Search

I Introduction II First Phase: Discretionary Referral to Arbitration III Second Phase: Mandatory Referral to Arbitration IV Third Phase: Binding Third Parties to Arbitration Agreements A The Pre-Rinehart Position B [...], Third parties represent one of the most contentious and challenging issues in international commercial arbitration, with the fundamentally contractual nature of arbitration struggling to accommodate such persons. This article examines the issue of third parties through the lens of the relationship between courts and arbitrators in the context of applications to restrain litigation in favour of arbitration and anti-arbitration injunctions. The article demonstrates how courts have sought to reconcile two competing goals: holding parties to their bargain on dispute resolution yet avoiding multiple actions by joining third parties to a single proceeding where possible. While the High Court decision in Rinehart v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd makes a key contribution to the debate, the differing positions of consenting and non-consenting third parties need to be appreciated.

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I. THE HISTORY AND CURRENT STATE OF [SECTION] 1782(A) PRACTICE A. The Evolution of [section]l 782(a)'s Text B. Notable Omissions from [section] 1782(a) C. Intel Corp. [...], Under 28 U.S.C. [section] 1782(a), parties to foreign legal proceedings can obtain discovery orders from United States federal courts. In other words, if a foreign party needs physical evidence located in--or testimony from a person residing in--the United States to support their claim or defense, they can ask a district court to order the production of that evidence. For almost two decades, [section] 1782(a) practice has operated as a procedural Wild West. Judges routinely consider [section] 1782(a) applications ex parte--that is, without giving the parties subject to the resulting discovery orders a chance to oppose them--and grant those applications at a staggering rate: more than 90% of the time. In its June 2022 decision in ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., the Supreme Court transformed [section] 1782 jurisprudence for the worse. The Court held that private arbitral tribunals do not fall under [section] 1782(a)'s scope and that, as a result, parties cannot obtain discovery for use in foreign private arbitration under the provision. This Note argues that, after ZF Automotive, [section] 1782(a) jurisprudence contains two dangers: (1) it subjects some parties to burdensome discovery orders with few procedural safeguards, and (2) it prevents parties who have chosen to arbitrate rather than litigate from obtaining discovery entirely. This Note contributes to existing scholarship by proposing structural changes that would improve [section] 1782(a) practice. Specifically, it argues that courts cannot root out the procedural flaws that plague [section] 1782(a), and that, consequently, Congress should enact a new and improved [section] 1782 to address these manifold problems.

I. INTRODUCTION In recent decades, the problem of wrongful convictions has garnered much attention from both legal scholars and the public at large. (1) However, one element of wrongful convictions [...]

INTRODUCTION The issue of prisoners' free exercise of religion in the execution chamber has developed through both congressional statutes and case law. The Supreme Court will again address prisoners' religious [...], A prisoner's right to free exercise of religion within the execution chamber has been considered across time through both legislative and judicial action. The Supreme Court will take up the issue again in Ramirez v. Collier. Ramirez, a prisoner awaiting execution, argues that his execution must be stayed because Texas' policy of prohibiting religious advisors from touching prisoners in their final moments or speaking aloud in the execution chamber violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) as well as the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. This Note provides a historical analysis of the Supreme Court's prior interpretations of cases concerning RLUIPA, including the Court's most recent decision in Dunn v. Smith. Moreover, the Author argues that Texas' current policies concerning religious advisors in execution chambers violate RLUIPA and thus, Ramirez's execution must be stayed. Ultimately, this Note argues that while Texas does have a compelling state interest in maintaining the security of prisons, the prohibitions placed on the conduct of religious leaders in execution chambers is not the least restrictive means of achieving that interest and as a result it constitutes a substantial burden on inmates' ability to practice sincerely held religious beliefs.

I INTRODUCTION Public prosecutors possess and exercise some of the most important decision-making powers in the criminal justice system. Prosecutors decide, for example, whether to commence a criminal prosecution, whether [...], This article examines the various ways that prosecution decisions can be challenged and, in particular, the extent to which prosecution decisions might be susceptible to judicial review. The focus is on the decision to commence or not to commence a prosecution. First considered is the extent to which that decision can be challenged pursuant to conventional criminal procedures. The availability of tort-based civil proceedings and the extent to which prosecution decisions are susceptible to judicial review are then considered. It is argued that providing adequate avenues to challenge prosecution decisions needs to be seen in the broader context of (a) the need to balance prosecutorial independence and prosecutorial accountability and (b) the separation of powers doctrine.

Multidistrict litigation (MDL) is a procedural mechanism by which the claims of hundreds or even thousands of alleged victims of the same or similar set of wrongs are consolidated before [...]

I. INTRODUCTION The United States of America has had a big year in 2020, facing a global pandemic, an economic recession, and a social justice movement aimed at ending racism [...]

INTRODUCTION During his execution, Joseph Wood struggled to breathe and gasped in agony for hours. (1) Executions by lethal injection are supposed to be a swift and humane process. (2) [...], After the botched execution of Joseph Wood raised serious concerns about lethal injections, the Ninth Circuit recognized a right of access to hearing executions in its decision First Amendment Coalition of Arizona, Inc. v. Ryan. While the court recognized a First Amendment right of access to the sounds of an execution, the court failed to recognize a right of access to essential information about lethal injection drugs and the qualifications of executioners. This inconsistent recognition of a First Amendment right of access impedes public scrutiny of the lethal injection process. Public scrutiny of executions is paramount to ensure executions are conducted fairly and humanely. This Recent Development analyzes the Ninth Circuit's decision in Ryan and its failure to apply the history and logic test to recognize a right of access to execution-related information. This Recent Development provides the history and logic analysis to execution-related information that is absent in Ryan. In so doing, it argues that a right of access to specific information about execution drugs and the qualifications of executioners is necessary for public scrutiny of lethal injections. Providing access to this type of information increases transparency and accountability, thereby exposing to the public the efficacy of lethal injection drugs in delivering a painless and humane death and the qualification of executioners in properly administering the drugs.

IMMIGRATION LAW--RIPE ENOUGH TO PICK: APPEALS COURT HOLDS IT CAN HEAR PREMATURE APPEAL OF A BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS DECISION--Martinez v. Ban, 941 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2019). The Immigration [...]