Astrotech 21: A technology program for future astrophysics missions

The Astrotech 21 technology program is being formulated to enable a program of advanced astrophysical observatories in the first decade of the 21st century. This paper describes the objectives of Astrotech 21 and the process that NASA is using to plan and implement it. It also describes the future astrophysical mission concepts that have been defined for the twenty-first century and discusses some of the requirements that they will impose on information systems for space astrophysics

Coherent spin control by electrical manipulation of the magnetic anisotropy

High-spin paramagnetic manganese defects in polar piezoelectric zinc oxide exhibit a simple almost axial anisotropy and phase coherence times of the order of a millisecond at low temperatures. The anisotropy energy is tunable using an externally applied electric field. This can be used to control electrically the phase of spin superpositions and to drive spin transitions with resonant microwave electric fields

Rent Concessions, Reimposable Discounts, and the Return of Medieval Contract Penalties

This article discusses penalty damages in consumer contracts. It focuses on rent concessions in apartment leases, and includes lesser discussions of deferred payments and interest in the purchase of cars, furniture and appliances. The sales pitch is a deferral or discount which is later reimposed if the buyer breaches, with some contracts keying on small breaches such as late payment. In contracts where the reimposed penalty reimburses the seller well beyond the consideration anticipated in the normal performance of the agreement, the reimposed discount is an illegal penalty. These contracts are pervasive but for the most part go unchalllenged

Parallel Litigation

Parallel litigation--a dispute generating multiple lawsuits--is not a new phenomenon and is not limited to celebrities or sensational controversies. Besides the publicity-generating lawsuits noted above, divorce actions have a long history of parallel lawsuits and conflicting judgments. Recent years have seen an expansion both in the incidence and the subject matter of parallel lawsuits, perhaps fueled by the traditional motivations of home-court advantage and differing laws, along with the expansion of personal jurisdiction rules in the past fifty years. In spite of this increase, the vocabulary remains imprecise and ambiguous. Parallel litigation would seem to mean identical or mirror image lawsuits between identical parties, but is often used when the lawsuits are not identical. Duplicative litigation has been defined as the simultaneous prosecution of two or more suits in which some of the parties or issues are so closely related that the judgment in one will necessarily have a res judicata effect on the other. Earlier discussion have noted three categories of parallel litigation: (1) repetitive actions: multiple suits on the same claim by the same plaintiff against the same defendant; (2) reactive suits: a separate suit filed by a defendant in the first action against the plaintiff in the first action, seeking a declaratory judgment that he is not liable under the conditions of the first action or asserting an affirmative claim that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the first suit; and (3) separate actions by class members on the same cause of action raised in the class action, seeking to represent the same or a similar class. These categories are perfectly parallel and clearly subject to claim and issue preclusion, along with arguments that simultaneous prosecution is inefficient and wasteful. A distinct fourth category is related litigation : separate suits involving similar parties or issues to which claim preclusion may not apply, but eligible for issue preclusion and to a lesser extent, subject to the same arguments as to wasteful litigation. Treatment here includes all four categories, with distinctions drawn as to their differing treatment in varying jurisdictions. In discussing these cases and their remedies, this Article will use the terms parallel and duplicative interchangeably, in reference both to identical and mirror image lawsuits, as well as substantially similar lawsuits with common questions of law or fact between substantially--but not always perfectly--identical parties. This Article discusses (1) repetitive suits by the same plaintiff against the same or similar defendants, (2) reactive suits filed by the defendant in the first action against the plaintiff in the first action, (3) declaratory judgment suits filed by a current or potential defendant lacking any real affirmative claim, and (4) separate actions by class members on the same cause of action raised in the class action

Surface Water Flooding in Urban Areas: Rights and Remedies under the Common-Enemy Doctrine

Urban flooding is an ever increasing problem as land development intensifies in expanding metropolitan areas. This situation not only has a significant impact on the physical environment, but has substantial legal consequences as well. In urban flooding situations, rivers and streams pose obvious flood threats, but the damaged area is generally restricted to a definable flood plain. Surface water presents a more subtle and pervasive problem; with heavy rainfall or poor drainage, surface runoff can submerge land not ordinarily considered subject to flood damage, further increasing riparian problems as the concentrated runoff finds its way to streams and rivers. Although flood control measures may be instituted to reduce some of the problems, occasional flooding must be anticipated as a natural result of urbanization. Just as our ancestors accepted floods as the price of living close to a river, urban dwellers must accept some surface water excess as one of the inconveniences of metropolitan living. Some urban flood problems, however, are unnecessary. Urban dwellers need not stoically accept the damage and inconvenience caused by developers and private landowners who disregard the safety and well-being of adjoining property and residents. In addition to municipal ordinances through which a city may enforce grading and drainage standards, the victim may take direct legal action against the offending landowner or developer. This comment will examine various common law remedies available to resolve surface water drainage problems as exemplified in three geological situations, typical of urban development. The scope of this article will be limited, however, to jurisdictions employing the modified common-enemy doctrine. The three geological situations are: 1. Landowner is on the lower end of a watershed and upper development causes increased velocity or volume of runoff. 2. Landowner occupies a depression and subsequent development causes standing or slow draining water. Two distinct types, the single lot depression and the larger urban depression, yield different legal results. 3. Landowner is recipient of collected artificial discharge from another landowner

Enforcing Judgments Across State and National Boundaries: Inbound Foreign Judgments and Outbound Texas Judgments

Litigation between parties in different states has been common since the success of the railroads and telegraph in the late nineteenth century. International litigation--suits involving parties from different countries--is now routine. In spite of that routine, lawyers continue to face enforcement obstacles when suing a defendant from another state or country. Similarly, defendants perceive unfairness from judgments rendered far away. Those enforcement obstacles and instances of unfairness have been lessened by uniform enforcement statutes and a few treaties, but the rules remain elusive. This Article provides a cursory outline for most foreign-judgment enforcement issues that Texas attorneys will face. It focuses primarily on the collection of money damages from judgments in civil cases between private litigants, and briefly addresses the extraterritorial enforcement of divorce, custody, other status decrees, child support awards, injunctions, and in rem claims. The Article is divided into two larger sections for interstate and international enforcement, and each of those in turn is divided into incoming foreign judgments and outgoing Texas judgments. Texas law predominates the state-law discussion, but other states\u27 case law and secondary sources provide additional authority on points not yet litigated in Texas. For interstate judgment enforcement, these other sources should be highly persuasive because of their reference to the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the uniform enforcement statutes. For international judgment enforcement, there is somewhat less state-to-state similarity. Legal discussions spanning states and nations must deal with a number of components, and the four most common are reduced to acronyms: F-1 refers to the court, state or nation rendering the initial decision to be enforced. F-2 refers to the court, state or nation in which enforcement is sought. UEFJA refers to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act either in the model form or the Texas version, as indicated. UFCMJRA refers to the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act either in the model form or the Texas version, as indicated

International Parallel Litigation - A Survey of Current Conventions and Model Laws

Parallel litigation is difficult to define and sometimes means what the speaker wants it to mean. It may be limited to identical lawsuits with exactly the same parties and the same claims. It may also mean any instance of two or more lawsuits that may result in claim preclusion for some or all of the parties. It includes concepts of reactive and repetitive litigation, related litigation, and derivative litigation. Whatever it is thought to encompass, it incurs criticism as being vexing and harassing, wasteful of the parties\u27 and courts\u27 resources, and inclined to produce inconsistent results and possibly inter-governmental discord. At the same time, it is a prime example of the long tradition of forum shopping and is a useful tool for the attorney seeking either recovery or protection for the client.Contradictory policies have also been a problem. Courts\u27 authority and willingness to remedy parallellitigation draws on a number of conflicting doctrines and policies: honoring plaintiff\u27s choice of forum, favoring the first-filed lawsuit, reluctance to dismiss an action that has proper jurisdiction and venue, avoidance of waste, convenience to parties, and respect paid to coordinate courts and governments and, in state-federal conflicts, federalism.International litigation has the additional problem of the different approaches of the common law and civil law countries. Common law jurisdictions use parallel litigation remedies that favor a multi-factor test andmeasure detail and nuance, but lack consistency and predictability. Civil law jurisdictions use code-based remedies with more rigid rules and less recognition of special circumstances. Both seem to allow local plaintiffs to manipulate the litigation to a degree that undermines fairness.The struggle--to define parallel litigation (which cases are parallel enough to justify stopping one?) and deal with its contradictory policies--is problematic even within the United States. International litigation amplifies the problem, and moreover, amplifies the policy concerns over waste, harassment, and judgment consistency. In the past few decades, treaties and model laws have addressed the issue, with varying approaches and results. This article will examine thirteen of those efforts, commenting on their content, approach, and merits. It will do so against a background of existing remedies under the common law and civil law for international parallel litigation

Javorek v. Larson: Insurer\u27s Obligation to Defend and Indemnify Insufficient to Establish Jurisdiction--Seider Sours in California

With its recent decision in Javorek v. Larson, the California Supreme Court has joined the growing number of states which have rejected the exercise of jurisdiction based upon the quasi in rem attachment of automobile liability insurance policies. This particular jurisdictional basis was first recognized in the New York case of Seider v. Roth, where the insurer\u27s obligation to defend and indemnify the insured was found to be an attachable debt, yielding jurisdiction to the plaintiff\u27s home state of New York, even though the defendant was a Canadian resident and the accident occurred in Vermont. The only requirement of a Seider attachment is that the defendant\u27s insurance company be licensed to conduct business in the plaintiffs home state. Seider has gained few followers and has been the target of considerable criticism. This note will analyze the Javorek court\u27s rejection of Seider and its potential impact on other states. Additionally, some constitutional problems not raised in Javorek will be examined. Finally, some proposals will be made concerning current jurisdictional trends