A short note on the multiplier ideals of monomial space curves

Thompson (2014) exhibits a formula for the multiplier ideal with multiplier lambda of a monomial curve C with ideal I as an intersection of a term coming from the I-adic valuation, the multiplier ideal of the term ideal of I, and terms coming from certain specified auxiliary valuations. This short note shows it suffices to consider only one auxiliary valuation. This improvement is achieved through a more intrinsic approach, reduction to the toric case.Comment: This version adds Corollary 10 and fixes several typo

The Home-State Test for General Personal Jurisdiction

This article attempts to articulate the due process test for general in personam jurisdiction. It frames the question as what gives a state sufficiently plenary power over a person that the state may adjudicate claims against the person regardless of where the claims arose, and it answers that question in terms of a home-state relationship between the defendant and the forum state. Written for a roundtable on the upcoming Supreme Court case of DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bauman, the article urges the Court to state the home-state test for general jurisdiction more clearly than it did two years ago in Goodyear Dunlop Tires v. Brown. In Goodyear, while the Court strongly suggested a home-state test, it did so ambiguously. The home-state test makes sense from the perspective of the justification for general jurisdiction and its separateness from specific jurisdiction. A corporation should be subject to general jurisdiction in the corporation’s home state, defined as the state of incorporation and principal place of business. One implication of the test is that, for purposes of general jurisdiction, a subsidiary’s contacts should not be imputed to its corporate parent on an agency theory. Also, the home-state test provides a basis to jettison the reasonableness prong that some courts have applied to general jurisdiction

Doing Good, Doing Well Symposium

Rather than focusing on the differences between tort lawyers and activists as they ally with each other, this Article focuses on the motivations and explanations of the tort lawyers themselves. Positioned at the intersection of big-money practice and social change litigation, mass torts provide a useful study in multiple motivations. While financial incentives for plaintiffs\u27 lawyers explain much of what happens in mass torts, policy objectives come into play as well, at least in the lawyers\u27 rhetoric. Despite the obvious difficulty distinguishing reasons from rhetoric and rationalization, it is worth exploring the significance of mixed motives for lawyers who are committed to both policy objectives and the potential for large fees. Part I of this Article explores the possibility of multiple motivations of mass tort plaintiffs\u27 lawyers, as well as the alliances among activists and trial lawyers that have emerged in several recent mass torts. Part II addresses the conflicts of interest that arise when considerations other than maximizing clients\u27 recovery motivate lawyers. While such conflicts exist, a mix of monetary and policy motivations may reduce, rather than exacerbate, the lawyer-client conflicts that inhere in mass representation. In mass collective representation, mixed motives more accurately reflect the combined interests of groups of similarly situated individual clients. Part III turns to questions of professionalism, the prevailing conception of public interest lawyering, and the possibility of serving the public good while pursuing private gain. The standard conception of public interest law practice, although rarely articulated with precision, tends to focus on market-undervalued legal work. While this definition makes sense for determining whether certain legal work ought to be subsidized, the prevailing conception may have an unintended consequence once internalized by lawyers and law students. Paradoxically, the prevailing conception of public interest lawyering may discourage lawyers in most of their work from considering the public good. In this sense, a vision of professionalism that acknowledges the possibility of significant private gain while serving the public interest may better serve the profession. On the other hand, self-serving bias may influence lawyers to view their own fee-generating work as public-serving. The benefit or harm of a broader understanding of public interest law practice depends on the extent to which, when lawyers perceive themselves as serving the public interest, they merely have persuaded themselves of the goodness of their own pursuit of wealth. Mass tort plaintiffs\u27 practice, situated at the crossroads of public law and private tort litigation, combines notable public policy objectives with unmistakable fee potential. Because it presents mixed motives for lawyers more palpably than most other areas of practice, it offers a useful starting point for thinking about fee-generating work in which lawyers seek to advance the public interest

The Role of the Judge in Non-Class Settlement

This commentary argues that judges lack the authority, as a general matter, to approve or reject non-class settlements. While judges overseeing mass litigation can set the stage for settlement by instituting phased discovery, scheduling bellwether trials, and other methods, they should respect the line between facilitation of settlement and control over settlement terms. The paper was presented in response to Judge Alvin Hellerstein’s and his special masters\u27 account of their handling of the September 11 clean-up litigation

S. 1224—In Support of the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1993

Anyone who knows me, friend or foe, will tell you that one of my great passions in life is children. They represent the best in all of us and our best hope for the future. All my life I have pursued policies to ensure that all children, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, are treasured and nurtured. Whether it is a baby born with AIDS and addicted to crack, or my own wonderful grandchildren, I want to do everything in my power to make sure that every child grows up in a loving, caring, stable, and safe environment. Today, sadly, children in America are in more danger than ever. Poverty, crime, and substance abuse are tearing families apart. The number of children in the foster care system has exploded from 276,000 in 1986 to 450,000 in 1992. Children are entering foster care at a younger age in record numbers, and are staying in the system for longer periods of time. The government\u27s goal for most children in foster care should be reunification with their families. We must also increase the funding for programs that prevent the breakup of families in the first place and help them to stay together once they are reunited. However, family reunification is not always possible or appropriate. As a result, thousands of children of all races and colors are presently waiting to be adopted in America. The vast majority are living in foster care homes, some of which are good, some ..