bepress Legal Repository
Not a member yet
645042 research outputs found
Sort by
Preliminary Injunctions Prevail Through the Winter of Buckhannon
No full textThe Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976 allows courts to award attorneys’ fees to the “prevailing party” in any “action or proceeding” enforcing several civil rights-related statutes. Yet, this statute fails to define the term “prevailing party,” leaving the courts to define it over time. The Supreme Court’s piecemeal, vague definitions of “prevailing party” have only complicated the legal landscape and caused more uncertainty for potential plaintiffs and their prospective attorneys. Without the relief offered by recovery of attorneys’ fees, private litigants may be dissuaded from pursuing meritorious litigation due to overwhelming costs of representation, and attorneys may face a choice between accepting or denying an otherwise successful case solely due to a prospective client’s ability to pay. In Sole v. Wyner, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who is awarded a preliminary injunction is not considered a prevailing party if “the merits of the case are ultimately decided against her.” In deciding Sole, the Court declined to answer a separate but important question: Is a plaintiff a prevailing party if their case is mooted after obtaining a preliminary injunction?
Courts attempting to answer this question struggle to find tangible guidance from the Supreme Court following its decision in Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, resulting in inconsistencies, overly complicated analyses, and in some cases, misguided rejection of prevailing party status. The legal analysis behind prevailing party status must be streamlined to preserve this critical and necessary litigation. This Note explores how, in the aftermath of Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., a plaintiff whose case is mooted after obtaining a preliminary injunction is a prevailing party within the framework of Buckhannon
Enhancing Public Access to Agency Law
No full textA just, democratic society governed by the rule of law requires that the law be available, not hidden. This principle extends to legal materials produced by administrative agencies, all of which should be made widely accessible to the public. Federal agencies in the United States do disclose online many legal documents—sometimes voluntarily, sometimes in compliance with statutory requirements. But the scope and consistency of these disclosures leaves considerable room for improvement. After conducting a year-long study for the Administrative Conference of the United States, we identified seventeen possible statutory amendments that would improve proactive online disclosure of agency legal materials. Although detailed and sometimes technical, these recommendations can be encapsulated in one simple, succinct principle: All legal materials that agencies are obligated to disclose upon request under the Freedom of Information Act should be affirmatively made accessible to the public on agency websites. Our specific recommendations fall into three main categories: clarification and expansion of the types of legal materials that agencies must disclose affirmatively; specification of the methods of disclosure that will ensure ready accessibility to the public; and establishment of mechanisms that will help ensure agency compliance with these affirmative disclosure requirements. If a democratic government is to be truly transparent, then all its legal materials should be easily available to the public. Congress should take the steps needed to ensure that administrative agencies more consistently and affirmatively disclose all their legal materials in a manner accessible to all
Rules for Robots: Constitutional Challenges with the AI Bill of Right\u27s Principles Regulating Automated Systems
No full text
In Support of Industry-Conscious Disclosure Standards for Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Patents
No full textOne of the fundamental requirements for a patent application is a disclosure of the invention via an accurate written description with sufficient detail to enable the recreation of the invention. The U.S. patent system has historically reviewed patent applications from various industries with a uniform set of requirements and standards. However, the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries operate on notably extended product development timelines and face unique administrative pressures related to their products when compared with other industries. In response to these pressures, biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies have traditionally applied for patent protections through liberal use of genus claims and other strategies that allow for early and broad protection of groups of related products. However, three recent decisions by the Federal Circuit, and a subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court, have notably heightened patent disclosure requirements for technologies from these industries. This Comment discusses the Federal Circuit’s and Supreme Court’s decisions, compares these decisions to prior trends in the judiciary, and considers the potential impact of the decisions on the patent environment in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. In light of the decisions’ potential impact on these industries, this Comment argues that the federal judiciary should align the disclosure standard more closely to the requirements of the Patent Act while protecting the usefulness of genus claims for the pharmaceutical and related industries
Cardozo Law News Brief: March 22, 2024
No full textFeatured Faculty: Samuel Weinstein Stewart Sterk Luis Calderon Gomez Young Ran (Christine) Kim
Campus News: Kwanza Jones, Class of 1999, Honored at 14th Annual BALLSA Celebration Cardozo’s Civil Rights Clinic Wins Fifth Circuit Appeal for Client in Police Misconduct Case Cardozo’s Entertainment Law Week Showcases Alumni Who Have Made it in the Industry
Events: The 2024 Cardozo Colloquium on Global and Constitutional Theor