7300 research outputs found
Sort by
Causation\u27s Due Process Dimensions
No full textFor decades, courts have grappled with the tension between compensating victims of mass harms and maintaining fairness to defendants when causation is difficult to prove. This Article argues that the Supreme Court’s due process jurisprudence provides a relevant framework for navigating this tension. We contend that the Court over the last three decades has established a consistent Fourteenth Amendment due process approach in punitive damages and personal jurisdiction cases, which is rooted in antecedents tracing to the nineteenth century and relies on a nexus of interests that balances individual rights, state interests, and federalism concerns. This framework, we argue, has significant implications for evaluating the constitutionality of state tort doctrines like market-share liability and innovator liability, which challenge traditional notions of causation. Our analysis reveals that these doctrines may be vulnerable in some applications to constitutional challenge under the Court’s modern due process approach. We trace the evolution of the Court’s jurisprudence, demonstrating how it emphasizes the relationship between a plaintiff’s harm, a defendant’s conduct, and the forum state’s interest. Applying this framework to market-share and innovator liability, we suggest that tort causation itself may have constitutional dimensions. This finding has far-reaching implications for mass tort litigation and could reshape how courts approach cases involving multiple actors and attenuated chains of causation. By bridging the gap between due process jurisprudence and tort law, this Article offers a new perspective on longstanding debates about liability in complex cases and provides a roadmap for courts navigating these challenging waters
Competition is for the Ring, Not the Court
Get PDFDolph Ziggler and JD McDonagh performed in a ring in front of a crowd of 20,000 people. Their match was broadcast worldwide. Ziggler placed everything on the line in a match where he wagered his entire career with World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) for the Intercontinental Championship. Back and forth the two fought. Ziggler brought an early onslaught against McDonagh. Punches and kicks rained down. McDonagh, in a turn of luck, slipped through the ropes and reversed the onslaught onto Ziggler. After the pummeling, McDonagh threw Ziggler over the ropes onto the cement floor. The referee started counting down . . . 10 . . . McDonagh slammed Ziggler’s head against the announcer’s table . . . 6 . . . and against the steel steps leading to the ring . . . 1. The match ended. No one won. Disqualification. The next day, WWE released Dolph Ziggler, ending his 19-year career with the company. A veteran of the industry, Ziggler’s newfound freedom would be a boon for any smaller wrestling organization because his fame from the WWE would draw crowds to their shows. Unfortunately for those smaller promotions, Ziggler’s contract contained a 90-day non-compete clause which prevented Ziggler from performing under similar promotions. This begs the question: who won
Burdening Caregivers with But-For Causation
Get PDFIt is human nature to depend on one another. You may depend on your friend for a laugh after a hard day or your classmate to bring a strong work ethic to a group project. Whether the dependence stems from a comfortable bond, a familiar relationship, or a passing expectation, we rely on each other daily. However, some people experience a deeper level of need where they are dependent on another person to navigate even the basic necessities of life. Imagine if your loved one required this level of dependence—where even the smallest of tasks required your support. Now imagine if your ability to care for your loved one hinged on a company’s stamp of approval
Caught in the Crossfire: Eighth Circuit Inconsistencies in Judicial Review and Mental Health Hardship to Citizen Children
Get PDFdesigned to thwart undocumented immigrants from remaining in the country, often hinge on the mental health of these very children.3 Caught in the crossfire of competing concerns, citizen children bear the unintended consequences of a legal framework that treats their hardships as both a policy concern and an adjudicative hurdle. Though these challenges arise from a deep
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Get PDFThe Legislative Update is compiled and written annually by the Journal of Dispute Resolution’s Associate Members under the direction of the Associate Editor in Chief. It is designed to provide readers with a listing of pertinent legislation affecting the field of alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) and a more detailed look at certain bills because of their importance or novelty within the field
A Tragedy in Three Acts: Discrimination, Retaliation, and FERPA
Get PDFAs humanity has entered the digital age, we have come to possess incomprehensible amounts of recorded information—by some estimates, 295,000,000,000 gigabytes. With such an abundance of information at our fingertips, careful data management is not just a problem for IT specialists, but an occupational hazard for every American worker with a computer. In Ferry v. Board of Education. of Jefferson City Public School District, a teacher—Tammy Ferry—lost her job because she and her attorney failed to understand the hyper-technicalities involved in data privacy. This Note will argue that Ferry’s school district, the state of Missouri, and the U.S. Congress unintentionally built a trap that sprang on Ferry. That trap is waiting for its next victim