University of Cincinnati
University of Cincinnati, College of Law: Scholarship and PublicationsNot a member yet
1172 research outputs found
Sort by
Confronting the Duty to Capitalize in Veil-Piercing
Full text linkIn corporate law, the doctrine of “piercing the corporate veil” allows courts to hold shareholders personally liable for corporate obligations. The doctrine—which now also applies to entities other than corporations—has been widely criticized as imprecise and unworkable. I respond to that criticism in the area of veil-piercing law which remains most intractable—the case of the tort victim who remains unsatisfied after exhausting corporate assets. Although most commentators have eschewed talk of any duty owed by the business owner to vest the business with sufficient assets, I argue that courts and legislatures should recognize—confront—such a duty. I look to negligence law for the proper development of a duty, and then analyze what was formerly “veil-piercing” doctrine under this new negligence analysis. I conclude that explicitly recognizing a duty to capitalize will allow orderly analysis to replace the unprincipled decision-making which currently exists under the “veil-piercing” doctrine
A Bottom-Up Approach to AI Facial Recognition Technology Wrongful Arrests and Subsequent 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Actions
No full textTwilight of Deference? Kisor, Chevron, and the Fate of Deference to the Commentary of the United States Sentencing Guidelines
No full textJudicial Review of Settlements Under the Class Action Fairness Act and Deference Due to the Department of Justice and State Attorneys General
Full text linkThe Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) made it easier to remove consumer class actions from state to federal court, and among other things regulates the procedure of federal court approval of settlements of those cases. CAFA requires that before any court approval or disapproval, the parties must notify the Attorney General of the United States, and the attorneys general of states where members of the class live, of the pending settlement in order to receive any objections or other input. While such notice is frequently sent, since most class action cases settle out of court, it appears that the U.S. AG and state AGs rarely formally object to proposed settlements. Perhaps not surprisingly, the provision has been the subject of little commentary and analysis.
This Article fills that gap by focusing on how state AGs process and evaluate such notices under CAFA, using as a case study over ten years’ worth of unpublished data obtained from the Ohio Attorney General, regarding the Ohio AG’s review of thousands of CAFA settlement notices. The Article also addresses whether states should also be permitted to intervene as parties in CAFA suits, and the legal and policy issues regarding how much weight or deference a federal court should give to objections or input (or lack thereof) from the DOJ and state AGs, usually through amicus curiae briefs, to proposed settlements
How to Stop Employees from Stealing Your Trade Secrets: Shifting the Focus to Prevention and Mitigation
Full text linkDeath & Taxes: Preserving the Second Amendment From Absolute Obliteration With Congress\u27 Powers of Taxation?
No full textRewriting the Monopoly Playbook: Implications of U.S. v. Google for Antitrust Jurisprudence
No full text
