2,932 research outputs found

    The Supreme Court, CAFA, and \u3cem\u3eParens Patriae\u3c/em\u3e Actions: Will it be Principles or Biases?

    Get PDF
    The Supreme Court will hear a case during its 2013-2014 term that will test the principles of both its conservative and liberal wings. In Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., Justices from each wing of the Court will be forced to choose between the modes of statutory interpretation they usually have favored in the past and their previously displayed pro-business or anti-business predispositions. The issue is whether the defendant-manufacturers can remove an action brought by a state attorney general suing as parens patriae to federal court. Beginning with their actions against tobacco manufacturers in the mid-1990s, state attorneys general often sued as parens patriae in litigation of nationwide significance. In Hood, the Supreme Court considers whether mass plaintiffs’ attorneys, by partnering with state attorneys general in parens patriae actions, will be able to circumvent the requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act that allow defendants to remove class actions and other forms of mass actions to the typically more defendant-friendly confines of federal courts. Resolution will turn on the Court’s interpretation of the statutory term “mass action.” A textualist interpretation, usually favored by Justice Scalia and his conservative colleagues, would not allow such removal—a decidedly anti-business result. At the same time, a purposive approach to interpreting the statutory provision, promoted by Justice Breyer, possibly would allow such removal. For each group of Justices, the conflict is clear: Will they follow their previously articulated principles of statutory interpretation or their ideological biases

    A Case Study in the Superiority of the Purposive Approach to Statutory Interpretation: \u3cem\u3e Bruesewitz v. Wyeth \u3c/em\u3e

    Get PDF
    This Article uses the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth to examine the textualist or “plain meaning” approach to statutory interpretation. For more than a quarter-century, Justice Scalia has successfully promoted textualism, usually associated with conservatism, among his colleagues. In Bruesewitz, Scalia, writing for the majority, and his liberal colleague Justice Sotomayer, in dissent, both employed textualism to determine if the plaintiffs, whose child was allegedly harmed by a vaccine, could pursue common-law tort claims or whether their remedies were limited to those available under the no-fault compensation system established by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Despite these Justices’ common approach to statutory interpretation, they reached diametrically opposite conclusions in opinions that dissected the statutory language and quarreled over the meaning of “even though” and “if” clauses. In contrast, Justice Breyer employed a purposive or “purposes and objectives” approach to statutory interpretation. Rather than obsessing over the meaning of each and every phrase, Breyer looked at Congress’s goals in passing the Act. He recognized that Scalia’s conclusion was correct, not because of the supposedly “plain” meaning of specific language, but because this interpretation was the only one that enabled the alternative compensation system to function as Congress envisioned. Other scholars have analyzed Bruesewitz as a preemption case, but despite statutory interpretation’s inherently decisive role in express preemption cases, this is the first Article to highlight Bruesewitz as an illustration of the emptiness of textualism

    What\u27s on First?: Organizing the Casebook and Molding the Mind

    Get PDF
    This study empirically tests the proposition that law students adopt different conceptions of the judge’s role in adjudication based on whether they first study intentional torts, negligence, or strict liability. The authors conducted an anonymous survey of more than 450 students enrolled in eight law schools at the beginning, mid-point, and end of the first semester of law school. The students were prompted to indicate to what extent they believed the judge’s role to be one of rule application and, conversely, to what extent it was one of considering social, economic, and ideological factors. The survey found that while all three groups of students shifted toward a belief that judges consider social, economic, and ideological factors, the degree of the shift differed in a statistically significant way depending on which torts their professors taught first. These differences persisted throughout the semester, even after they studied other torts. Further, these differences were observed even when the analysis controlled for law school ranking and were more pronounced among students attending the highest ranked schools. In interpreting the survey results, the authors employ sociologist Erving Goffman’s theory of “frame analysis” and the work of cognitive psychologists including Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman on “anchoring.” The Article concludes that the category of tort liability to which students are first exposed affects the “frame” or “lens” through which they view the judicial process. This frame becomes anchored and persists throughout the study of other tort categories. The lessons about the nature of the judging process learned implicitly through the professor’s choice of topic sequence may be even more important than the substantive topics themselves

    Sustainable transport and quality of life

    Get PDF

    Sustainable transport and quality of life

    Get PDF

    Cell specific analysis of Arabidopsis leaves using fluorescence activated cell sorting

    Get PDF
    After initiation of the leaf primordium, biomass accumulation is controlled mainly by cell proliferation and expansion in the leaves1. However, the Arabidopsis leaf is a complex organ made up of many different cell types and several structures. At the same time, the growing leaf contains cells at different stages of development, with the cells furthest from the petiole being the first to stop expanding and undergo senescence1. Different cells within the leaf are therefore dividing, elongating or differentiating; active, stressed or dead; and/or responding to stimuli in sub-sets of their cellular type at any one time. This makes genomic study of the leaf challenging: for example when analyzing expression data from whole leaves, signals from genetic networks operating in distinct cellular response zones or cell types will be confounded, resulting in an inaccurate profile being generated. To address this, several methods have been described which enable studies of cell specific gene expression. These include laser-capture microdissection (LCM)2 or GFP expressing plants used for protoplast generation and subsequent fluorescence activated cell sorting (FACS)3,4, the recently described INTACT system for nuclear precipitation5 and immunoprecipitation of polysomes6. FACS has been successfully used for a number of studies, including showing that the cell identity and distance from the root tip had a significant effect on the expression profiles of a large number of genes3,7. FACS of GFP lines have also been used to demonstrate cell-specific transcriptional regulation during root nitrogen responses and lateral root development8, salt stress9 auxin distribution in the root10 and to create a gene expression map of the Arabidopsis shoot apical meristem11. Although FACS has previously been used to sort Arabidopsis leaf derived protoplasts based on autofluorescence12,13, so far the use of FACS on Arabidopsis lines expressing GFP in the leaves has been very limited4. In the following protocol we describe a method for obtaining Arabidopsis leaf protoplasts that are compatible with FACS while minimizing the impact of the protoplast generation regime. We demonstrate the method using the KC464 Arabidopsis line, which express GFP in the adaxial epidermis14, the KC274 line, which express GFP in the vascular tissue14 and the TP382 Arabidopsis line, which express a double GFP construct linked to a nuclear localization signal in the guard cells (data not shown; Figure 2). We are currently using this method to study both cell-type specific expression during development and stress, as well as heterogeneous cell populations at various stages of senescence

    Structure of vortices in rotating Bose-Einstein condensates

    Full text link
    We calculate the structure of individual vortices in rotating Bose-Einstein condensates in a transverse harmonic trap. Making a Wigner-Seitz approximation for the unit cell of the vortex lattice, we derive the Gross-Pitaevskii equation for the condensate wave function in each cell of the lattice, including effects of varying coarse grained density. We calculate the Abrikosov parameter, the fractional core area, and the energy of individual cells.Comment: 10 pages, 9 figures, published versio
    • …
    corecore