E. Supp.

Decoupling Vaccine Laws

Abstract: School immunization requirements are an effective way of increasing vaccine rates and reducing outbreaks, but they may have a dark underside. Although such mandates protect the general public, the availability of exemptions may be open to exploitation as a tool to try to undermine other avenues for protecting the vaccine-deprived children themselves. This essay […]

Read More :: View PDF

Prisoner Denied Sex Reassignment Surgery: The First Circuit Ignores Medical Consensus in Kosilek v. Spencer

Abstract: On December 16, 2014, in Kosilek v. Spencer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that refusing to provide a transgender prisoner sex reassignment surgery did not violate the Eighth Amendment. The court reasoned that the prisoner’s claim did not amount to an Eighth Amendment violation because she received adequate treatment […]

Read More :: View PDF

Riding the Waiver: In re American Express Merchants’ Litigation and the Future of the Vindication of Statutory Rights

Abstract: On February 1, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in In re American Express Merchants’ Litigation that a class action waiver was unenforceable because class litigation was the only economically feasible way for the plaintiffs to vindicate their statutory rights under the Sherman Act. In doing so, the Second […]

Read More :: View PDF

Implied Class Warfare: Why Rule 23 Needs an Explicit Ascertainability Requirement in the Wake of Byrd v. Aaron’s Inc.

Abstract: On April 16, 2015, in Byrd v. Aaron’s Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit articulated its heightened standard for Rule 23’s implied requirement that a class be ascertainable. This standard has proven to frustrate Rule 23’s historical purpose of providing small-claim plaintiffs a mechanism through which they can economically prosecute […]

Read More :: View PDF

Limited Faith in the Good Faith Exception: The Third Circuit Requires a Warrant for GPS Searches and Narrows the Scope of the Davis Exception to the Exclusionary Rule in United States v. Katzin

Abstract: On October 22, 2013, in United States v. Katzin, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that police and federal agents must obtain a warrant prior to attaching a GPS device on a vehicle. In doing so, the Third Circuit became the first federal appeals court to add a warrant requirement […]

Read More :: View PDF

Treading Murky Waters: The Third Circuit’s Search for When a Claim Arises in In re Grossman’s, Inc.

Abstract: On June 2, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in In re Grossman’s, Inc. held that despite a post-petition manifestation of injury, the tort claims of a woman allegedly exposed to a Chapter Eleven debtor’s asbestos-containing products arose pre-petition. In so holding, the court reasoned that a claim arises when […]

Read More :: View PDF

Refusing to “Kiss the Great Writ Good-Bye”: The Ninth Circuit, in Doody v. Ryan, Ignores the Supreme Court’s Cues Regarding Federal Habeas Relief

Abstract: On May 4, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Doody v. Ryan held that the Arizona Court of Appeals’ application of U.S. Supreme Court precedent regarding Miranda warnings was unreasonable. Therefore, it granted the defendant federal habeas relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). In so […]

Read More :: View PDF

A Step in the Wrong Direction: The Ninth Circuit Requires Reasonable Suspicion for Forensic Examinations of Electronic Storage Devices During Border Searches in United States v. Cotterman

Abstract: On March 8, 2013, in United States v. Cotterman, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—sitting en banc—held that U.S. border agents must have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before conducting a forensic search of an electronic storage device at the border. In reaching this conclusion, the court narrowed existing federal […]

Read More :: View PDF

Merck-y Standards: The Third Circuit’s Diverging Analysis of Reverse Payment Settlements in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation

Abstract: On July 16, 2012, in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that, when challenged as an antitrust violation, a reverse payment settlement constitutes prima facie evidence of an unreasonable restraint of trade. The “quick look rule of reason” analysis articulated by the court represents a […]

Read More :: View PDF

The Overlooked Daisy Chain Problem in Salman

Abstract: In Salman v. United States, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict with United States v. Newman as to when corporate insiders receive sufficient personal benefit from making gifts of inside information to make the tip and consequent trade illegal. This Essay explores an overlooked aspect of these cases, the “daisy chain […]

Read More :: View PDF