The law reviews just keep on coming.
And one in a thousand articles keeps begging to be read.
We liked Nicholas Pace and William Rubenstein’s RAND Working Paper titled, “How Transparent are Class Action Outcomes?: Empirical Research on the Availability of Class Action Claims Data” (on SSRN here). Their thesis is not exactly a
Professor Howard Erichson, of Fordham Law School, has posted on SSRN (here) and discussed at the Mass Tort Litigation Blog (here) his new paper, “The Trouble With All-Or-Nothing Settlements.” Erichson’s thesis is that defendants’ demands for global peace in mass torts create ethical tensions.
The abstract describes the seven tensions:
“First,
Now that our birthday celebration is behind us, it’s back to work.
Consider taking a look at these two items recently posted on other blogs:
First, the Civil Procedure & Federal Courts Blog collects in one place scholarship analyzing the Supreme Court’s decision in Wyeth v. Levine. Whether or not you have a taste for
We’ve said before (in commenting on the ALI’s aggregate litigation principles) that we don’t like the “cy pres” concept. For one thing, it makes us look dumb. We’re not even sure how the blasted term’s supposed to be pronounced. If you ask three lawyers, you’re likely to get four possible pronunciations, from “sigh pray” to
There’s an interesting new article in the current issue of the Food and Drug Law Journal, entitled “Criminalizing Knowledge: The Perverse Implications of the Intended Use Regulations for Off-Label Promotion Prosecutions.” The author is blog reader Greg Gentry at Morrison Mahoney. Here’s a link, to a reprint posted with the permission of
Here’s more news from the academy that you might find to be useful:
First, Professors Kevin Clermont (Cornell) and Stephen Yeazell (UCLA) level both barrels at two of our favorite cases, Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Iqbal v. Ashcroft. The “point of th[eir] Article is that wherever you stand on pleading — even if
Oy! Don’t bother!
We’re scouring the web for stuff in the scholarly literature that might interest practitioners in our field, and we’re coming up awfully close to empty.
We’re posting below portions of the abstracts — do we save you time, or what? — of the most interesting three recent articles we found. And you
We’re kicking back today and letting others do the work for us.
Generally, practitioners don’t read the law reviews. So we’re skimming the tables of contents for you.
Today’s post simply describes four recent scholarly articles — two on preemption, one on post-sale duties to warn, and one theorizing about how tort law should be
Since the Supreme Court handed down Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346 (2007), we’ve posted twice – here and here – that we think Williams’ reaffirmation, in the specific context of punitive damages, of defendants’ rights to maintain all available legal defenses sounds the death knell for punitive damages class actions.
We see all these fascinating law review articles appear in print, and we plan to read the articles and react intelligently to them.
Then life gets in the way.
Instead of actually reading the things, we pile a bunch of ’em up on our desks and then give up. Instead of publishing an intelligent blog