Alabama Law Scholarly Commons - The University of Alabama
Not a member yet
1539 research outputs found
Sort by
To save the nation: a novel
No full textA feast of political intrigue and an astute exploration of Argentina\u27s nefarious past.https://scholarship.law.ua.edu/harper_lee_prize_books_2020/1011/thumbnail.jp
Taming Blockbuster Punitive Damages Awards
Get PDFBlockbuster punitive damages awards ie those awards exceeding 100 million attract attention based on their sheer size While there have been fewer such awards in the last decade they remain an important presence in the legal landscape Taking notice of these and other large punitive damages awards courts and state policymakers have taken steps to both constrain them and render them more predictable States have enacted punitive damages caps to limit the amount of punitive damages courts can award but these caps often contain a number of exceptions and apply only to damages under a specific state\u27s law At a broader level the Supreme Court has announced a general limitation on punitive damages under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which applies to all cases and contains very few exceptions Under State Farm v Campbell punitive damages awards that exceed the accompanying compensatory award by more than a factor of ten will generally violate due process However this limit is substantially higher than the punitive damages caps that some states have put in place This Article provides the first empirical analysis of the effect of state punitive damages caps on blockbuster awards and offers the first comparison of the effect of these reforms with the effect of the Supreme Court\u27s current constitutional doctrine on punitive damages Understanding the roles of these legal regimes in how the largest punitive damages awards are imposed provides unique insight into how different factors affect courts\u27 decisions to award punitive damages Relying on this insight as well as previously developed empirical evidence we argue that it is time for a new constitutional doctrine on punitive damages In particular we argue that the Supreme Court should incorporate the lessons learned from the different effects of state punitive damages caps to lower the limit placed on punitive damages under the Due Process Clause For cases involving financial loss punitive awards more than three times the size of the accompanying compensatory award will generally violate due process For cases involving severe injuries such as wrongful deaths the total value of punitive damages and compensatory damages should not exceed economic estimates of the value of a statistical life which is an economic deterrence measure This proposed structure would better achieve the Court\u27s goal of returning predictability to punitive damages awards blockbuster and otherwis
Regulating Bank Reputation Risk
Get PDFIn the aftermath of a school shooting in Florida the New York State bank regulator urged banks to manage the reputation risk posed by doing business with the National Rifle Association a gun rights advocacy group As part of Operation Choke Point a federal regulator told banks to end relationships with payday lenders because those activities posed reputation risk Another federal regulator warns banks their reputations might be damaged by lending to oil and gas companies that are perceived to cause environmental harm Reputation risk is the risk that bank stakeholders will negatively change their perception of the bank It was almost unmentioned in banking regulation until the mid1990s but as these examples illustrate it is now ubiquitous brbrThis Article surveys reputation risk guidance and enforcement efforts It shows reputation risk regulation is usually an ancillary consideration to credit risk operational risk or other primary risk In these instances reputation risk adds little because regulators have strong tools to address the root problems Sometimes however regulators justify guidance or enforcement primarily in terms of controlling reputation risk Regulators use reputation risk to weigh in on hotbutton political topics afield from bank safety and soundness like gun rights payday lending and fossil fuels Because regulators believe reputation risk is present in every facet of banking little prevents them from using it to address other controversies brbrThis Article argues expansive regulation of reputation risk is harmful There is little evidence that regulators can accurately predict and prevent bank reputational losses Moreover because reputation risk is largely subjective regulators can use it to further political agendas apart from bank safety and soundness Unnecessary politicization of banking regulation undermines faith in the regulatory system and correspondingly erodes trust in banksb
The final reckoning
No full textHis last challenge: live long enough to save the lives of those he loves. Cold-blooded killer JimBone Wheeler blames Tom McMurtrie for putting him on death row. He once vowed that he\u27d bring \u27a reckoning\u27 on Tom and everyone the southern lawyer holds dear. When Wheeler escapes from prison, he aims to fulfill his promise. Victim by victim, he\u27s getting closer to his ultimate target. But for Tom, who\u27s dying of cancer, the role of savior and protector is a struggle that is becoming more desperate by the hour. As the body count mounts, Tom, his partner, Rick Drake, and his best friend, Bocephus Haynes, brace for a confrontation like nothing they have ever faced before. This battle will be waged not in a courthouse but on the streets and fields of north Alabama. With all those he loves at risk, Tom must save his family, his friends, and his legacy from a killer whose hunger for retribution knows no bounds. Now, as time ticks down and fate and vengeance close in, who will survive Wheeler\u27s final reckoning? --Provided by publisherhttps://scholarship.law.ua.edu/harper_lee_prize_books_2020/1001/thumbnail.jp
Why I Stopped Believing in Customary International Law
No full textThere has been a recent proliferation of scholarship on the development, identification, and determination of customary international law [CIL]. Much of this has focused on explication of the theoretical and practical problems inherent in the modern use of CIL as a source of international law. However, there are influential voices who argue that CIL nevertheless continues to play a necessary role in the international legal system, and that many of the problems that have been identified are exaggerated. This paper maintains that the problems which have been identified in the processes of identification and determination of CIL are of such a serious and institutionalized nature as to produce a presumptive distrust of any statement about what is or is not CIL. It argues that the process of identifying and authoritatively determining CIL must evolve to more objectively evidence the positive assent of states to the making of customary rules
Public Attitudes Toward Contemporary Issues in Liver Allocation
No full textAllocation of scarce livers for transplantation seeks to balance competing ethical principles of autonomy, utility, and justice. Given the history and ongoing dependence of transplantation on public support for funding and organs, understanding and incorporating public attitudes into allocation decisions seems appropriate. In the context of the current controversy around liver allocation, we sought to determine public preferences about issues relevant to the debate. We performed multiple surveys of attitudes around donation and evaluated these using conjoint analysis and clarifying follow-up questions. We found little public support that allocation decisions should be based solely on risk of waiting-list mortality. Strong public sentiment supported maximizing outcomes after transplantation, prioritizing US citizens or residents, keeping organs local, and considering cost in allocation decisions. We then present a methodology for incorporating these preferences into the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (or MELD) priority score. Taken together, these findings suggest that current allocation schemes do not accurately reflect public preferences and suggest a framework to better align allocation with the values of the public
Notice Pleading in Exile
Get PDFAccording to the conventional wisdom the Supreme Courts 2009 decision in Ashcroft v Iqbal discarded notice pleading in favor of plausibility pleading This Article ” part of a symposium commemorating the Iqbal decisions tenth anniversary ” highlights decisions during those ten years that have continued to endorse notice pleading despite Iqbal It also argues that those decisions reflect the best way to read the Iqbal decision Although Iqbal is a troubling decision in many respects it can be implemented consistently with the noticepleading framework that the original drafters of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure had in min