FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W176258118> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W176258118 startingPage "855" @default.
• W176258118 abstract "I. INTRODUCTION II. THE RULE OF LAW PROBLEM A. Defining Rights B. Due Process and the Rule of Law 1. Introduction to Due Process in the Class Action Context: Federalism and State Autonomy Interests 2. The Rule of Law and Class Actions 3. Class Actions and Rent-Seeking III. CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM AGGREGATION: PROPOSALS FOR REFORM A. Principles for Reform 1. Decentralization 2. Cooperative Federalism 3. Judicial Review B. The Class Action Fairness Act Considered 1. Summary of Provisions a. Expanding Federal Diversity Jurisdiction b. Expanding Federal Removal Jurisdiction 2. Will the Class Action Fairness Act Succeed? a. Article III Problems with the Class Action Fairness Act b. The Act's Myopic Focus on Federal Competency C. Designing a Better Class Litigation System 1. Enhance Transparency 2. Create Textual Choice of Law Requirements 3. Eliminate the Power of Named Plaintiffs to Monopolize the Market for Class Members 4. Create Structural Incentives for Litigants and Courts to Raise Constitutional Challenges to Class Certification 5. Encourage Decentralization and Cooperative Federalism IV. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION Imagine that relief depends on the will of a man, called the Judge, who possesses the power to force wrongdoers to compensate victims. Busy and indecisive, the Judge hasn't formulated a coherent set of laws. Instead, when a citizen asserts a grievance, the Judge changes the rules based on principles he does not announce in advance. As a result, no one can predict when he will be hauled into court because there is, quite simply, no commonly accepted language for what is wrong, who is a victim, and when coercive legal process is proper. This article suggests that contemporary class action litigation mirrors this imaginary legal world. Utilizing an often neglected strain of due process analysis, the article explains how class actions frequently unsettle defendants' expectations about their rights and defends the proposition that class actions thereby violate due process. The article then applies this due process analysis to launch a new framework for class action reform, one that flows naturally from conceptualizing class action abuse as a constitutional problem. It is well known that rights are often ignored or changed when litigants assert claims on behalf of a class. To see this problem concretely, consider the following hypothetical: Congress passes a law that outlaws the use of profane words, but excuses a defendant who utters profanity when physically injured. An onlooker sues you for damages under the statute after you stub your toe and assault him with choice words. At trial, you produce a witness--a tourist who videotaped the incident--but the judge disregards the evidence, deciding he will not enforce the defense on this occasion. Clearly, your rights have been altered. A potent defense (stubbing your toe) is not available to you, and your liability is assessed by a standard different than the law had allowed. When courts aggregate many individual lawsuits through the class device, they are inevitably tempted to change defendants' rights in this fashion. Imagine, now, that one citizen files a class action against you under this anti-profanity statute, alleging you violated the rights of 10,000 persons in as many different individual encounters. It would be impossible for the court to ascertain whether the physical injury defense applied to each claim, since no single court could examine each of your interactions with 10,000 class members. So, inevitably, the plaintiff, to secure aggregation, will argue that your liability can be proven in a more lenient fashion. If the court accepts the plaintiff's invitation, the rules that govern your conduct are changed. …" @default.
• W176258118 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W176258118 creator A5021400315 @default.
• W176258118 date "2005-06-22" @default.
• W176258118 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W176258118 title "The Rules of Law Problem: Unconstitutional Class Actions and Options for Reform," @default.
• W176258118 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W176258118 type Work @default.
• W176258118 sameAs 176258118 @default.
• W176258118 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W176258118 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W176258118 hasAuthorship W176258118A5021400315 @default.
• W176258118 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W176258118 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W176258118 hasConcept C156733173 @default.
• W176258118 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W176258118 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W176258118 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W176258118 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W176258118 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W176258118 hasConcept C2776687834 @default.
• W176258118 hasConcept C2776949292 @default.
• W176258118 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W176258118 hasConcept C2779967654 @default.
• W176258118 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W176258118 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W176258118 hasConcept C533735693 @default.
• W176258118 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W176258118 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W176258118 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W176258118 hasConceptScore W176258118C11413529 @default.
• W176258118 hasConceptScore W176258118C151730666 @default.
• W176258118 hasConceptScore W176258118C156733173 @default.
• W176258118 hasConceptScore W176258118C162324750 @default.
• W176258118 hasConceptScore W176258118C17744445 @default.
• W176258118 hasConceptScore W176258118C190253527 @default.
• W176258118 hasConceptScore W176258118C199539241 @default.
• W176258118 hasConceptScore W176258118C2776154427 @default.
• W176258118 hasConceptScore W176258118C2776687834 @default.
• W176258118 hasConceptScore W176258118C2776949292 @default.
• W176258118 hasConceptScore W176258118C2779343474 @default.
• W176258118 hasConceptScore W176258118C2779967654 @default.
• W176258118 hasConceptScore W176258118C41008148 @default.
• W176258118 hasConceptScore W176258118C48103436 @default.
• W176258118 hasConceptScore W176258118C533735693 @default.
• W176258118 hasConceptScore W176258118C86803240 @default.
• W176258118 hasConceptScore W176258118C94625758 @default.
• W176258118 hasConceptScore W176258118C97460637 @default.
• W176258118 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W176258118 hasLocation W1762581181 @default.
• W176258118 hasOpenAccess W176258118 @default.
• W176258118 hasPrimaryLocation W1762581181 @default.
• W176258118 hasRelatedWork W1983557152 @default.
• W176258118 hasRelatedWork W201267247 @default.
• W176258118 hasRelatedWork W233465426 @default.
• W176258118 hasRelatedWork W2472214147 @default.
• W176258118 hasRelatedWork W2765881148 @default.
• W176258118 hasRelatedWork W2907845963 @default.
• W176258118 hasRelatedWork W3121492764 @default.
• W176258118 hasRelatedWork W3121775757 @default.
• W176258118 hasRelatedWork W3122921903 @default.
• W176258118 hasRelatedWork W3123383367 @default.
• W176258118 hasRelatedWork W3123867551 @default.
• W176258118 hasRelatedWork W3124002071 @default.
• W176258118 hasRelatedWork W3124998576 @default.
• W176258118 hasRelatedWork W3125472593 @default.
• W176258118 hasRelatedWork W3125829259 @default.
• W176258118 hasRelatedWork W65634332 @default.
• W176258118 hasRelatedWork W135700994 @default.
• W176258118 hasRelatedWork W3121936973 @default.
• W176258118 hasRelatedWork W3124719642 @default.
• W176258118 hasRelatedWork W3125488354 @default.
• W176258118 hasVolume "28" @default.
• W176258118 isParatext "false" @default.
• W176258118 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W176258118 magId "176258118" @default.
• W176258118 workType "article" @default.