Hogs get slaughtered at the supreme court

Supreme Court Review

Volumn 2011, Issue , 2011, Pages 1-37

  Sherry, Suzanna ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84866690243     PISSN: 00819557     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1086/665012     Document Type: Review

References (192)

1. Larry W. Phillips, The Tao of Poker: 285 Rules to Transform Your Game and Your Life 118 (Adams Media, 2003)
2. Theodore Eisenberg, Geoffrey P. Miller, and Emily Sherwin, Arbitration's Summer Soldiers: An Empirical Study of Arbitration Clauses in Consumer and Nonconsumer Contracts, 41 U Mich J L Ref 871, 882-83
3. Myriam Gilles, Opting Out of Liability: The Forthcoming, Near-Total Demise of the Modern Class Action, 104 Mich L Rev 373 (2005).
4. Myriam Gilles and Gary Friedman, After Class: Aggregate Litigation in the Wake of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 79 U Chi L Rev (forthcoming 2012), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1928071.
5. 131 S Ct 2541 (2011).
6. Laster v AT&T Mobility, 584 F3d 849, 853 (9th Cir 2009).
7. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v Mercury Construction Corp., 460 US 1, 24 (1983)
8. Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v Cardegna, 546 US 440, 443 (2006)
9. Gilles, 104 Mich L Rev at 393-96
10. Stolt-Nielsen SA v AnimalFeeds International Corp., 130 S Ct 1758 (2010)
11. Rent-a-Center West v Jackson, 130 S Ct 2772 (2010).
12. Medtronic Inc. v Lohr, 518 US 470, 485 (1996)
13. Rice v Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 US 218, 230 (1947).
14. Wyeth v Levine, 129 S Ct 1187, 1195 n 3 (2009)
15. Altria Group, Inc. v Good, 555 US 70, 76 (2008)
16. Bates v Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 US 431, 449 (2005)
17. Geier v American Honda Motor Co., 529 US 861, 907 (2000)
18. Wyeth v Levine, 129 S Ct at 1207
19. Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America v Walsh, 538 US 644, 678 (2003)
20. Crosby v National Foreign Trade Council, 530 US 363, 388-91 (2000)
21. Geier, 529 US at 861 (2000).
22. 131 S Ct at 1747.
23. Allied-Bruce Terminix Companies v Dobson, 513 US 265, 270 (1995).
24. In re Yahoo! Litigation, 251 FRD 459 (CD Cal 2008)
25. Dix v ICT Group, Inc., 161 P3d 1016 (Wash 2007)
26. America Online, Inc. v Pasieka, 870 S2d 170 (Fla Ct App 2004).
27. Richard Nagareda, The Litigation-Arbitration Dichotomy Meets the Class Action, 86 Notre Dame L Rev 1069 (2011).
28. Ramona L. Lampley, Is Arbitration Under Attack? Exploring the Recent Judicial Skepticism of the Class Arbitration Waiver and Innovative Solutions to the Unsettled Legal Landscape, 18 Cornell J L & Pub Pol 477, 503-04 (2009).
29. Gilles, 104 Mich L Rev at 396-99 (cited in note 3).
30. Lampley, 18 Cornell J L & Pub Pol at 504 n 131 (cited in note 33)
31. Gilles, 104 Mich L Rev at 399-400 & n 136 (cited in note 3)
32. Paul Carrington, Unconscionable Laywers, 19 Ga St U L Rev 361, 373-80 (2002).
33. Kristian v Comcast Corp., 446 F3d 25 (1st Cir 2006)
34. Scott v Cingular Wireless, 161 P3d 1000 (Wash 2007)
35. Kinkel v Cingular Wireless LLC, 857 NE2d 250 (Ill 2006)
36. Jean R. Sternlight, As Mandatory Binding Arbitration Meets the Class Action, Will the Class Action Survive? 42 Wm & Mary L Rev 1, 80 (2000)
37. J. Maria Glover, Note, Beyond Unconscionability: Class Action Waivers and Mandatory Arbitration Agreements, 59 Vand L Rev 1735, 1747 (2006).
38. Nagareda, 86 Notre Dame L Rev at 1106 (cited in note 31).
39. Laster v AT&T Mobility LLC, 584 F3d 849 (9th Cir 2009)
40. AT&T Mobility v Concepcion, 131 S Ct 1740 (2011).
41. Randall L. Kiser, Martin A. Asher, and Blakely B. McShane, Let's Not Make a Deal: An Empirical Study of Decision Making in Unsuccessful Settlement Negotiations, 5 J Empirical Leg Stud 551, 572-74 (2008).
42. Discover Bank, 113 P3d at 1110.
43. Lampley, 18 Cornell J L & Pub Pol at 513-17 (cited in note 33).
44. Laster, 584 F3d at 856 n 9.
45. *10.
46. 86 Notre Dame L Rev at 1118-19
47. Newton v Merrill Lynch, 259 F3d 154, 164 (3d Cir 2011).
48. Henry Friendly, Federal Jurisdiction: A General View 119-20 (Columbia, 1973)
49. Richard A. Epstein, Class Actions: Aggregation, Amplification, and Distortion, 2003 U Chi Legal F 457
50. Alan S. Kaplinsky and Mark J. Levin, Excuse Me, but Who's the Predator: Banks Can Use Arbitration Clauses as a Defense, 7 Bus L Today 24 (May-June 1998)
51. Charles Silver, "We're Scared to Death": Class Certification and Blackmail, 78 NYU L Rev 1357 (2003)
52. Bruce Hay and David Rosenberg, "Sweetheart" and "Blackmail" Settlements in Class Actions: Reality and Remedy, 75 Notre Dame L Rev 1377 (2000)
53. William B. Rubenstein, Why Enable Litigation? A Positive Externalities Theory of the Small Claims Class Action, 74 UMKC L Rev 709 (2006)
54. Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Gains, Losses, and the Psychology of Litigation, 70 S Cal L Rev 113 (1996)
55. Joseph A. Grundfest and Peter H. Huang, The Unexpected Value of Litigation: A Real Options Perspective, 58 Stan L Rev 1267 (2006).
56. Chris Guthrie, Framing Frivolous Litigation: A Psychological Theory, 67 U Chi L Rev 163 (2000).
57. Howard M. Erichson, Uncertainty and the Advantage of Collective Settlement, 60 DePaul L Rev 627, 636 (2011).
58. 51 F3d 1293 (7th Cir 1995).
59. Richard A. Nagareda, Aggregation and Its Discontents: Class Settlement Pressure, Class-Wide Arbitration, and CAFA, 106 Colum L Rev 1873, 1881-82 (2006).
60. Nagareda, 106 Colum L Rev at 1882-85 (cited in note 61)
61. Silver, 78 NYU L Rev at 1365-69 (cited in note 56)
62. Andrew T. Berry, Comments on Aggregation: Some Unintended Consequences of Aggregative Disposition Procedures, 31 Seton Hall L Rev 920, 921-22 (2001)
63. Richard Nagareda, 1938 All Over Again? Pretrial as Trial in Complex Litigation, 60 DePaul L Rev 647, 668-69 (2011)
64. Jonathan T. Molot, A Market in Litigation Risk, 76 U Chi L Rev 367 (2009).
65. 113 P3d at 1110
66. Eisen v Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 US 156, 161 (1974)
67. Phillips Petroleum Co. v Shutts, 472 US 797, 809 (1985)
68. Amchem Prods, Inc. v Windsor, 521 US 591, 617 (1997)
69. Parker v Time Warner Entertainment Co., 331 F3d 13, 22 (2d Cir 2003).
70. J. Maria Glover, The Structural Role of Private Enforcement in Public Law, 53 Wm & Mary L Rev 1137 (forthcoming 2012)
71. John C. Coffee, Jr., Understanding the Plaintiff's Attorney: The Implications of Economic Theory for Private Enforcement of Law Through Class and Derivative Actions, 86 Colum L Rev 669 (1986)
72. John C. Coffee, Jr., The Regulation of Entrepreneurial Litigation: Balancing Fairness and Efficiency in the Large Class Action, 54 U Chi L Rev 877 (1987)
73. Jonathan R. Macey and Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiffs' Attorney's Role in Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for Reform, 58 U Chi L Rev 1 (1991)
74. Martin H. Redish, Class Actions, Litigation Autonomy, and the Foundations of Procedural Due Process, 95 Cal L Rev 1573 (2007).
75. Martin H. Redish, Wholesale Justice: Constitutional Democracy and the Problem of the Class Action Lawsuit 15 (Stanford, 2009).
76. John H. Beisner, Matthew Shors, and Jessica D. Miller, Class Action "Cops": Public Servants or Private Entrepreneurs? 57 Stan L Rev 1441 (2005)
77. Jill E. Fisch, Class Action Reform, Qui Tam, and the Role of the Plaintiff, 60 L & Contemp Probs 167 (1997)
78. Susan P. Koniak and George M. Cohen, Under Cloak of Settlement, 82 Va L Rev 1051 (1996)
79. Jay Tidmarsh, Pound's Century, and Ours, 81 Notre Dame L Rev 513 (2006)
80. Charles Wolfram, Mass Torts-Messy Ethics, 80 Cornell L Rev 1228 (1995).
81. Myriam Gilles and Gary B. Friedman, Exploding the Class Action Agency Costs Myth: The Social Utility of Entrepreneurial Lawyers, 155 U Pa L Rev 103, 105 (2006)
82. Brian Fitzpatrick, Do Class Action Lawyers Make Too Little? 158 U Pa L Rev 2043 (2010)
83. Stephen B. Burbank, Aggregation on the Couch: The Strategic Uses of Ambiguity and Hypocrisy, 106 Colum L Rev 1924, 1929 (2006)
84. Beisner, Shors, and Miller, 57 Stan L Rev at 1442
85. John Hart Ely, The Irrepressible Myth of Erie, 87 Harv L Rev 693 (1974).
86. Jay Tidmarsh, Rethinking Adequacy of Representation, 87 Tex L Rev 1137, 1170 (2009).
87. Salve Regina College v Russell, 499 US 225 (1991)
88. J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v Nicastro, 131 S Ct 2780, 2793 (2011)
89. Ortiz v Jordan, 131 S Ct 884, 893 (2011)
90. Wyeth, 129 S Ct at 1205, 1211-18
91. AT&T Mobility, 131 S Ct at 1754
92. Gregory M. Dickinson, An Empirical Study of Obstacle Preemption in the Supreme Court, 89 Neb L Rev 682 (2011)
93. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v Dukes, 131 S Ct 2541, 2557 (2011)
94. Dukes v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F3d 571, 652 (9th Cir 2010)
95. 131 S Ct at 2551
96. Richard Nagareda, Class Certification in the Age of Aggregate Proof, 84 NYU L Rev 97, 132 (2009)
97. 131 S Ct at 2552.
98. Dukes v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 222 FRD 137, 150 (ND Cal 2004)
99. 603 F3d 571 (9th Cir 2010)
100. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v Dukes, 131 S Ct 2541 (2011).
101. Wal-Mart, 131 S Ct at 2553
102. Dukes, 222 FRD at 154.
103. Wal-Mart, 131 S Ct at 2551
104. Dukes, 222 FRD at 154.
105. Dukes v Wal-Mart, 222 FRD 189, 192 (ND Cal 2004)
106. John Monahan, Laurens Walker, and Gregory Mitchell, Contextual Evidence of Gender Discrimination: The Ascendance of "Social Frameworks," 94 Va L Rev 1715 (2008).
107. John Monahan, Laurens Walker, and Gregory Mitchell, The Limits of Social Framework Evidence, 8 L Prob & Risk 307, 309 (2009).
108. Monahan, Walker, and Mitchell, 8 L Prob & Risk at 312 (cited in note 81).
109. Gregory Mitchell and Philip E. Tetlock, Antidiscrimination Law and the Perils of Mindreading, 67 Ohio St L J 1023, 1033-34
110. Amy L. Wax, The Discriminating Mind: Define It, Prove It, 40 Conn L Rev 979, 984-85 (2008)
111. Amy Wax, Discrimination as Accident, 74 Ind L J 1129, 1139-42 (1999).
112. 131 S Ct at 2556.
113. 131 S Ct at 2556 & n 9.
114. 131 S Ct at 2555
115. D. James Greiner, Causal Inference in Civil Rights Litigation, 122 Harv L Rev 534 (2008).
116. Nagareda, 84 NYU L Rev at 154-55 (cited in note 73).
117. Andrew Martin, Female Wal-Mart Employees File New Bias Case, New York Times (Oct 27, 2011), available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/business/ women-file-new-class-action-bias-case-against-wal-mart.html?scpp=1&sq= &st=nyt.
118. Nagareda, 84 NYU L Rev at 152-62 (cited in note 73).
119. Charles R. Lawrence III, The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection: Reckoning with Unconscious Racism, 39 Stan L Rev 317 (1987).
120. Virginia Valian, Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women (MIT, 1998)
121. Patrick S. Shin, Liability for Unconscious Discrimination? A Thought Experiment in the Theory of Employment Discrimination Law, 62 Hastings L J 67 (2010)
122. Ivan E. Bodensteiner, The Implications of Psychological Research Related to Unconscious Discrimination and Implicit Bias in Proving Intentional Discrimination, 73 Mo L Rev 83 (2008)
123. Tristin K. Green, A Structural Approach as Antidiscrimination Mandate: Locating Employer Wrong, 60 Vand L Rev 849 (2007)
124. Audrey J. Lee, Note, Unconscious Bias Theory in Employment Discrimination Litigation, 40 Harv CR-CL L Rev 481 (2005)
125. Susan Sturm, Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach, 101 Colum L Rev 458 (2001)
126. Linda Hamilton Krieger, The Content of Our Categories: A Cognitive Bias Approach to Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity, 47 Stan L Rev 1161 (1995).
127. Samuel R. Bagenstos, The Structural Turn and the Limits of Antidiscrimination Law, 94 Cal L Rev 1, 2 (2006).
128. 131 S Ct at 2548.
129. Bagenstos, 94 Cal L Rev at 3 (cited in note 94)
130. Wax, 74 Ind L J at 1146-52 (cited in note 83).
131. Mitchell and Tetlock, 67 Ohio St L J (cited in note 83)
132. Hal R. Arkes and Philip E. Tetlock, Attributions of Implicit Prejudice, or "Would Jesse Jackson 'Fail' the Implicit Association Test?" 15 Psychol Inquiry 257 (2004).
133. 131 S Ct at 2557-61
134. 131 S Ct at 2556
135. In re: Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, 552 F3d 305 (3d Cir 2008)
136. In re Initial Public Offerings Securities Litigation, 471 F3d 24 (2d Cir 2006)
137. 131 S Ct at 2551.
138. Eisen v Carlisle and Jacquelin, 417 US 156, 177 (1974)
139. 131 S Ct at 2552 n 6
140. Wal-Mart, 603 F3d at 581-86
141. Hydrogen Peroxide, 552 F3d at 309
142. Oscar Private Equity Investments v Allegiance Telecom, Inc., 487 F3d 261, 268 (5th Cir 2007)
143. In re Initial Public Offerings Securities Litigation, 471 F3d 24, 33 (2d Cir 2006)
144. Gariety v Grant Thornton, LLP, 368 F3d 356, 366 (4th Cir 2004)
145. Szabo v Bridgeport Machines, Inc., 249 F3d 672, 676 (7th Cir 2001).
146. 131 S Ct at 2563 n 4
147. 472 US 797 (1985).
148. 131 S Ct at 2559
149. Diane P. Wood, Adjudicatory Jurisdiction and Class Actions, 62 Ind L J 597, 605-06 (1987).
150. Redish, Wholesale Justice at 158 (cited in note 68)
151. Tobias Barrington Wolff, Federal Jurisdiction and Due Process in the Era of the Nationwide Class Action, 156 U Pa L Rev 2035, 2076-109 (2008)
152. David L. Shapiro, Class Actions: The Class as Party and Client, 73 Notre Dame L Rev 913, 954-55 (1998)
153. Arthur R. Miller and David J. Crump, Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in Multistate Class Actions After Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 96 Yale L J 1, 31-32 (1986).
154. Henry Paul Monaghan, Antisuit Injunctions and Preclusion Against Absent Nonresident Class Members, 98 Colum L Rev 1148, 1166 (1998)
155. Patrick Woolley, Collateral Attack and the Role of Adequate Representation in Class Suits for Money Damages, 58 U Kan L Rev 918, 971-75 (2010)
156. David E. Engdahl, The Classic Rule of Faith and Credit, 118 Yale L J 1584, 1589 (2009).
157. 131 S Ct at 2560-61.
158. 603 F3d at 627 n 56
159. 131 S Ct at 2550.
160. 131 S Ct 2550.
161. In re Estate of Marcos Human Rights Litigation, 910 F Supp 1460 (D Hawaii 1995)
162. Hilao v Estate of Marcos, 103 F3d 767 (9th Cir 1996)
163. Cimino v Raymark Industries, Inc., 751 F Supp 649 (ED Tex 1990)
164. 151 F3d 297 (5th Cir 1998).
165. Laurens Walker and John Monahan, Sampling Damages, 83 Iowa L Rev 545, 559-60 (1998)
166. Alexandra D. Lahav, The Case for "Trial by Formula," 90 Tex L Rev (forthcoming 2012), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1945514
167. Alexandra D. Lahav, Bellwether Trials, 76 Geo Wash L Rev 576 (2008)
168. Laurens Walker and John Monahan, Sampling Evidence at the Crossroads, 80 S Cal L Rev 969 (2007)
169. Laurens Walker and John Monahan, Sampling Liability, 85 Va L Rev 329 (1999)
170. Walker and Monahan, 83 Iowa L Rev 545 (cited in note 115)
171. Michael J. Saks and Peter David Blanck, Justice Improved: The Unrecognized Benefits of Aggregation and Sampling in the Trial of Mass Torts, 44 Stan L Rev 815 (1992)
172. Christopher J. Roche, Note, A Litigation Association Model to Aggregate Mass Tort Claims for Adjudication, 91 Va L Rev 1463 (2005).
173. David Shapiro, Class Actions: The Class as Party and Client, 73 Notre Dame L Rev 913 (1998).
174. Robert G. Bone, Statistical Adjudication: Rights, Justice, and Utility in a World of Process Scarcity, 46 Vand L Rev 561, 572-73 (1993).
175. Deborah Hensler, Resolving Mass Toxic Torts: Myths and Realities, 1989 U Ill L Rev 89 (1989).
176. Walker and Monahan, 80 S Cal L Rev at 971 (cited in note 116).
177. Howard Gillman, The Court as an Idea, Not a Building (or a Game): Interpretive Institutionalism and the Analysis of Supreme Court Decision-Making, in Cornell W. Clayton and Howard Gillman, eds, Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches 65, 81 (Chicago 1999)
178. Frank H. Easterbrook, Ways of Criticizing the Court, 95 Harv L Rev 802, 804 (1982)
179. Kent Greenawalt, The Enduring Significance of Neutral Principles, 78 Colum L Rev 982, 1007 (1978).
180. 550 US 544 (2007).
181. 129 S Ct 1937 (2009).
182. 550 US at 556 & n 4
183. Suzanna Sherry, Foundational Facts and Doctrinal Change, 2011 Ill L Rev 145, 176 (2011)
184. Robert G. Bone, Twombly, Pleading Rules, and the Regulation of Court Access, 94 Iowa L Rev 873, 900-09 (2009)
185. Richard A. Epstein, Bell Atlantic v Twombly: How Motions to Dismiss Become (Disguised) Summary Judgments, 25 Wash U J L & Pol 61, 84-90 (2007).
186. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/145466?redirectedFrom= plausible#eid(definition4a).
187. Tidmarsh, 87 Tex L Rev 1137 (2009) (cited in note 68)
188. Howard M. Erichson and Benjamin C. Zipursky, Consent versus Closure, 96 Cornell L Rev 265 (2011).
189. Marc Galanter, Why the "Haves" Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change, 9 L & Soc Rev 95 (1974).
190. John Fabian Witt, Bureaucratic Legalism, American Style: Private Bureaucratic Legalism and the Governance of the Tort System, 56 DePaul L Rev 261 (2007).
191. Suzanna Sherry, Logic Without Experience: The Problem of Federal Appellate Courts, 82 Notre Dame L Rev 97 (2006).
192. William B. Rubenstein, Divided We Litigate: Addressing Disputes Among Group Members and Lawyers in Civil Rights Campaigns, 106 Yale L J 1623, 1632 (1997).