. Seekers of social change must evaluate the constraints on the courts relative to the constraints on the other branches and levels of government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]