bepress Legal Repository
Not a member yet
645042 research outputs found
Sort by
Access to Justice as Access to Data
No full textThis Keynote Address, delivered in celebration of the launch of SCALES, discusses the importance of making local and state court data available for research on the functioning of the American civil justice system. It describes the regulatory and administrative challenges of obtaining high-quality data from courts. It calls for a concerted effort among researchers and policymakers to develop open-source technologies for the development of case management systems and data infrastructure. And it urges researchers to foster a collaborative research ecosystem based on broadly sharing court data
Equitable Mootness Doctrine Seems to be Restricted in Application to Complex Reorganizations
No full text(Excerpt)
The issue in this article is when an appeal from a bankruptcy court order is equitably moot. As to be discussed further infra, generally, courts seem to apply equitable mootness only in complex reorganizations, and there seems to be a trend of restricting the application of the doctrine.
...
Equitable mootness is similar to the concepts of waiver, forfeiture, or even estoppel. The underlying principle of this doctrine is that after time has passed since the implementation of an equitable judgment, the relief that an appellant seeks on appeal becomes impractical, imprudent, and therefore inequitable. Further, courts aim to protect parties by dismissing an appeal of a bankruptcy confirmation for equitable mootness. Specifically, equitable mootness is meant to protect the debtor’s ability to advance from bankruptcy and other parties\u27 good faith reliance interests in the execution of the bankruptcy plan.
The majority of courts apply the equitable mootness doctrine to deny the advancement of an appeal only in complex reorganization cases. Different jurisdictions use different tests to determine when equitable mootness should be applied. Recent decisions show a trend toward restricting the application of the doctrine
Selling and Abandoning Legal Rights
No full textLegal rights impose concomitant legal burdens. This paper considers the valuation and disposition of legal rights, and legal burdens, when courts cannot be relied upon to perfectly enforce rights. Because courts do not perfectly enforce rights, victims suffer some loss in the value of their rights depending on the degree of underenforcement. The welfare implications of trading away and abandoning rights are examined. Victims do not necessarily trade away rights when and only when such trade is socially desirable. Relatively pessimistic victims (who believetheir rights are weaker than injurers do) trade away rights too cheaply. Extremely pessimistic victims abandon their rights. Implications for the enforceability of waivers, discrimination in courts, and legal ethics are discussed
Kyle D. Smith Mock Trial Award
No full textChosen by the Moot Court Trial Team faculty for excellence in mock trial
Why is Diversity Among Appointed Arbitrators Lacking Given the Global Spread of Parties and Their Disputes?
No full textSecuring Subsea Cable Critical Infrastructure, Holes in the Governing Legal Framework in the United States and Internationally
No full textDrug Testing and Cannabis Impairment in the Workplace: Exploring Employment Protections for Recreational Cannabis Users in the United States
No full textProtections for LGBTQ+ Students and Athletes: Title IX in Light of Bostock v. Clayton County
No full textAwards for Outstanding Achievement
No full textAwarded to students who performed exceptionally well in a particular academic discipline or program of study