Mitchell Hamline School of Law
Not a member yet
3445 research outputs found
Sort by
Ventura v. Kyle and American Sniper; The Anatomy of a Public Figure’s Lawsuit
Get PDFChris Kyle\u27s book, American Sniper, detailed his exploits as a prolific Navy SEAL sniper. In a book subchapter Kyle detailed an encounter with a Mr. Scruff Face in a San Diego Bar. The book states that Ventura made certain statements that were demeaning of the United States and the Navy SEALS. Scruff Face was subsequently identified by Chris Kyle as Jesse Ventura, former governor of Minnesota. Ventura sued Chris Kyle for defamation, appropriation, and unjust enrichment. Relying on trial court documents, briefs, and the opinions in the case, this article probes those theories of recovery with an emphasis on the jury instructions, with a view to establishing clearer instructions in public figure lawsuits involving overlapping defamation and appropriation claims
Advocating at the Intersection of Law, Science, and Culture Change: Options for Changing Minnesota\u27s Statute of Limitations for Criminal Sexual Conduct Felonies
Get PDFPutting Family First: The Need for Reform in Minnesota\u27s Foster Care Licensing Statutes and Processes to Support Relative Placement
Get PDFWounded Souls: The Need for Child Protection Professionals and Faith Leaders to Recognize and Respond to the Spiritual Impact of Child Abuse
Get PDFEvaluating the Singapore Convention Through a U.S.-Centric Litigation Lens: Lessons Learned from Nearly Two Decades of Mediation Disuputes in American Federal and State Courts
Get PDFThis article compares a recent five-year dataset (2013-2017) on mediation litigation trends with an earlier dataset (1999-2003) to make some general observations about mediation litigation trends over the last nineteen years, with a specific focus on enforcement of mediated settlements, the topic addressed by the Singapore Convention.
Part II of this article provides a general overview of U.S. mediation litigation trends, including a detailed description of how the databases were created and caveats about their use, a summary of raw numbers, and a review of the common mediation issues litigated in U.S. Courts. Principal conclusions include the fact that litigation about mediation has steadily increased between 1999 and 2017, a time period when new civil filings in state and federal courts have been more or less constant, or in some years declined. Disputes about enforcement of mediated settlements remain the most commonly litigated topic; however, disputing about enforcement has significantly declined overall in proportion to all litigated mediation disputes.
Part III offers a detailed examination of mediated settlement enforcement litigation, including types of enforcement disputes, defenses to enforcement, the enforcement-confidentiality connection, and significance of the subject matter of the underlying dispute. Principal conclusions include the fact that mediated settlements continue to be enforced at a very high rate—68% on average for the 2013–2017 time period. The frequency with which parties raise “traditional” contract defenses such as whether there was a meeting of the minds or mistake, as well as challenges to fundamental fairness of the process through fraud or duress, have declined. In their place are a panoply of procedural and jurisdictional defenses which have increased in number as mediation gets institutionalized in statutes and court rules. As was true in the original 1999–2003 dataset, cases involving mediator malfeasance are exceedingly rare, and with a 95% settlement enforcement rate, virtually always a loser for the challenging party. Surprisingly, cases raising both enforcement defenses and confidentiality issues were far less common in 2013–2017 compared to 1999–2003, and settlement enforcement far more likely in such cases in the recent time period.
Part IV applies lessons gleaned from the litigation data to evaluate the choices made by the drafters of the Singapore Convention. From my perspective as a chronicler of “mediations gone bad,” there is much to praise in the drafters’ efforts
Designing and Implementing a State Court ODR System: From Disappointment to Celebration
Get PDFFor the past two and one-third years I have had the pleasure of working with the New York State Unified Court System to design and implement an online dispute resolution (ODR) platform. It truly has been an interesting, educational, at times character-building, and ultimately tremendously valuable experience. This article will share specific design components from the ODR platforms we proposed as well as some of the critical lessons I learned. The hope is that it will be helpful to those either contemplating, or in the process of implementing, a court integrated ODR system
Taking a “Hard Look”: The Legality and Policy Implications Surrounding the PolyMet Mine Land Transfer
Get PDFIslam in the Mind of American State Courts: 1960 to 2001
Get PDFThis project reviews how American state courts portrayed Islam and Muslims from 1960 until September 11, 2001. The purpose of this project is not to construct some overarching theoretical framework to explain American social and legal views of Islam and Muslims, though I will necessarily interpret what the cases say to some extent. Given the lengthy time period involved, the number of cases in which Muslims or Islam are referenced, and the fact that these cases come from many states, it seemed prudent to defer to others who have constructed critiques of the way American law as a whole has treated Muslims. Nor will I attempt to put these cases in the historical contexts in which they arose, including the actions and views of the political branches when these cases were decided. But I hope that a survey of these cases will be instructive as to the ways in which implicit biases can affect the quality of justice and illuminate the ways in which courts both reflected and overcame these biases