Civil Litigation as a Means of Compensating Victims of International Terrorism

This Article discusses the rules of procedural law that authorize United States courts to enter civil judgments against international terrorists and the foreign states that sponsor them. Somewhat surprisingly, these rules do not make such judgments difficult to obtain. As the Sutherland case illustrates, plaintiffs have already recovered substantial money judgments against terrorist defendants. Not surprisingly, the real difficulties are encountered when plaintiffs seek to enforce such judgments. Private parties have successfully utilized civil litigation as a means of neutralizing domestic hate groups. The question now is whether they can achieve similar success with respect to international terrorists. Success in this context is measured by two basic goals: compensation of victims of international terrorism and deterrence of future wrongful acts on the part of international terrorist organizations and their state sponsors. This article attempts to provide some assessment of whether the rules of procedural law permit private parties to accomplish these goals. There has been a considerable amount of civil litigation involving international terrorism, even before the attacks in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. Nearly all these cases have resulted in default judgments. As a consequence, few appeals have been taken and many of the procedural issues have not been addressed by appellate courts. This Article therefore begins with discussion of the three components that determine the validity of a default judgment within the United States courts: personal jurisdiction, service of process, and subject matter jurisdiction. Other issues discussed include venue and forum non conveniens, choice-of-law and jurisdiction to prescribe, the act of state doctrine, and judgments and enforcement of judgments. This Article concludes with some suggestions for the courts, the Congress, and the Executive branch that might provide the victims of international terrorism with more effective means of redress through civil litigation

California’s Confusing Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion) Doctrine

This Article discusses two related problems regarding the scope of the collateral estoppel doctrine applied by the California courts. Both problems concern the determination of whether issues were “actually litigated and determined” by a prior judgment. Both implicate the tension between the desire to achieve judicial economy on the one hand, and the right of a party to a fair opportunity for a full adversary hearing on an issue on the other. The next section of Part I examines the policies underlying the preclusion doctrines, and explains how clear issue preclusion rules applied in an underinclusive manner further these policies. Part I then briefly describes California’s current claim preclusion doctrine as background to the collateral estoppel problems discussed in Part II

Forum Non Conveniens and Retaliatory Legislation: The Impact on the Available Alternative Forum Inquiry and on the Desirability of Forum Non Conveniens as a Defense Tactic

This is the published version

Can the Tolling of Statutes of Limitations Based on the Defendant\u27s Absence from the State Ever Be Consistent with the Commerce Clause

This Article discusses the propriety of these Commerce Clause decisions with respect to individual defendants. More precisely, this Article examines two questions. The first is whether the Supreme Court\u27s holding in Bendix was properly extended to individual resident and nonresident defendants. The other, and more difficult, issue concerns the proper application of the Commerce Clause to state statutes that toll the statute of limitations during the time a resident defendant is temporarily absent from the state. The Article focuses on whether such provisions violate the Commerce Clause regardless of the reason for the absence. Part I of this Article examines the nature and operation of state statutes that toll statutes of limitations during a defendant\u27s absence, as well as the reasons why many states enacted such legislation. Part II discusses dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence generally, and its application to tolling provisions based on absence from the state. This Part summarizes both the Supreme Court\u27s decision in Bendix, which invalidated certain absence-based tolling provisions when applied to nonresident corporations, and state and lower federal court decisions that extended Bendix to individual defendants. Part III addresses the two issues identified in the previous paragraph and concludes that the extension of Bendix to individual defendants is clearly appropriate. This Part also explains why absence-based tolling violates the Commerce Clause when applied to a resident defendant who temporarily leaves the state, regardless of the purpose of the out-of-state travel. Finally, this Article concludes that absence-based tolling survives Commerce Clause scrutiny only in very limited circumstances

Toward Reasonable Limitations on the Exercise of General Jurisdiction

General jurisdiction is one of the most controversial aspects of the current jurisprudence of personal jurisdictions. General jurisdiction refers to a state\u27s exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a lawsuit not arising out of or related to the defendant\u27s contacts with the forum. General jurisdiction is particularly controversial in international litigation involving foreign defendants who do business in the United States. This article examines the potential limitations on the exercise of general jurisdiction in the context of international civil litigation

California’s Unpredictable Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion) Doctrine

The doctrine of res judicata describes a set of rules that determine the preclusive effects of a final judgment on the merits. The California doctrine has two familiar components: a primary aspect, “res judicata” or claim preclusion; and a secondary aspect, “collateral estoppel” or issue preclusion. Under the claim preclusion aspect, a prior judgment bars the parties (or those in privity with them) from relitigating the “same cause of action” in a subsequent proceeding. Under the issue preclusion aspect, although a second suit between the same parties on a different cause of action is not precluded by a prior judgment, the first judgment operates as a conclusive adjudication as to such issues in the second action as were “actually litigated and determined” in the prior proceeding

Dissipation and carryover of imidazolinone herbicides in imidazolinone-resistant rice (Oryza sativa)

The entire dissertation/thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file (which also appears in the research.pdf); a non-technical general description, or public abstract, appears in the public.pdf file.Title from title screen of research.pdf file (viewed on October 26, 2007)Vita.Includes bibliographical references.Thesis (M.S.) University of Missouri-Columbia 2007.Dissertations, Academic -- University of Missouri--Columbia -- Agronomy.The development of Imidazolinone (IMI) Resistant (IR) rice now allows rice producers to selectively control red rice (Oryza sativa, O. rufipogon, and O.nivara), weedy relatives of commercial rice (O. sativa). Imazethapyr the primary herbicide used with this technology has been shown to be relatively persistent in the soil and may cause injury to rotational crops including non-IR rice. Imazamox has less soil persistence in non-flooded environments; however, this herbicide has not been studied in rice environments including flooded soils. Thirteen selected treatments of two and three sequential applications of imazethapyr and imazamox were applied to IR rice in 2004 and 2005. In 2005 and 2006, non-IR rice was planted into the previous years' plots to evaluate herbicide carryover. Studies were conducted on two soils commonly utilized for rice production: a DeWitt silt loam and a Sharkey clay soil. Treatments included several variations including common programs with imazamox added, double-rate treatments, and imazamox-only treatments and treatments where imazamox was substituted for imazethapyr. Non-IR rice was evaluated for carryover injury at preflood and 2-week postflood timings. No injury was observed on the silt loam soil in 2005 or on the clay soil in 2006. The addition of imazamox at the preflood in 2005 on the clay soil to any treatment was the main factor increasing injury to significant levels. In 2006 on the silt loam soil, doubling the imazethapyr rate was the main factor increasing injury. However, in all cases, injury was low and in some instances treatments that caused or did not cause injury did not correlate to the herbicide rates applied. To further investigate imidazolinone dissipation, imazethapyr, imazamox and imazapyr were applied to flooded and non-flooded plots on silt loam and clay soils. Soil damples were taken periodically during the year following application. Samples were frozen to stop dissipation. Soil samples were tested using a bioassay and standard curve. From this information, dissipation rates and half lives were estimated. Visual injury was found to provide the best measurement of herbicide quantity in the soil. Half lives for imazamox were found to be 16 d on flooded silt loam, 8 d on flooded clay. Half lives were longer under non-flooded conditions with half lives of 270 and 13 d being calculated on silt loam and clay soils. Imazethapyr half lives ranged from 5 d on flooded clay to 128 d on nonflooded loam. Half lives calculated for imazapyr ranged from 8 to 78 d under flooded and non-flooded conditions on the clay soil, and from 50 to 539 d on the silt loam soil. The active herbicide concentrations declined more quickly under flooded conditions as compared to non-flooded conditions, regardless of soil type. However, dissipation occurred faster on the clay soil as compared to the silt loam

Dreaming : Serenade

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mmb-vp/3085/thumbnail.jp