Comment on Judge F. Weis, Jr., Service by Mail—Is the Stamp of Approval From the Hague Convention Always Enough?

Joseph F. Weis Jr\u27s theories regarding US procedural policymaking and service by mail from the Hague Convention are examined. Weis explores two themes that run through US civil procedure: counterintuitive instrumentalism and underlying pragmatism

Book Review of The Role of Courts in American Society: The Final Report of the Council on the Role of Courts

None availabl

Free Press-Fair Trial: Restrictive Orders After Nebraska Press

None availabl

Compensatory Contempt: Plaintiff\u27s Remedy When Defendant Violates an Injunction

None availabl

A Cap on the Defendant\u27s Appeal Bond?: Punitive Damages Tort Reform

This article begins in Part II with background about appeal bonds and the way their amounts were set before tort reform. Since the defendant’s cost of an appeal bond is an expense and, perhaps, an impediment to its appeal, the defendant will seek ways to surmount, reduce, or avoid the impediment. Part II then uses Pennzoil v. Texaco to illustrate two of defendants’ strategies for staying collection on a judgment pending review in lieu of posting a huge appeal bond—obtain a federal injunction and file for bankruptcy. This article shows why neither strategy is sufficient: the federal court’s abstention doctrines militate against a federal injunction, and the damages defendant’s option to file bankruptcy to achieve the shelter of an automatic stay turns out to be an unattractive alternative. Part II turns, finally, to the reason that appeal bonds caused defendants to writhe in earnest—titanic punitive damages jury verdicts...The last several years have seen two waves of appeal-bond-capping statutes and rules. The article summarizes those developments in Parts III and IV. Part V includes the arguments the tort reformers made and discusses the legislative processes that facilitated the kind of tort reform involved in appeal-bond caps. In Part VI, the article moves from the legislative chamber back to the courtroom to examine whether federal and state constitutional challenges will undermine appeal-bond caps...Finally, the article’s last major subject touches on the nettlesome and speculative topic of litigants’ state constitutional challenges to appeal-bond caps. The article ends with an unpretentious conclusion in Part VII that some appeal-bond protection for large verdict judgment debtors is warranted in this age of mass litigation and titanic punitive damages awards, even though the protection will delay plaintiffs’ collection efforts

Collecting a Libel Tourist\u27s Defamation Judgment?

A libelplaintiffsued an American defendant in aforeign nation where he took advantage ofplaintiff-favoring defamation Law to obtain a heftyjudgment. He brings this judgment to the defendant\u27s state in the United States to collect from her bank account. The defendant \u27s state\u27s court could not have entered the plaint /ffs judgment because offirst-Amendment doctrines that stem from New York Times v. Sullivan. How should the U.S. court respond to the libel tourist and his judgment? This succinct Article summarizes the tangled tale that emerges. Invoking the First Amendment under a public-policy exception to comity, U.S. courts have rejectedforeign-nation defamation judgments. State legislation has buttressed these decisions. Bills have been introduced in Congress to repel these judgments at the water\u27s edge. Against this tide, the following Article maintains that courts in the United States ought to take a more cautious and nuanced approach and recognize at least some overseas defamation judgments

Beyond Contempt: Obligors to Injunctions

None availabl