Class actions: The class as party and client

Notre Dame Law Review

Volumn 73, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 913-960

  Shapiro, David L ^a  

^a HARVARD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032387150     PISSN: 07453515     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (228)

1. Three developments in 1997 were of high public visibility and served to increase the level of interest in the class action technique. The first was the settlement agreement reached between a group of state attorneys general and the tobacco industry - an agreement that, at this writing, is contingent on congressional approval. This agreement contains many controversial and important provisions, but for present purposes, the most significant is the stipulation that in the absence of the defendant's consent, there may be individual lawsuits arising from the past conduct of one or more tobacco companies, but no class actions or other aggregation devices. See Stephen Labaton, Limits on Lawsuits and Damage Claims Could Bring Years of Legal Fights, N.Y. TIMES, June 22, 1997, at A14; Excerpts From Agreement Between States and Tobacco Industry, N.Y. TIMES, June 25, 1997, at A18. Second, the Supreme Court, in June 1997, decided that a class of persons whose present or potential claims were based on exposure to asbestos products manufactured by a group of defendants could not be certified as a "settlement class" under the criteria laid down in FED. R. CIV. P. 23. see Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 117 S. Ct. 2231 (1997) (emphasizing that the requisites for certification of a settlement class were especially stringent and that potential conflicts and other problems in the case before it constituted a clear bar to certification, and explicitly rejecting the holding of the court below that a class could never be certified for settlement purposes unless it met all the requirements for a litigating class under Rule 23). Finally, in August 1997, a jury in the first phase of a class action suit found that Dow Chemical Company had knowingly misled the public by concealing information about the health risks of silicone breast implants. See Barry Meier, Dow Chemical Deceived Women on Breast Implants, Jury Decides, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 19, 1997, at A1.
2. Three developments in 1997 were of high public visibility and served to increase the level of interest in the class action technique. The first was the settlement agreement reached between a group of state attorneys general and the tobacco industry - an agreement that, at this writing, is contingent on congressional approval. This agreement contains many controversial and important provisions, but for present purposes, the most significant is the stipulation that in the absence of the defendant's consent, there may be individual lawsuits arising from the past conduct of one or more tobacco companies, but no class actions or other aggregation devices. See Stephen Labaton, Limits on Lawsuits and Damage Claims Could Bring Years of Legal Fights, N.Y. TIMES, June 22, 1997, at A14; Excerpts From Agreement Between States and Tobacco Industry, N.Y. TIMES, June 25, 1997, at A18. Second, the Supreme Court, in June 1997, decided that a class of persons whose present or potential claims were based on exposure to asbestos products manufactured by a group of defendants could not be certified as a "settlement class" under the criteria laid down in FED. R. CIV. P. 23. see Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 117 S. Ct. 2231 (1997) (emphasizing that the requisites for certification of a settlement class were especially stringent and that potential conflicts and other problems in the case before it constituted a clear bar to certification, and explicitly rejecting the holding of the court below that a class could never be certified for settlement purposes unless it met all the requirements for a litigating class under Rule 23). Finally, in August 1997, a jury in the first phase of a class action suit found that Dow Chemical Company had knowingly misled the public by concealing information about the health risks of silicone breast implants. See Barry Meier, Dow Chemical Deceived Women on Breast Implants, Jury Decides, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 19, 1997, at A1.
3. Three developments in 1997 were of high public visibility and served to increase the level of interest in the class action technique. The first was the settlement agreement reached between a group of state attorneys general and the tobacco industry - an agreement that, at this writing, is contingent on congressional approval. This agreement contains many controversial and important provisions, but for present purposes, the most significant is the stipulation that in the absence of the defendant's consent, there may be individual lawsuits arising from the past conduct of one or more tobacco companies, but no class actions or other aggregation devices. See Stephen Labaton, Limits on Lawsuits and Damage Claims Could Bring Years of Legal Fights, N.Y. TIMES, June 22, 1997, at A14; Excerpts From Agreement Between States and Tobacco Industry, N.Y. TIMES, June 25, 1997, at A18. Second, the Supreme Court, in June 1997, decided that a class of persons whose present or potential claims were based on exposure to asbestos products manufactured by a group of defendants could not be certified as a "settlement class" under the criteria laid down in FED. R. CIV. P. 23. see Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 117 S. Ct. 2231 (1997) (emphasizing that the requisites for certification of a settlement class were especially stringent and that potential conflicts and other problems in the case before it constituted a clear bar to certification, and explicitly rejecting the holding of the court below that a class could never be certified for settlement purposes unless it met all the requirements for a litigating class under Rule 23). Finally, in August 1997, a jury in the first phase of a class action suit found that Dow Chemical Company had knowingly misled the public by concealing information about the health risks of silicone breast implants. See Barry Meier, Dow Chemical Deceived Women on Breast Implants, Jury Decides, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 19, 1997, at A1.
4. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
5. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
6. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
7. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
8. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
9. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
10. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
11. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
12. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
13. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
14. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
15. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995);
16. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
17. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
18. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
19. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
20. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
21. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
22. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
23. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
24. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
25. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
26. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
27. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
28. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source
29. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
30. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
31. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
32. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
33. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
34. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
35. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
36. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
37. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
38. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
39. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
40. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
41. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial
42. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
43. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
44. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
45. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
46. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
47. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
48. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
49. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
50. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
51. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
52. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
53. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
54. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix.
55. A full bibliography of those publications devoted in whole or substantial part to the use of class actions in litigation would warrant a sizable appendix. But a listing of books and articles I have found helpful - some of which are long and detailed, while others, though short, are incisive and provocative - may serve a dual purpose: to provide a brief, accessible bibliography for those interested in further research and to furnish a single, easily consulted source of cross-reference for later citations in this essay. With apologies to those important works that have been inadvertently omitted, the list includes: JACK B. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN MASS TORT LITIGATION (1995); STEPHEN C. YEAZELL, FROM MEDIEVAL GROUP LITIGATION TO THE MODERN CLASS ACTION (1987) [hereinafter YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION]; Kenneth S. Abraham, Individual Action and Collective Responsibility: The Dilemma of Mass Tort Reform, 73 VA. L. REV. 845 (1987); Robert G. Bone, Personal and Impersonal Litigative Forms: Reconceiving the History of Adjudicative Representation, 70 B.U. L. REV. 213 (1990) [hereinafter Bone, Litigative Forms]; Robert G. Bone, Rethinking the "Day in Court" Ideal and Nonparty Preclusion, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 193 (1992) [hereinafter Bone, Nonparty Preclusion]; Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 VAND. L. REV. 561 (1993) [hereinafter Bone, Statistical Adjudication]; Paul D. Carrington & Derek P. Apanovitch, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under, Federal Rule 23, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 461 (1997); John C. Coffee, Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 1343 (1995); Edward H. Cooper, Rule 23: Challenges to the Rulemaking Process, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 13 (1996); Roger C. Cramton, Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, and "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 811 (1995); Kenneth W. Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975); Richard A. Epstein, The Consolidation of Complex Litigation: A Critical Evaluation of the ALI Proposal, 10 J.L. & COM. 1 (1990); Eric D. Green, Advancing Individual Rights Through Group Justice, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 791 (1997); Bruce L. Hay, Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 479 (1997); Geoffrey B. Hazard, The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D. 299 (1972); Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805 (1997); Marcel Kahan & Linda Silberman, Matsushita and Beyond: The Role of State Courts in Class Actions Involving Exclusive Federal Claims, 1996 SUP. CT. REV. 219; Harry Kalven, Jr. & Maurice Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. CHI. L. REV. 684 (1941); Susan P. Koniak, Feasting While the Widow Weeps: Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1045 (1995); Susan P. Koniak & George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 VA. L. REV. 1051 (1996); Larry Kramer, Choice of Law in Complex Litigation, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 547 (1996); John Leubsdorf, Co-opting the Class Action, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1222 (1995); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiff's Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1991); Richard L. Marcus, They Can't Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 858 (1995); Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1821 (1995); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlements of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1159 (1995); Arthur R. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem, " 92 HARV. L. REV. 664 (1979); Linda S. Mullenix, Class Resolution of the Mass-Tort Case: A Proposed Federal Procedure Act, 64 TEX. L. REV. 1039 (1986) [hereinafter Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case]; Linda S. Mullenix, The Constitutionality of the Proposed Rule 23 Class Action Amendments, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 615 (1997) [hereinafter Mullenix, Constitutionality]; Linda S. Mullenix, Mass Tort as Public Law Litigation: Paradigm Misplaced, 88 Nw. U. L. REV. 579 (1994) [hereinafter Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced]; George L. Priest, Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 521 (1997); Robert L. Rabin, Continuing Tensions in the Resolution of Mass Toxic Harm Cases: A Comment, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 1037 (1995); Robert L. Rabin, Tort System on Trial: The Burden of Mass Toxics Litigation, 98 YALE L.J. 813 (1989) [hereinafter Rabin, Tort System]; Judith Resnik, Aggregation, Settlement, and Dismay, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 918 (1995);
56. In the works cited supra note 2, writings of those who lean toward the former (individual autonomy) side of the debate include Epstein, Solomon, and Trangsrud. See also Abraham, supra note 2, at 847 ("[T] he move toward collective [as opposed to individual] responsibility in tort law is not, on the whole, a sensible development."). Among the writings cited supra note 2 that look more to a "collective" approach are those of Bone, Hay, Macey & Miller, Rosenberg, and Weinstein.
57. Of the works cited, several of those I would put in the "collective" camp portray the use of techniques of collectivization as the best means of promoting individual justice. See, e.g., WEINSTEIN, supra note 2; Rosenberg, supra note 2. In addition, a number of the works cited supra note 2, including those of Coffee, Cooper, Marcus, McGovern, and Resnik, recognize the changes that are occurring, evaluate the defects and virtues of those changes, and make recommendations for safeguarding both individual and group interests. For reasons explained below, I agree with the idea that individuals are often better served by a collective approach to the treatment of class actions. But the two approaches I have described are necessarily in some tension, especially if one accepts the view that a significant value of a procedural system is the "dignitary" function of facilitating individual participation in the process even when unfettered participation may run counter to the interests (and majority wishes) of a group of which the individual is a member, or may consume significant public resources. For a discussion of such dignitary values, see Jerry L. Mashaw, The Supreme Court's Due Process Calculus for Administrative Adjudication in Mathews v. Eldridge: Three Factors in Search of a Theory of Value, 44 U. CHI. L. REV. 28, 49-54, 57 (1976). But cf. Samuel R. Gross & Kent D. Syverud, Don't Try: Civil Jury Verdicts in a System Geared to Settlement, 44 UCLA L. REV. 1, 57-59 (1997) (discussing, inter alia, the absence of empirical evidence supporting the value of dignitary participation).
58. Of the works cited, several of those I would put in the "collective" camp portray the use of techniques of collectivization as the best means of promoting individual justice. See, e.g., WEINSTEIN, supra note 2; Rosenberg, supra note 2. In addition, a number of the works cited supra note 2, including those of Coffee, Cooper, Marcus, McGovern, and Resnik, recognize the changes that are occurring, evaluate the defects and virtues of those changes, and make recommendations for safeguarding both individual and group interests. For reasons explained below, I agree with the idea that individuals are often better served by a collective approach to the treatment of class actions. But the two approaches I have described are necessarily in some tension, especially if one accepts the view that a significant value of a procedural system is the "dignitary" function of facilitating individual participation in the process even when unfettered participation may run counter to the interests (and majority wishes) of a group of which the individual is a member, or may consume significant public resources. For a discussion of such dignitary values, see Jerry L. Mashaw, The Supreme Court's Due Process Calculus for Administrative Adjudication in Mathews v. Eldridge: Three Factors in Search of a Theory of Value, 44 U. CHI. L. REV. 28, 49-54, 57 (1976). But cf. Samuel R. Gross & Kent D. Syverud, Don't Try: Civil Jury Verdicts in a System Geared to Settlement, 44 UCLA L. REV. 1, 57-59 (1997) (discussing, inter alia, the absence of empirical evidence supporting the value of dignitary participation).
59. See, e.g., David L. Shapiro, Courts, Legislatures, and Paternalism, 74 VA. L. REV. 519, 551-72 (1988).
60. The idea of an "entity" approach was perhaps most lucidly suggested in a thoughtful and provocative discussion by Edward Cooper. See Cooper, supra note 2, at 26-32. The ramifications of the entity model are developed infra text accompanying notes 53-80.
61. The comparisons drawn here, and to some extent the views expressed, are analogous to those of Abram Chayes in his pathbreaking article, The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation, 89 HARV. L. REV. 1281 (1976). But there are some differences (aside from the obvious). Perhaps most important, Chayes focused on what was properly viewed as "public" litigation - litigation that characteristically involved attempts to reconstitute, or even reconceive, the mission of public institutions of many kinds. The litigation I deal with here is, for the most part, essentially "private" in that it generally involves traditional claims of tort and contract against private defendants. The difference from the traditional private dispute is that the cases studied here involve the claims that one or more private wrongdoers have caused injury to a large number of individuals by a single act or a related series of acts.
62. See Cooper, supra note 2, at 26.
63. Yeazell, Defendant Classes, supra note 2, at 694, notes the dormancy of the class action as a litigating device from the mid-eighteenth to the mid-twentieth century.
64. YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION, supra note 2, ch. 2; see also Yeazell, Defendant Classes, supra note 2, at 687-90.
65. While I do not have precise statistics, anyone reasonably familiar with the case law of class actions would, I think, agree that plaintiff class actions far outnumber defendant class actions. Indeed, there is a question whether Rule 23(b)(2) even applies to defendant class actions. See CHARLES A. WRIGUT, LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS § 72, at 515 (5th ed. 1994). And defendant class actions also present more difficult problems both of adequacy of representation - because of the uncertainty that the defendant or defendant's counsel is willing or able to represent a class - and of territorial jurisdiction. On the latter issue, see Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shults, 472 U.S. 797, 811 n.3 (1985).
66. The distinction between tort and contract is one that is often debated and sometimes denied. The distinction is especially hard to draw when the alleged tort arises, as it so often does, in the context of a contractual arrangement and when the tort claim is combined with a claim of breach of express or implied warranty. In this essay, I include this important group of cases within the category of mass torts.
67. On the question of numerosity, and its relation to context, see WRIGHT, supra note 11, § 72, at 510.
68. The discussion in this essay assumes that the civil tort system will continue to play a major role (whether because of inertia or more justifiable grounds of social policy) in achieving the goals of deterrence and compensation. Other possibilities have been discussed and advocated. See, e.g., Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 117 S. Ct. 2231, 2252 (1997) (suggesting that the fairest and most efficient means of compensation may be a "nationwide administrative claims processing regime"); Abraham, supra note 2, at 898-906 (discussing virtues and defects of expanded insurance programs); Rabin, Tort System, supra note 2, at 829 (suggesting move toward a "focused, no-fault" insurance system).
69. Even if this view is accepted, the difficult question remains whether, at least in some circumstances, it is wiser to regard a class action as coming closer to the aggregation model. For reasons elaborated below, see infra text accompanying notes 116-35, I believe Rule 23 should be revised to make it adaptable to both models.
70. See YEAZELL, GROUP LITIGATION, supra note 2, at 194-95, 210-12; Bone, Liligative Forms, supra note 2, at 223.
71. Under the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a) (5), 159 (1994), a majority of the employees in a designated bargaining unit may select a bargaining representative who will then represent all the employees in the unit, including those who voted against representation. (Individual employees do not surrender all options short of quitting, however. Thus, an employee may, at least in theory and often in practice, remain at work when his union calls a strike.) 18 I do not mean to suggest that all involuntary groups are socially beneficial - only that a claim of "involuntariness" is not necessarily fatal to the value of treating an individual as part of a group, both from the standpoint of society and that of the individual. As Susan Koniak has reminded me in commenting on an earlier draft, a company town organized and run by one's employer has less to be said in its favor than a truly public municipality. Just so, when a class is defined primarily by the adverse party (say in the course of settlement negotiations), the class may be far from optimal in terms of coherence and truly shared interests and concerns. The topic is a large one that is only touched on here.
72. On whether class treatment should be available for one aspect of a case if that aspect does not "predominate" with respect to the controversy as a whole, see infra text accompanying notes 131-32.
73. On the value of subclasses in ensuring the proper treatment of divergent interests, see Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 117 S. Ct. 2231, 2250-51 (1997). But as Justice Breyer noted in his partial dissent in that case, subclassing is not costless; it may be inefficient and may adversely affect the ability of the plaintiff class to negotiate a fair settlement. See Id. at 2255-56 (Breyer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
74. See In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig., 55 F.3d 768, 801 (3d Cir. 1995) (disapproving certification of settlement class and approval of settlement, and noting that "[a]t the very least," there should have been certified subclasses separating the fleet owners from the individual owners).
75. See, e.g., Shapiro, supra note 5, at 545-50.
76. 472 U.S. 797 (1985).
77. 490 U.S. 755 (1989).
78. In that part of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(n) (1) (1994), Congress attempted to overrule certain aspects of Martin v. Wilks by providing that in the context of a judgment in an employment discrimination case, a nonparty will be bound by that judgment if the nonparty received adequate prior notice of the proposed judgment and its consequences and was afforded a reasonable opportunity to present objections. But to reflect its awareness of the constitutional issues presented by this provision, Congress included (presumably superfluous) language that nothing in the subsection shall "authorize or permit the denial to any person of the due process of law required by the Constitution." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1 (n) (2) (D).
79. The hypothetical is derived from the facts of Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974). Of course, some of those injured might prefer that the suit not be brought at all because they are financially tied in with the defendants or because they believe such suits ought to fall Within the sole province of public prosecutors. But unless this group is in a majority, they presumably cannot thwart the action, whether they opt out or not, and they can always register their disapproval either actively (by objecting to certification) or passively (by not picking up their check if the class prevails).
80. See, e.g., Epstein, supra note 2, at 6-7; Trangsrud, supra note 2, at 76.
81. On the question whether the action should be certified as a class action at all, I was distressed by the terms of proposed Rule 23 (b) (3) (F) as put forward for comment by the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference in the summer of 1996. See PROPOSED RULES: AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL RULES, 167 F.R.D. 523, 559 (1996) (proposed amendments to Rule 23). This proposal, which is also discussed below, appeared to be based on the premise that the desirability of a small claim class action under Rule 23 (b) (3) should depend to a significant extent on the balance between the stake of each individual class member and the costs of the litigation. See infra note 127. This proposal, which at this writing seems headed for the discard pile, was criticized by many commenters. My own criticism was set forth in a letter to Peter McCabe, Secretary of the Committee. [w]hether a class action is warranted in such a case depends not on the magnitude of the wrong to any individual . . . but rather on such issues as the alternative means of internalizing the costs of the defendant's wrongful activity and the social value of internalizing those costs (that is, the need for effective deterrence). Letter from David Shapiro to Peter McCabe, Secretary of the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice 3 (Jan. 9, 1997) (on file with author).
82. The leading modern case articulating the need to strike such a balance in determining the scope and applicability of the procedural due process requirement is Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). The decision has not gone without criticism, especially on the grounds that it pays insufficient attention to non-instrumental process values. See, e.g., Mashaw, supra note 4.
83. See, e.g., Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. Cauble, 255 U.S. 356 (1921).
84. In certain cases in which injunctive relief is sought, a class of people will be affected if the relief is granted, whether the action is brought in form as an individual action or as a class action. One example is a case in which a pupil in a school system demands an injunction that requires her to attend a segregated school; the effect of the injunction, if granted, will necessarily be to alter the structure of the school system. As another example, consider a case in which a professional athlete complains that a particular employment practice violates the antitrust laws and seeks to enjoin continuation of the practice. The effect of the injunction will inevitably extend to other athletes within the league. See, e.g., Robertson v. National Basketball Ass'n, 556 F.2d 682 (2d Cir. 1977); see also Rhode, supra note 2, at 1195-97. It is less clear that the fate of the class is a "unitary" one in some of the cases that may fall within Rule 23 (b) (1) if that subdivision extends to actions for monetary relief solely on the ground that the defendant's assets may not be sufficient to cover all claims. Although the question has not been resolved by the Supreme Court, some lower courts have applied this subdivision in such cases in order to preclude class members from opting out. See In re Asbestos Litigation, 90 F.3d 963 (5th Cir. 1996), vacated sub nom., Flanagan v. Ahearn, 117 S. Ct. 2503 (1997), judgment reinstated, No. 95-10635, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 1114 (5th Cir. Jan. 28, 1998); Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 117 S. Ct. 2503 (1997) (remanding to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 117 S. Ct. 2231 (1997)). For a vigorous defense of the appropriateness of using Rule 23 (b) (1) (B) in such "limited fund" cases, see Opinion Affidavit of David Rosenberg, Walker v. Liggett Group, Inc., 175 F.R.D. 226 (S.D. W. Va. 1997) (Civ. Action No. 2:97-0102) (filed May 1997).
85. Professor Bone has explored the historical foundation of the idea that certain kinds of group interests have an "impersonal" quality that is especially appropriate for group litigation and that affords less basis for concern about issues of individual autonomy and control. See, e.g., Bone, Litigative Forms, supra note 2, at 218, 234-87. Cf. Bone, Nonparty Preclusion, supra note 2, at 288-89 (concluding, on the basis of theory, "informed by history," that "the extent of an individual's right of participation in litigation should vary with the type of case"). Although my perception of the virtues and desirability of the entity model may be broader than his, I have found his historical discussion and thoughtful analysis of the nature of individual and group rights most helpful in my own thinking.
86. Professor Bone has explored the historical foundation of the idea that certain kinds of group interests have an "impersonal" quality that is especially appropriate for group litigation and that affords less basis for concern about issues of individual autonomy and control. See, e.g., Bone, Litigative Forms, supra note 2, at 218, 234-87. Cf. Bone, Nonparty Preclusion, supra note 2, at 288-89 (concluding, on the basis of theory, "informed by history," that "the extent of an individual's right of participation in litigation should vary with the type of case"). Although my perception of the virtues and desirability of the entity model may be broader than his, I have found his historical discussion and thoughtful analysis of the nature of individual and group rights most helpful in my own thinking.
87. The Advisory Committee Note to the 1966 amendments said that class actions would "ordinarily not [be] appropriate" in mass tort cases because of the likelihood that a significant question of damages, liability, and defenses to liability would affect different individuals in different ways. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS, 39 F.R.D. 69, 103 (1966) (advisory committee's notes on proposed Rule 23).
88. Kramer, supra note 2, at 572.
89. Id.
90. See, e.g., Louis KAPLOW, ACCURACY IN ADJUDICATION, forthcoming in THE NEW PALGRAVE DICTIONARY OF ECONOMICS AND THE LAW; Bone, Statistical Adjudication, supra note 2; Rosenberg, Class Actions, supra note 2, at 563-73; Rosenberg, Individualized Justice, supra note 2, at 236-52; see also Marc S. Galanter, Real World Torts: An Antidote to Anecdote, 55 MD. L. REV. 1093, 1158-60 (1996) (summarizing problems of the present tort system, individual compensation including transaction costs, misallocation of compensation, a shortage of institutional capacity, and impaired information transmission); David Rosenberg, The Causal Connection in Mass Exposure Cases: A "Public Law" Vision of the Tort System, 97 HARV. L. REV. 849 (1984) (criticizing the tort system's "private process" and calling for broad reform); Steven Shavell, The Fundamental Divergence Between the Private and the Social Motive to Use the Legal System, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 575, 575 (1997) (developing the thesis that "the amount of litigation is socially inappropriate" because of "fundamental differences between private and social incentives to use the legal system").
91. See, e.g., Louis KAPLOW, ACCURACY IN ADJUDICATION, forthcoming in THE NEW PALGRAVE DICTIONARY OF ECONOMICS AND THE LAW; Bone, Statistical Adjudication, supra note 2; Rosenberg, Class Actions, supra note 2, at 563-73; Rosenberg, Individualized Justice, supra note 2, at 236-52; see also Marc S. Galanter, Real World Torts: An Antidote to Anecdote, 55 MD. L. REV. 1093, 1158-60 (1996) (summarizing problems of the present tort system, individual compensation including transaction costs, misallocation of compensation, a shortage of institutional capacity, and impaired information transmission); David Rosenberg, The Causal Connection in Mass Exposure Cases: A "Public Law" Vision of the Tort System, 97 HARV. L. REV. 849 (1984) (criticizing the tort system's "private process" and calling for broad reform); Steven Shavell, The Fundamental Divergence Between the Private and the Social Motive to Use the Legal System, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 575, 575 (1997) (developing the thesis that "the amount of litigation is socially inappropriate" because of "fundamental differences between private and social incentives to use the legal system").
92. See, e.g., Louis KAPLOW, ACCURACY IN ADJUDICATION, forthcoming in THE NEW PALGRAVE DICTIONARY OF ECONOMICS AND THE LAW; Bone, Statistical Adjudication, supra note 2; Rosenberg, Class Actions, supra note 2, at 563-73; Rosenberg, Individualized Justice, supra note 2, at 236-52; see also Marc S. Galanter, Real World Torts: An Antidote to Anecdote, 55 MD. L. REV. 1093, 1158-60 (1996) (summarizing problems of the present tort system, individual compensation including transaction costs, misallocation of compensation, a shortage of institutional capacity, and impaired information transmission); David Rosenberg, The Causal Connection in Mass Exposure Cases: A "Public Law" Vision of the Tort System, 97 HARV. L. REV. 849 (1984) (criticizing the tort system's "private process" and calling for broad reform); Steven Shavell, The Fundamental Divergence Between the Private and the Social Motive to Use the Legal System, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 575, 575 (1997) (developing the thesis that "the amount of litigation is socially inappropriate" because of "fundamental differences between private and social incentives to use the legal system").
93. See, e.g., Louis KAPLOW, ACCURACY IN ADJUDICATION, forthcoming in THE NEW PALGRAVE DICTIONARY OF ECONOMICS AND THE LAW; Bone, Statistical Adjudication, supra note 2; Rosenberg, Class Actions, supra note 2, at 563-73; Rosenberg, Individualized Justice, supra note 2, at 236-52; see also Marc S. Galanter, Real World Torts: An Antidote to Anecdote, 55 MD. L. REV. 1093, 1158-60 (1996) (summarizing problems of the present tort system, individual compensation including transaction costs, misallocation of compensation, a shortage of institutional capacity, and impaired information transmission); David Rosenberg, The Causal Connection in Mass Exposure Cases: A "Public Law" Vision of the Tort System, 97 HARV. L. REV. 849 (1984) (criticizing the tort system's "private process" and calling for broad reform); Steven Shavell, The Fundamental Divergence Between the Private and the Social Motive to Use the Legal System, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 575, 575 (1997) (developing the thesis that "the amount of litigation is socially inappropriate" because of "fundamental differences between private and social incentives to use the legal system").
94. See, e.g., Louis KAPLOW, ACCURACY IN ADJUDICATION, forthcoming in THE NEW PALGRAVE DICTIONARY OF ECONOMICS AND THE LAW; Bone, Statistical Adjudication, supra note 2; Rosenberg, Class Actions, supra note 2, at 563-73; Rosenberg, Individualized Justice, supra note 2, at 236-52; see also Marc S. Galanter, Real World Torts: An Antidote to Anecdote, 55 MD. L. REV. 1093, 1158-60 (1996) (summarizing problems of the present tort system, individual compensation including transaction costs, misallocation of compensation, a shortage of institutional capacity, and impaired information transmission); David Rosenberg, The Causal Connection in Mass Exposure Cases: A "Public Law" Vision of the Tort System, 97 HARV. L. REV. 849 (1984) (criticizing the tort system's "private process" and calling for broad reform); Steven Shavell, The Fundamental Divergence Between the Private and the Social Motive to Use the Legal System, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 575, 575 (1997) (developing the thesis that "the amount of litigation is socially inappropriate" because of "fundamental differences between private and social incentives to use the legal system").
95. See, e.g., Louis KAPLOW, ACCURACY IN ADJUDICATION, forthcoming in THE NEW PALGRAVE DICTIONARY OF ECONOMICS AND THE LAW; Bone, Statistical Adjudication, supra note 2; Rosenberg, Class Actions, supra note 2, at 563-73; Rosenberg, Individualized Justice, supra note 2, at 236-52; see also Marc S. Galanter, Real World Torts: An Antidote to Anecdote, 55 MD. L. REV. 1093, 1158-60 (1996) (summarizing problems of the present tort system, individual compensation including transaction costs, misallocation of compensation, a shortage of institutional capacity, and impaired information transmission); David Rosenberg, The Causal Connection in Mass Exposure Cases: A "Public Law" Vision of the Tort System, 97 HARV. L. REV. 849 (1984) (criticizing the tort system's "private process" and calling for broad reform); Steven Shavell, The Fundamental Divergence Between the Private and the Social Motive to Use the Legal System, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 575, 575 (1997) (developing the thesis that "the amount of litigation is socially inappropriate" because of "fundamental differences between private and social incentives to use the legal system").
96. See, e.g., Louis KAPLOW, ACCURACY IN ADJUDICATION, forthcoming in THE NEW PALGRAVE DICTIONARY OF ECONOMICS AND THE LAW; Bone, Statistical Adjudication, supra note 2; Rosenberg, Class Actions, supra note 2, at 563-73; Rosenberg, Individualized Justice, supra note 2, at 236-52; see also Marc S. Galanter, Real World Torts: An Antidote to Anecdote, 55 MD. L. REV. 1093, 1158-60 (1996) (summarizing problems of the present tort system, individual compensation including transaction costs, misallocation of compensation, a shortage of institutional capacity, and impaired information transmission); David Rosenberg, The Causal Connection in Mass Exposure Cases: A "Public Law" Vision of the Tort System, 97 HARV. L. REV. 849 (1984) (criticizing the tort system's "private process" and calling for broad reform); Steven Shavell, The Fundamental Divergence Between the Private and the Social Motive to Use the Legal System, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 575, 575 (1997) (developing the thesis that "the amount of litigation is socially inappropriate" because of "fundamental differences between private and social incentives to use the legal system").
97. Some savings may be achieved in individual litigation through use of the doctrine of nonmutual issue preclusion. In general, however, the erosion of the mutuality doctrine in recent decades has been limited to allowing a nonparty to claim the benefits of a prior litigation (subject to a number of conditions that are not always easy to meet), but (in the absence of special circumstances) not to be burdened by the outcome of a litigation in which he did not participate. See generally RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS §§ 27-29, 43-63 (1982). For a powerful presentation of the historical and theoretical support for broader application of preclusion doctrines against nonparties - see Bone, Nonparty Preclusion, supra note 2.
98. The quoted phrase is originally that of John Rawls in his noted book, A THEORY OF JUSTICE 136-42 (1971), and has been developed and applied in this context by David Rosenberg in several articles forcefully advocating the averaging of damages in mass tort class action cases. See, e.g., Rosenberg, Individualized Justice, supra note 2, at 241-44 & n. 83. For other valuable discussions of the costs, benefits, and techniques of averaging damages within the group - from the standpoint of both social and individual welfare see Bone, Statistical Adjudication, supra note 2, and KAPLOW, supra note 36. The concept of a choice made "behind the veil," as I understand it in this context, is not one that connotes a withholding of information from the individual by lawyers, experts, or judges. (Indeed, the existence of such information about known differences among potential or actual claims may undermine the appropriateness of class treatment on some or all issues.) Rather, the concept assumes that in light of the controlling law and the facts as known, or reasonably accessible, a rational, normally risk-averse actor would prefer class treatment (even with an accompanying averaging of outcomes) to the heavy costs and highly uncertain results of individual action - although that same individual might well oppose class treatment if he could know the outcome of his individual lawsuit.
99. The quoted phrase is originally that of John Rawls in his noted book, A THEORY OF JUSTICE 136-42 (1971), and has been developed and applied in this context by David Rosenberg in several articles forcefully advocating the averaging of damages in mass tort class action cases. See, e.g., Rosenberg, Individualized Justice, supra note 2, at 241-44 & n. 83. For other valuable discussions of the costs, benefits, and techniques of averaging damages within the group - from the standpoint of both social and individual welfare see Bone, Statistical Adjudication, supra note 2, and KAPLOW, supra note 36. The concept of a choice made "behind the veil," as I understand it in this context, is not one that connotes a withholding of information from the individual by lawyers, experts, or judges. (Indeed, the existence of such information about known differences among potential or actual claims may undermine the appropriateness of class treatment on some or all issues.) Rather, the concept assumes that in light of the controlling law and the facts as known, or reasonably accessible, a rational, normally risk-averse actor would prefer class treatment (even with an accompanying averaging of outcomes) to the heavy costs and highly uncertain results of individual action - although that same individual might well oppose class treatment if he could know the outcome of his individual lawsuit.
100. The quoted phrase is originally that of John Rawls in his noted book, A THEORY OF JUSTICE 136-42 (1971), and has been developed and applied in this context by David Rosenberg in several articles forcefully advocating the averaging of damages in mass tort class action cases. See, e.g., Rosenberg, Individualized Justice, supra note 2, at 241-44 & n. 83. For other valuable discussions of the costs, benefits, and techniques of averaging damages within the group - from the standpoint of both social and individual welfare see Bone, Statistical Adjudication, supra note 2, and KAPLOW, supra note 36. The concept of a choice made "behind the veil," as I understand it in this context, is not one that connotes a withholding of information from the individual by lawyers, experts, or judges. (Indeed, the existence of such information about known differences among potential or actual claims may undermine the appropriateness of class treatment on some or all issues.) Rather, the concept assumes that in light of the controlling law and the facts as known, or reasonably accessible, a rational, normally risk-averse actor would prefer class treatment (even with an accompanying averaging of outcomes) to the heavy costs and highly uncertain results of individual action - although that same individual might well oppose class treatment if he could know the outcome of his individual lawsuit.
101. Many commentators have written of the hazards of settlements in class action cases - of the dangers that class members' interests will take a back seat to the interests of the defendants and of lawyers for the class, and that judges will not have the incentive to review such settlements with the rigor necessary to protect class interests. See, e.g., Coffee, supra note 2; Koniak, supra note 2; Trangsrud, supra note 2, at 82-64; Wolfman & Morrison, supra note 2.
102. Many instances could be cited, but perhaps the best known involves the claims of Vietnam veterans and their families that they were exposed to harmful contaminants as the result of the use of Agent Orange as a defoliant in the Vietnam War. For an extraordinarily readable and informative recounting and analysis of the Agent Orange litigation, see PETER H. SCHUCK, AGENT ORANGE ON TRIAL: MASS Toxic DISASTERS IN THE COURTS (enlarged ed. 1987). The question whether someone who has been exposed to a particular product has incurred an increased risk of harm as a result of that exposure may arise before or after the harm has occurred. (The harm may be a signature disease, like asbestosis, or a non-signature disease, like lung cancer.) If the harm has not yet occurred, there is a question as to whether there is a present cause of action based on the probability of future harm. That question is governed by the applicable substantive law; there is surely no constitutional bar to recognition of a cause of action based on an increased risk of future physical harm (a risk that can result in present psychological and even financial burdens), and as indicated below, there may be strong policy reasons for according such recognition.
103. For the discussion that follows, I am especially indebted to the pioneering works by David Rosenberg, several of which are cited supra note 2. See also Rosenberg, Causal Connection, supra note 36. This last cited article played an important role in Judge Weinstein's analysis of the issues of liability in the Agent Orange litigation. See In re Agent Orange Prod. Liability Litigation, 597 F. Supp. 740, 833-38 (E.D.N.Y. 1984), aff'd, 818 F.2d 145 (2d Cir. 1987). A recent Columbia Law Review symposium dedicated to Judge Weinstein included several articles exploring the implications of his approach for the development of liability and compensation rules in mass tort cases. See, e.g., Margaret A. Berger, Eliminating General Causation: Notes Toward a New Theory of Justice and Toxic Torts, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1217 (1997); John C.P. Goldberg, Misconduct, Misfortune, and Just Compensation: Weinstein on Torts, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 2034 (1997).
104. For the discussion that follows, I am especially indebted to the pioneering works by David Rosenberg, several of which are cited supra note 2. See also Rosenberg, Causal Connection, supra note 36. This last cited article played an important role in Judge Weinstein's analysis of the issues of liability in the Agent Orange litigation. See In re Agent Orange Prod. Liability Litigation, 597 F. Supp. 740, 833-38 (E.D.N.Y. 1984), aff'd, 818 F.2d 145 (2d Cir. 1987). A recent Columbia Law Review symposium dedicated to Judge Weinstein included several articles exploring the implications of his approach for the development of liability and compensation rules in mass tort cases. See, e.g., Margaret A. Berger, Eliminating General Causation: Notes Toward a New Theory of Justice and Toxic Torts, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1217 (1997); John C.P. Goldberg, Misconduct, Misfortune, and Just Compensation: Weinstein on Torts, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 2034 (1997).
105. For the discussion that follows, I am especially indebted to the pioneering works by David Rosenberg, several of which are cited supra note 2. See also Rosenberg, Causal Connection, supra note 36. This last cited article played an important role in Judge Weinstein's analysis of the issues of liability in the Agent Orange litigation. See In re Agent Orange Prod. Liability Litigation, 597 F. Supp. 740, 833-38 (E.D.N.Y. 1984), aff'd, 818 F.2d 145 (2d Cir. 1987). A recent Columbia Law Review symposium dedicated to Judge Weinstein included several articles exploring the implications of his approach for the development of liability and compensation rules in mass tort cases. See, e.g., Margaret A. Berger, Eliminating General Causation: Notes Toward a New Theory of Justice and Toxic Torts, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1217 (1997); John C.P. Goldberg, Misconduct, Misfortune, and Just Compensation: Weinstein on Torts, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 2034 (1997).
106. True, the statement about the individual class member may (under the given assumptions) be asserted with equal assurance. But the desirability of making that fact a basis of liability (say, for one-third of the plaintiff's damages) is far shakier if the tort is not viewed as "collective" in nature. For example, consider a tort that does not have this collective character. If we are reasonably sure, on the basis of all available information, that the chances are only one in three that B was hit by A's car (rather than by that of another driver), it is far more debatable - as well as a more radical departure from our tradition - to hold A liable for one-third of B's damages.
107. Each of these factors can, of course, be complicated by changing the facts, so that for example, the product is not entirely fungible (as in the Agent Orange litigation, where the products of different manufacturers contained widely varying percentages of dioxin contamination); the degree of exposure varies from one class member to another; or the class members themselves vary with respect to such relevant behavior as smoking, urban or rural residence, etc. But these complications do not necessarily make the point inapplicable or irrelevant; rather, they may make the process of determining the extent of liability and damage more complex and may require the creation of subclasses.
108. Deterrence may be the sole value served in the "small claim" case, but its significance should not be downplayed in torts involving substantial harm to individuals. (Indeed, in the view of some, deterrence remains the primary justification for a civil tort system in such cases.) And surely, a more acceptable level of deterrence is achieved by assessing the costs of injury avoidance in the light of the reasonably foreseeable harm to the entire class of victims rather than on the basis of the disparate recoveries (and failures to recover) that may be anticipated in lawsuits brought by a self-selected fraction of those injured.
109. There is wide disagreement on whether, and to what extent, the concept of punitive damages has any place in a system of private civil remedies. After all, the award of punitive damages to a plaintiff has the characteristics of a windfall because it is unrelated to the injury done to that plaintiff and may far exceed the monetary loss attributable to that injury. Perhaps the strongest justification for such an award lies in the need to make up for the underenforcement likely to occur when each injured individual must pursue his own remedy. But punitive damage awards may result in overdeterrence too, for example, if most of those injured in a mass accident bring separate suits and obtain sizable punitive damage awards, each of which is made without regard to other suits and other awards. For excellent analyses of the role of punitive damages in civil cases, see ALI, ENTERPRISE LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL INJURY, ch. 9 (1991); A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell, Punitive Damages: An Economic Analysis, 111 HARV. L. REV. 869 (1998).
110. There is wide disagreement on whether, and to what extent, the concept of punitive damages has any place in a system of private civil remedies. After all, the award of punitive damages to a plaintiff has the characteristics of a windfall because it is unrelated to the injury done to that plaintiff and may far exceed the monetary loss attributable to that injury. Perhaps the strongest justification for such an award lies in the need to make up for the underenforcement likely to occur when each injured individual must pursue his own remedy. But punitive damage awards may result in overdeterrence too, for example, if most of those injured in a mass accident bring separate suits and obtain sizable punitive damage awards, each of which is made without regard to other suits and other awards. For excellent analyses of the role of punitive damages in civil cases, see ALI, ENTERPRISE LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL INJURY, ch. 9 (1991); A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell, Punitive Damages: An Economic Analysis, 111 HARV. L. REV. 869 (1998).
111. With respect to the availability of preclusion principles in such cases, see supra note 37.
112. See supra note 29 and accompanying text; see also Metro-North Commuter R.R. v. Buckley, 117 S. Ct. 2113, 2120 (1997) (emphasizing the importance of considering the social costs of enforcing individual claims).
113. For a case in which certification of a nationwide class was denied on the basis, inter alia, of the asserted unmanageability of an action involving a huge class of people whose claims varied both factually and with respect to the governing law, see Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 740-45 (5th Cir. 1996).
114. These advantages underlie the current statutory provision for pretrial consolidation of related litigation brought in different federal districts, see 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (1994), as well as the more ambitious and far-reaching proposals for consolidation made in several studies - notably in ALI, COMPLEX LITIGATION: STATUTORY RECOMMENDATIONS AND ANALYSIS (1994) [hereinafter ALI Study].
115. This perceived (and perhaps misperceived) disadvantage of the class action to the party opposing the class may well have been a major reason why a ban on class actions (in the absence of the defendant's consent) was a key provision of the agreement with the tobacco companies referred to above. See supra note 1.
116. Indeed, litigation that is individual in form may well be "collective" in substance in view of the almost inevitably interdependent nature of such actions in the mass tort context.
117. Institutional questions of how the tasks of implementation should be allocated will be examined infra Part III. After reading an earlier draft of this article, Robert Bone asked a question that was both probing and hard to answer: to what extent is the "entity" concept meant to be simply descriptive of a conclusion and to what extent do I see it as having normative force of its own? The best response I can give is that, while the term is designed primarily to represent a conclusion based on a range of policy considerations, the conclusion has tended in my thinking to take on a life of its own and to generate some further ideas. This ambivalence may well be desirable, but in any event I find it virtually inescapable.
118. See, e.g., Castano, 84 F.3d at 740, 747; McGovern, supra note 2, at 1841-45.
119. For criticism of the notion that the "maturity" of the asserted tort should be an important factor in deciding whether to certify a class action, for example, Rosenberg, End Games, supra note 2, at 707-13, and Case Comment, 110 HARV. L. REV. 977, 979-81 (1997).
120. For criticism of the notion that the "maturity" of the asserted tort should be an important factor in deciding whether to certify a class action, for example, Rosenberg, End Games, supra note 2, at 707-13, and Case Comment, 110 HARV. L. REV. 977, 979-81 (1997).
121. The phrase is from a recent decision, In re Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 109 F.3d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1997). In this case, the district court, in a toxic waste litigation involving 3000 individual plaintiffs and intervenors, had ordered trial of 30 "bellwether" cases, 15 to be selected by plaintiffs and 15 by defendants. In reversing this order, the court of appeals said that such trials can be useful but insisted on assurance that they would be representative, and further suggested that such assurance might be obtained by scientific sampling methods. Id. at 1020-21. On the value of scientific sampling techniques in determining aggregate damages, see Saks & Blanck, supra note 2.
122. The "immaturity" of a tort, however, may be relevant to the fairness of a settlement, since the lack of information and experience may bear on the ability to estimate the value of the class claim (or the issue certified for class treatment) with reasonable accuracy. Thus, it may be inappropriate to approve a settlement in such a case if there has been inadequate discovery or other exchange of information relevant to an appraisal of the agreement reached. But cf. infra note 133 (discussing Bruce Hay's analysis).
123. I pass over with only this brief reference, the problem that notice to class members may fall far short of explaining in accessible English what is at stake. The task of formulating notice that tells class members what the dispute is all about, what they may gain or lose, and what role they may play is not easy, but it is critical.
124. The notion that a ruling with respect to notice could impose such high costs on the plaintiff class representatives as to force termination of the action was recognized in a number of "small claim" class actions after adoption of the 1966 amendments. But the Supreme Court held in Eisen that even in such a case, the rigorous notice requirements of the rule (as interpreted by the Court) had to be observed, and the costs of notice could not be imposed on the defendant. Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 175-76 (1974). Adoption of the proposal in text may warrant a requirement of some sort of security (as in the case of a preliminary injunction) in order to give a measure of protection to the defendant who is ultimately vindicated.
125. The Supreme Court in Eisen, 417 U.S. at 177-79, rejected this approach as inconsistent with Rule 23. But see Willging et al., supra note 2, at 176 (reporting that despite the Eisen decision, ways are often found to avoid imposing the full costs of notice on the plaintiff class representatives).
126. If the claim is viewed as essentially that of the class as an entity, then at least in some instances, effective relief could be devised that would benefit the class as a whole without the heavy costs of ascertaining the identity of every individual class member and then distributing some part of the award to each such individual. In a small claim class action, for example, a means might be found of internalizing to the defendant the cost of the wrong (and thus achieving the desired deterrent effect) by ordering the establishment of a fund to lower the cost of purchase (or provide other services) to class members in the future. Indeed, in small claim class actions, even representative notice may be of little value in comparison to such relatively untried techniques as having the court appoint an advocate for the class, or giving an existing entity - like a trade union or consumer organization - an incentive to safeguard the interests of the class.
127. In Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950), still the leading case on the requirement of notice, the Court stressed a variety of practical considerations in holding that the expense of notification should be kept within reasonable bounds, and noted that it was justifiable to take "reasonable risks" that notice might not actually reach every interested person. Id. at 319. (Mullane itself was not in form a class action.)
128. Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. Cauble, 255 U.S. 356 (1921).
129. Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940).
130. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985); see infra text accompanying notes 111-12.
131. See infra note 128 and accompanying text.
132. See Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975); United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (1980).
133. See Macey & Miller, supra note 2, at 61-96.
134. Congress has recently attempted to give content to the "lead plaintiff" notion in federal securities cases. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77-78 (Supp. 1997), seeks to ensure that the lead plaintiff in such litigation will be the shareholder with the largest stake in the outcome (usually an institutional investor). This provision, along with others in the Act, was evidently designed to help curb perceived abuses in such litigation - in this instance by trying to assure proper monitoring of plaintiffs' counsel by a shareholder with the interest and capacity to keep a close watch on the case. (Such monitoring is not, in my view, in any way inconsistent with the entity model advocated here.) For discussion of the 1995 Act, see Jill S. Fisch, Class Action Reform: Lessons From Securities Litigation, 39 ARIZ. L. REV. 533 (1997) (suggesting, inter alia, that institutional investors may have investment objectives different from those of individual investors and that such institutional investors are themselves not exempt from the dangers of collusive action with the defendant).
135. See, e.g., WEINSTEIN, supra note 2, ch. 4; Macey & Miller, supra note 2, at 96-103; Menkel-Meadow, supra note 2.
136. See e.g., Mullenix, Paradigm Misplaced, supra note 2, at 582-89.
137. Just as the "entity" model bears some resemblance to the notion of a corporation acting for its shareholders, see supra text accompanying note 16, so too the suggestion in the text is analogous to the problems of conflict that may arise when a lawyer for a corporation also undertakes to represent one of its employees. Other problems that have been recognized in related contexts are analogous to the problems in representing a class. For example, a lawyer should not represent two clients who are each dealing with the same third person in a situation in which the interests of the two clients are potentially in conflict. And in some instances, such as an internecine struggle within a corporation, a lawyer for the corporation may be obligated to remain neutral. (My thanks to Susan Koniak for these analogies.) 72 In some notable class actions - the Agent Orange controversy, for example - insufficient attention was paid to ways of requiring lawyers for the class to keep in touch with a range of class representatives. While considerations of efficiency and of the interests of the class as a whole must be factored in, the need for such communication is not obviated by recognition that the class is the represented entity; on the contrary, its value - as one means of assuring that class counsel will fulfill their duty to the class - may well be enhanced once the significance of the "designated" plaintiff as representative is either eliminated or reduced in importance. For what is probably still the best analysis of the issue of communication and related issues, as well as of a range of suggested approaches, see Rhode, supra note 2.
138. FED. R. Civ. P. 23 (d), (e); cf. MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION § 30 (3d ed. 1995) (providing guidelines for the management of class actions).
139. See, e.g., In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prod. Liab. Litig., 55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir. 1995); In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig., 643 F.2d 195 (5th Cir. 1981). In both cases, the court of appeals, in rejecting a settlement approved by the district court, emphasized the obligation of the district judge to ensure the fairness of the settlement and of the fees to be awarded to class counsel.
140. See, e.g., WEINSTEIN, supra note 2, ch. 5; Kahan & Silberman, supra note 2 (addressing the extent of a state court's obligations in considering a settlement involving exclusive federal claims); Resnik, Litigating and Settling, supra note 2 (addressing the responsibility of judges for insuring fairness of settlements); Schwarzer, supra note 2 (addressing the issues to be considered by the court in deciding whether to approve a dismissal or compromise).
141. Such a showing, especially by a significant number, might persuade the judge that the original certification needed to be reconsidered, or that an additional subclass should be created.
142. Again, the analogy to the interests of a bargaining unit as a whole in the terms of a negotiated agreement offers a useful (if not perfect) analogy, especially if one recalls that individual members of the unit may be unhappy not only with the terms of an agreement but even with the very existence of a bargaining unit represented by a particular union. (True, the "duty of fair representation" operates as a constraint on the ability of a bargaining representative to subordinate the interests of the individual to those of the group, but that constraint in itself has significant limits. Clearly, the duty does not preclude reasonable tradeoffs, for example, of benefits for skilled workers in exchange for benefits for the less skilled, or of larger dollar increases per average employee in exchange for percentage increases that would provide greater increases to some members.) See supra note 17. For general discussion of the authority of the bargaining representative, and the limits on that authority, see JULIUS G. GETMAN & BERTRAND B. POGREBIN, LABOR RELATIONS 96-150 (1988).
143. The problem of whether the substantive law recognizes a cause of action for mental distress (and such related claims as the need for medical monitoring) caused by exposure to a harmful product arose in two recent Supreme Court cases, in very different contexts. In Metro-North Commuter Railroad v. Buckley, 117 S. Ct. 2113 (1997), the Court interpreted the Federal Employers Liability Act not to permit recovery by "exposure-only" plaintiffs when no manifest physical injury had occurred and stressed its understanding of common law principles in reaching this result. In Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 117 S. Ct. 2231, 2243 (1997), the Court simply noted that under some potentially applicable laws, "exposure-only" plaintiffs might not have a viable cause of action. See generally supra note 1.
144. On the need for a single applicable law in the mass tort context, compare ALI Study, supra note 50, at 305 (proposing federal choice of law standards for multistate tort and contract cases), with Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case, supra note 2, at 1095 (proposing, inter alia, congressional authorization for the development of federal common law in mass tort cases), and Kramer, supra note 2 (criticizing proposals for special treatment of choice of law issues in mass tort cases).
145. DAVID L. SHAPIRO, FEDERALISM: A DIALOGUE 119-21 (1995).
146. See id. at 76 & n.73, 118-19. Even with the important judicial limitations placed on the scope of national power by the Supreme Court in the few years since my study was published, see, e.g., Printz v. United States, 117 S. Ct. 2365 (1997); City of Boerne v. Flores, 117 S. Ct. 2157 (1997); United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995), the scope of discretion left to the policymakers is still very broad (and in my view, desirably so).
147. Of course, such issues can and do arise in contexts that have long been the subject of national law - antitrust and securities regulation, for example.
148. For a description of the litigation that followed this disastrous fire, and of the ultimate settlement, see Deborah R. Hensler & Mark A. Peterson, Understanding Mass Personal Injury Litigation: A Socio-Legal Analysis, 59 BROOK. L. REV. 961, 976-77 (1993). Since the hotel was a resort whose guests came from many places outside Puerto Rico, many of those injured or killed by the fire were nonresidents of the Commonwealth.
149. See ALI Study, supra note 49, § 6.01, cmt b.
150. Admittedly, the range of possible cases is considerable, as is the degree of state regulatory control and interest. The state may have a much greater interest in the applicability of its law to an accident involving the passengers on an interstate bus trip (and a somewhat greater interest if the passengers were riding an interstate train) than it would have in a crash on an interstate plane trip.
151. To be sure, the policy considerations here do not run entirely in the direction of a national rule. It may be argued, for example, that local lawmakers should be able to choose the level of protection for their residents, or of liability for their industries. But for me, the balance in this context tilts in favor of a national rule.
152. The first model, which is based on the view that a class action is but an aggregation of individual actions, is more fully described above at text accompanying notes 7-8.
153. For discussion of the pros and cons of various insurance-based alternatives to existing tort rules, see, for example, STEPHEN D. SUGARMAN, DOING AWAY WITH PERSONAL INJURY LAW: NEW COMPENSATION MECHANISMS FOR VICTIMS, CONSUMERS, AND BUSINESS (1989); Robert L. Rabin, Some Thoughts on the Efficacy of a Mass Toxics Administrative Compensation Scheme, 52 MD. L. REV. 951 (1993); Rosenberg, End Games, supra note 2, at 726-30.
154. For discussion of the pros and cons of various insurance-based alternatives to existing tort rules, see, for example, STEPHEN D. SUGARMAN, DOING AWAY WITH PERSONAL INJURY LAW: NEW COMPENSATION MECHANISMS FOR VICTIMS, CONSUMERS, AND BUSINESS (1989); Robert L. Rabin, Some Thoughts on the Efficacy of a Mass Toxics Administrative Compensation Scheme, 52 MD. L. REV. 951 (1993); Rosenberg, End Games, supra note 2, at 726-30.
155. For discussion of the pros and cons of various insurance-based alternatives to existing tort rules, see, for example, STEPHEN D. SUGARMAN, DOING AWAY WITH PERSONAL INJURY LAW: NEW COMPENSATION MECHANISMS FOR VICTIMS, CONSUMERS, AND BUSINESS (1989); Robert L. Rabin, Some Thoughts on the Efficacy of a Mass Toxics Administrative Compensation Scheme, 52 MD. L. REV. 951 (1993); Rosenberg, End Games, supra note 2, at 726-30.
156. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
157. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
158. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
159. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
160. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
161. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
162. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
163. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
164. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
165. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
166. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
167. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
168. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
169. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
170. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
171. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
172. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
173. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
174. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
175. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
176. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
177. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
178. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
179. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
180. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
181. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
182. Once again, an exhaustive bibliography of relevant scholarly work bearing on this topic would take a full-sized appendix, but a briefer one may be of use for purposes of research, as well as for internal cross-reference herein. Books and articles that deal with the rules-standards debate (and with related questions of formalist and positivist approaches to law) and that I have found especially helpful, include: H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1994); RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 42-61, 247-61 (1990); FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES (1991); ROBERT S. SUMMERS, INSTRUMENTALISM AND AMERICAN LEGAL THEORY 19-38, 136-75 (1982); J. M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 CONN. L. REV. 869 (1993); Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking, 3 J. LEGAL. STUD. 257 (1974); Richard H. Fallon, "The Rule of Law" as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1997); Stanley Fish, The Law Wishes to Have a Formal Existence, in THE FATE OF LAW 159 (Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns eds. 1991); Thomas C. Grey, Langdell's Orthodoxy, 45 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (1983); Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557 (1992); Larry Kramer, Judicial Asceticism, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1789 (1991); Burt Neuborne, Of Sausage Factories and Syllogism Machines: Formalism, Realism, and Exclusionary Selection Techniques, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 419 (1992); Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 97 YALE L.J. 509 (1988); Anthony J. Sebok, Misunderstanding Positivism, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995); Eric J. Segall, Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 991 (1994); Joseph W. Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 465 (1988); Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992); Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953 (1995); Mark V. Tushnet, Anti-Formalism in Recent Constitutional Theory, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1502 (1985); Mark V. Tushnet, The Degradation of Constitutional Discourse, 81 GEO. L.J. 251 (1992); Mark V. Tushnet, Scalia and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Foolish Formalism?, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1717 (1991); Ernest J. Weinrib, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 YALE L.J. 949 (1988); Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213 (1983); James G. Wilson, The Morality of Formalism, 33 UCLA L. REV. 431 (1985) [hereinafter Wilson, Formalism]; James G. Wilson, Surveying the Forms of Doctrine on the Bright Line-Balancing Test Continuum, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 773 (1995). Scholarly efforts to bring the debate down to cases - to focus intensively on the issues in a particular context - are a good deal less common (although many of the works listed above contain valuable illustrations). One interesting recent study, in an area of my own interests, is Alan K. Chen, The Ultimate Standard: Qualified Immunity in an Age of Constitutional Balancing Tests, 81 IOWA L. REV. 261 (1995) (urging a transition from standards to rules in the area of qualified official immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)). Another incisive and valuable study in a different area and with a different perspective is Philip P. Frickey, Congressional Intent, Practical Reasoning, and the Dynamic Nature of Federal Indian Law, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1137 (1990).
183. See, e.g., Schauer, Fornalism, supra note 90; cf. Wilson, Formalism, supra note 89, at 484 (concluding at 484, with two cheers for formalism, but not a third).
184. See, e.g., Schauer, Fornalism, supra note 90; cf. Wilson, Formalism, supra note 89, at 484 (concluding at 484, with two cheers for formalism, but not a third).
185. Few present day scholars would probably lay claim to the title of total rule skeptic (just as few would lay claim to the legacy of Langdellian formalism), but intimations of considerable rule skepticism may be found in several works, including Balkin, supra note 89; Fish, supra note 89; Grey, supra note 89; Tushnet, supra note 89.
186. See, e.g., Frickey, supra note 89; Singer, supra note 89.
187. See, e.g., Ehrlich & Posner, supra note 89; Kaplow, supra note 89.
188. New Jersey may be one of the few jurisdictions (if not the only one) in which the governing law has been construed to exclude legislative power over judicial practice and procedure. See Winberry v. Salisbury, 74 A.2d 406 (N.J. 1950), discussed in RICHARD H. FALLON, DANIEL J. MELTZER & DAVID L. SHAPIRO, HART & WECHSLER'S THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM 674-75 (4th ed. 1996) [hereinafter HART & WECHSLER].
189. See FED. R. EVID. 403.
190. For examples in which the Federal Rules of Evidence have either added to or displaced the broad standard of Rule 403 with more detailed rules addressing the prejudice/relevance issue, see Rule 404 (character evidence not admissible to prove conduct; exceptions; other crimes); Rule 412 (evidence of prior sexual behavior in sex offense cases); Rule 413 (evidence of similar crimes in sexual assault cases); Rule 414 (evidence of similar crimes in child molestation cases).
191. That issue is more fully explored infra Part III.C.
192. See HART, supra note 89, ch. VII.
193. Perhaps the foremost American scholar to advocate a sophisticated, nuanced version of a formalistic approach is Frederick Schauer. See, e.g., SCHAUER, supra note 89; Schauer, supra note 89.
194. For an insightful discussion of the contribution of a formalist approach in one area - that of constitutional interpretation, see Fallon, supra note 89, at 14-17, 28-30, 48-51. Cf. Sebok, supra note 89 (defending both positivism and formalism against their harsher critics); Segall, supra note 89, at 1042 ("The rule of law cannot exist without significant notice of what the law requires. . . . The rule of law, however, requires both judicial restraint and judicial discretion.").
195. See Schuck, supra note 2 (analyzing the pros and cons of common law policymaking in this area).
196. I have argued in another context - involving the adoption of "strong" paternalist rules governing human conduct - that "legislative" action is more appropriate than judicial development for a major departure from traditional and accepted values, so long as the question is not one of constitutional dimension. See Shapiro, supra note 5, at 551-72.
197. Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938); see also Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965); Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Elec. Coop., 356 U.S. 525 (1958). To oversimplify one of the most complex evolutions of doctrine in the realm of judicial federalism, Erie held that unless a valid federal law otherwise required, state substantive law is controlling in a federal court whether that state law is codified law or common law. Byrd stated that, in a federal court case governed by Erie, a federal practice must yield to state law when the state law is "bound up with state-created rights and obligations." Byrd, 356 U.S. at 535. And Hanna held this doctrine inapplicable when the matter in question was within the scope of a federal rule promulgated by Congress in the exercise of its legislative authority over federal procedure, or by the Supreme Court in the exercise of its delegated power to promulgate rules of federal procedure. Thus, the "legislative" power of the federal courts to "trump" state law by adopting a procedural rule is greater than their power to do so by a "rule" developed in the course of adjudication. For a fuller, less simplistic analysis of these and related cases, see HART & WECHSLER, supra note 94, at 714-31.
198. For discussion of the sources, role, and appropriate scope of federal common law, and a bibliography of the leading scholarly studies in the area, see HART & WECHSLER, supra note 94, ch. VII.
199. A number of scholars have pointed out that the comparative value of rules and standards will vary with the context - with such questions as relative cost, the need for predictability, and the appropriateness of judicial discretion. See, e.g., HART, supra note 89, ch. VII; Ehrlich & Posner, supra note 89; Kaplow, supra note 89.
200. HART, supra note 89, at 133, 252. A postscript in the second edition of this work, id. at 238-76, contains an illuminating discussion of the differences and similarities between Hart's view of the room for discretionary judgments at the margin of rules, and Ronald Dworkin's view that the law is never really incomplete. Whoever has the better of this debate, there is no doubt that a judge has more flexibility at the margin of a rule than at its core.
201. I leave to others the assessment of the political factors that may encourage or discourage legislative action at either the state or federal level. While this question is surely a basic one in considering what can in fact be accomplished, I do not share the view that a matter properly for the legislative branch should be taken over by the courts because political pressures render the legislature incapable of action. If those pressures do lead to inertia on an issue that is properly one for the legislature, the answer is to try to overcome that inertia, not to evade it by looking to an inappropriate source for the change that is sought. See also infra text accompanying note 115. Of course, the matter is not quite so simple. There are times when the very existence of legislative inertia may signal the need for constitutional protection of those who do not have the legislative clout to receive the treatment to which they have a just claim. Such a problem (like that of the underrepresentation of certain groups in the legislature) may well be viewed as one of constitutional dimension warranting judicial action. See, e.g., JOHN HART ELY, DEMOCRACY AND DISTRUST 77-78, 120-24 (1980). But nothing in the topic under discussion here rises to that level. On the contrary, some of the ideas advanced in this essay will raise serious constitutional questions of their own if and when they are adopted.
202. The critical provision of the Act vesting rulemaking authority in the Supreme Court is 28 U.S.C. § 2072 (1994), which states, inter alia, that the Court has the power to prescribe rules of practice and procedure, subject to the limitation that "[s]uch rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right." An excellent summary of the debate - which includes references to leading cases and commentaries, as well as detailed analyses of the "relation back" provisions of FED. R. Civ. P. 15 (c) and of the ownership requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 23.1 (governing derivative actions) - may be found in 19 CHARLES A. WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE §§ 4509, 4510 (1996).
203. For recent scholarly discussion of the validity and substantive impact of Rule 23, and of various proposed amendments to the rule, see, for example, Carrington & Apanovitch, supra note 2; Marcus, supra note 2; Mullenix, Constitutionality, supra note 2; Priest, supra note 2. The article by Priest, supra note 2, is especially noteworthy in its critique of what is described in the opening summary as "recent reform efforts . . . to impose substantive controls on mass tort class actions through procedural means." Id. at 522. Contending that certification of a case for class action treatment confers "unfair negotiating power" on the plaintiff class, Priest urges that certification should not be allowed if the court determines at the pre-certification stage that "the underlying substantive claim is without merit." Id. at 573. In its recent decision in Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 117 S. Ct. 2231 (1997), the Court noted the constraints imposed by the Enabling Act on the scope of the judicial rulemaking power. See Id. at 2244.
204. Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1 (1940).
205. Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965).
206. See Stephen B. Burbank, The Rules Enabling Act of 1934, 130 U. PA. L. REV. 1015, 1098-1130, 1187 (1982). The Rules of Decision Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1652 (1994), states that except as the federal constitution, treaties, or statutes othenvise require or provide, "[t]he laws of the several states . . . shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply."
207. Thus the distinction drawn by the Court between the meaning of FED. R. CIV. P. 3 in diversity and federal question cases is, in my view, especially baffling. See Stephen B. Burbank, Of Rules and Discretion: The Supreme Court, Federal Rules and Common Law, 63 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 693, 701-02 (1988). Compare Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U.S. 740 (1980) (stating that Rule 3 does not control the running of the statute of limitations in a diversity case), with West v. Conrail, 481 U.S. 35 (1987) (stating that Rule 3 does control on that issue in a federal question case). The question of the validity under the REA of the contemporaneous ownership requirement of FED. R. CIV. P. 23.1(1) (that in a derivative action, the plaintiff must have been a shareholder at the time of the wrong complained of) should be the same in a federal question case as in a diversity case. For discussion of the REA issue as applied to this subdivision of the rules, see HART & WECHSLER, supra note 94, at 729 n.4, and authorities there cited.
208. See John Hart Ely, The Irrepressible Myth of Erie, 87 HARV. L. REV. 693, 718-38 (1974). But see Burbank, supra note 112, at 1107-08. As Ely noted, to read the power delegated to the Supreme Court to be coextensive with congressional power over federal practice and procedure is, in effect, to read the provision quoted in text out of the statute (except, perhaps, as a statement of emphasis: we mean procedure and not substance). The evidence mustered by Burbank in opposition to this normal and useful canon of statutory interpretation - not to read statutory language as surplus-age - is, in my view, not compelling.
209. See supra notes 102, 107.
210. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974); supra text accompanying notes 58-60. The reading of the notice provision of Rule 23 (c) (2) was surely a plausible, if not the most natural one, but as Karen Moore has argued, even a court that adheres to a "plain meaning" approach to the interpretation of statutes, should be willing to take a less constraining approach to the interpretation of procedural rules that it has promulgated. See Karen Nelson Moore, The Supreme Court's Role in Interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 44 HASTINGS L.J. 1039, 1091-1109 (1993).
211. See supra note 61 (regarding the discussion of the Mullane decision).
212. FED. R. Civ. P. 23(c) (2) provides that in any class action maintained under subdivision (b) (3), the notice to each class member shall state that "the court will exclude the member from the class if the member so requests by a specified date."
213. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985).
214. Since in Shutts itself reasonable notice and opportunity to opt out had been given to each class member, the Court could have upheld the exercise of jurisdiction over class members without deciding whether such notice and opportunity were prerequisites of due process. That question could (and probably should) have been reserved for a case in which the answer would have made a difference.
215. As noted supra text accompanying notes 62-63, the Court's prior class action jurisprudence had stressed the adequacy of representation as the precondition to the entry of a judgment binding the class as a whole; notice and the opportunity to opt out had not been discussed.
216. See CHARLES ALAN WRIGIIT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1789, at 255 (2d ed. 1986).
217. In a recent case, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider some of the questions raised by Shutts with respect to the scope of the constitutional "right" to opt out of a class action, but then dismissed the writ as improvidently granted on the ground that the federal constitutional issue had not been properly presented to the state supreme court. See Adams v. Robertson, 117 S. Ct. 1028 (1997). As this article was being submitted to this Review, two pieces appeared that deal with the topic discussed in the text and that take a different view of the opt-out issue: Issacharoff, supra note 2, and Solomon, supra note 2. In the concluding section of her Note, Solomon states that "[u]ltimately, the constitutionality of mandatory class actions is a choice between pragmatism and individual rights," id. at 1645, and having so described the conflict, chooses the latter. In the summary of his study, Issacharoff concludes that a "meaningful right to opt out" accomplishes two objectives: "First of all, it is a signal to other attorneys that there is a deal in the works and that the deal may be cooked. Second, it preserves judicial integrity by removing the Star Chamber aspects of the worst class action practice." Issacharoff, supra note 2, at 833.
218. FED. R. CIV. P. 23 (b) (3). This subdivision of the rule also requires that a class action be "superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy." Id.
219. See, e.g., Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 745-46 n. 21 (5th Cir. 1996) ("The proper interpretation of the interaction between subdivisions (b) (3) and (c) (4) is that a cause of action, as a whole, must satisfy the predominance requirement of (b) (3)and that (c) (4) is a housekeeping rule that allows courts to sever the common issues for a class trial. . . . . Reading rule 23 (c) (4) as allowing a court to sever issues until the remaining common issue predominates over the remaining individual issues would eviscerate the predominance requirement of rule 23(b) (3) . . . .") (citations omitted); Mullenix, The Mass-Tort Case, supra note 2, at 1038-39.
220. One of these proposed changes would have added to the relevant factors to be considered under Rule 23(b) (3) the "maturity" of any related litigation, See 167 F.R.D. 523, 559 (1996). This is a cryptic change described in the Advisory Committee Note as reflect[ing] die need to support class adjudication by experience gained in completed litigation of several individual claims. If the results of individual litigation begin to converge, class adjudication may seem appropriate . . . [but not if] individual litigation continues to yield inconsistent results, or . . . demonstrates that knowledge has not yet advanced far enough to support confident decision on a class basis. Id. at 562-63. For criticism of this "maturity" concept, see supra text accompanying notes 53-56.
221. Also, the likelihood that a significant percentage would choose to opt out may be an indication that class treatment is not appropriate.
222. Rosenberg, Class Actions, supra note 2, at 594, suggests that the ability to opt out might be subject to such conditions as specified limits on the lawyer's fee paid to one who opts out and a requirement that the individual make some contribution to the common costs incurred by the class in litigating (and negotiating) with respect to the claim. Other possible conditions might include caps on recovery and limits on punitive damage awards.
223. See supra note 31 and accompanying text.
224. I am assuming that the practice may be discontinued as to some but not as to others, both as a practical matter and consistently with the controlling law.
225. See Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940).
226. Among the leading scholarly studies of the range of conflicts problems that can be presented when counsel represents a diverse, largely anonymous class with potentially conflicting interests (interests that many class members may not even be aware of), or represents both the class and individuals within or outside the class, are Coffee, supra note 2; Koniak, supra note 2; and Rhode, supra note 2. The danger of such conflicts requires close judicial scrutiny and continual judicial oversight, and may also require the appointment by the court of additional counsel to safeguard class interests and to alert the court to the possibility of collusive settlements. For a novel approach to the representation problem, involving the auctioning of a class claim for compensation to the highest bidder, see Macey & Miller, supra note 2 (discussed infra note 133).
227. For a suggested checklist of issues to be considered in deciding whether to approve a settlement, see Schwarzer, supra note 2, at 843-44. One of the most interesting, and promising, studies in this area is Hay, supra note 2. Hay argues persuasively, both through analysis and illustration, that the likelihood of inappropriately low settlements, which benefit counsel unduly at the expense of the class, may be very substantially reduced by adoption of the following rule: that the net fee to class counsel resulting from the settlement should be no greater than the fraction of the class recovery that counsel would have collected as a fee if the case had not been settled but rather had been litigated. This approach is designed to ensure that the net recovery to the class in a settlement is at least as large as the net recovery in the absence of settlement. Although it may require the court to estimate the net recovery to the class in the absence of settlement, Hay shows that even a substantial error in that estimate will lead to a much smaller gap between the appropriate settlement figure and the actual net recovery in the absence of a settlement. If Hay's thesis is sound and is implemented, many of the criticisms of class actions that are based on the hazard that class counsel will profit at the class's expense will be severely blunted. A more radical proposal that has attracted scholarly interest (and, in my view, deservedly so), but as a practical matter is unlikely to be implemented, is to facilitate the auctioning of certain class claims to the highest bidder, with the proceeds of the auction to be distributed among the members of the class. See Macey & Miller, supra note 2, at 106-16. The winning bidder would then be sole owner of the entire claim, thus eliminating any problems of conflicts within the class, and if the winning bidder were herself counsel in the case, eliminating any potential conflict between lawyer and client. Of course, adoption of any proposal of this kind would require virtual abandonment of some traditional notions of professional ethics relating to such practices as barratry and maintenance.
228. Other proposals for explicit requirements designed to insure adequate representation - including, for example, the kinds of disclosures that must be made in any settlement agreement submitted for approval - are worthy of joint consideration by practitioners, judges, experts on procedure and legal ethics, and informed, concerned lay. For a recent update on current studies of mass tort litigation by both the House Judiciary Committee and a working group appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist, see 66 U.S.L.W. 2550, 2551 (1998).