Search

Your search keyword '"PARTIES to actions"' showing total 934 results
Start Over Descriptor "PARTIES to actions"

Refine your results

more »

more »

more »

more »

more »

more »
934 results on '"PARTIES to actions"'

1. Dolores Madrigal, 90, Plaintiff in a Key Suit On Sterilization, Dies

Author

Rosenwald, Michael S.

Subjects
Hispanic American women, Parties to actions, Madrigal, Dolores
Abstract

She was among hundreds of women who said they were coerced into sterilization at a California hospital in the 1970s. The lawsuit led to state and national reforms. Dolores Madrigal, […]

Published
2024

2. PRO SE LITIGANTS IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT: HOW DO THEY FARE?

Author

PERSAUD, KYLE

Subjects
*LEGAL self-representation, *LAWYERS, *ACTIONS & defenses (Law), *PARTIES to actions
Abstract

The article examines the success of pro se representation in U.S. Supreme Court cases. It analyzes relevant cases statistically and determines the percentage of pro se litigants who were successful and the percentage of pro se litigants who were attorneys before comparing the results for pro se attorneys and pro se non-attorneys. It explores the Supreme Court's shifting attitude toward non-lawyers who argue in the Court.

Published
2024

4. STANDING BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES.

Author

SCHMIDT, THOMAS P.

Subjects
PARTIES to actions, PLAINTIFFS, JUDICIAL power, PUBLIC officers, ACTIONS & defenses (Law)
Abstract

Standing is generally framed as a doctrine about plaintiffs. The basic question, the Supreme Court has said, is "whether the plaintiff is the proper party" to invoke the federal judicial power. Asking that question tends to obscure a natural corollary: Against whom? This Article attends to the other side of the "v." It argues that suits against private parties should be treated differently from suits against government officials for standing purposes because these two types of suits raise different structural concerns. Notwithstanding its focus on plaintiffs, the Supreme Court has said repeatedly that standing is "built" on the "single basic idea" of "the separation of powers. " When a government official is sued, a particular structural problem arises: If a court entertains the suit, it will be put in the position of supervising another branch of the government. And without some sort of injury requirement, the political branches might be subjected to continuous judicial oversight. As a historical matter, Article III standing doctrine developed primarily in this context. But the structural concern prompted by that context is absent when one private party sues another private party. There is no prospect that such a suit will yield a remedy against a government official. The suit may, of course, raise other constitutional problems, but those other problems should not be shoehorned into standing--an avowedly transsubstantive jurisdictional doctrine that derives from Article III. This theoretical claim is bolstered by a striking fact: Until 2020, the Supreme Court had never dismissed a case for lack of Article III standing when the defendant was a private party on the ground that the injury alleged was insufficient. And, as it followed this pattern, the Court was notably more generous in recognizing standing in cases against private parties than in cases against governmental parties. But the Court recently broke this pattern. In two closely divided opinions, the Court held--for the first time--that private parties could not sue other private parties because the injuries alleged were inadequate. Congress's attempt to authorize those suits thus violated Article III. This paper critiques those decisions, situates them in the broader arc of the development of standing law, and surveys the prospects for doctrinal reconstruction. To do so, it proposes a novel framework to return the law of standing to its historical and conceptual moorings. Under that framework, standing doctrine should not limit Congress's (or the states') power to authorize lawsuits between private parties in federal court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

5. February 14, 2025 Filing Deadline in Securities Class Action

Subjects
Class actions (Civil procedure), Parties to actions, General interest, News, opinion and commentary
Abstract

SAN FRANCISCO: LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP has issued the following news release: National plaintiffs law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP encourages investors in MGP Ingredients, Inc. [...]

Published
2024

9. PACS Group, Inc. Investors: January 13, 2025 Filing Deadline in Securities Class Action - Contact Lieff Cabraser

Subjects
Going public (Securities), Class actions (Civil procedure), Parties to actions, Company public offering, Company securities, General interest, News, opinion and commentary
Abstract

SAN FRANCISCO: LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP has issued the following news release: National plaintiffs law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP encourages investors in PACS Group, Inc. [...]

Published
2024

10. PACS Group, Inc. Investors: January 13, 2025 Filing Deadline in Securities Class Action - Contact Lieff Cabraser

Subjects
Going public (Securities), Class actions (Civil procedure), Parties to actions, Company public offering, Company securities, Business, Business, international
Abstract

SAN FRANCISCO -- National plaintiffs law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP encourages investors in PACS Group, Inc. ('PACS' or the 'Company') (NYSE: PACS) who purchased or otherwise acquired [...]

Published
2024

12. MANAGING PRO SE PRISONER LITIGATION.

Author

Littman, Aaron

Subjects
*PRISONERS' rights, *LEGAL self-representation, *CRIMINAL defense, *LEGAL status of prisoners, *PARTIES to actions, *PRACTICE of law
Abstract

Prisoner litigation proceeds along two distinct tracks. On the first and predominant track, prisoners are pro se; their litigation is processed according to exceptional and largely extrajudicial procedures; and they almost always lose. On the second and much rarer track, prisoners obtain counsel--often through appointment; their cases receive serious consideration; and success is much more likely. Federal judges, magistrates, and staff attorneys play important roles in shaping prisoner civil rights litigation by assigning cases to these tracks. Perhaps so few prisoner civil rights cases are counseled and robustly adjudicated because most claims lack merit, or instead, perhaps so few prisoner civil rights claims succeed because so few prisoners are afforded counsel and receive the benefits of a fulsome adjudication. This essay analyzes over a decade of data on federal prisoner civil rights cases and suggests that the latter explanation is, at least in large part, correct. It compares, for the first time, success rates in prisoner civil rights cases across districts and circuits and across years with widely varying representation rates; it also employs a novel method to identify prisoner civil rights appeals in which counsel was appointed. Together, these analyses suggest that lawyering--and the serious engagement by courts that comes along with it--really matters. When more prisoner litigants are represented and fully heard, it seems, more of them win. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2023

13. PARTIES OR NOT?: THE STATUS OF ABSENT CLASS MEMBERS IN RULE 23 CLASS ACTIONS.

Author

Porter, Abby

Subjects
*PARTIES to actions, *JOINDER of actions, *LEGAL judgments
Abstract

When should absent class members-individuals who are bound by and share in a class recovery but who are not active participants in the litigation-be treated as "parties" in Rule 23 class actions? This simple question has confused courts and litigants almost since the initial conception of the class action device. In 1983, then-Professor Diane Wood introduced the joinder and representational models to classify approaches to this question in her now-seminal article. The joinder model treats absent class members as parties to the litigation at all times, while the representational model presumes only the named plaintiffs are parties to the case itself. At various moments, the Supreme Court has expressed exclusive support for the representational approach, exclusive support for the joinder approach, and a preference for a balanced approach which treats absent class members as parties for some procedural issues if not for others. Through the lens of the joinder and representational models, this Note clarifies the decisions courts are making when assessing the procedural rights of absent class members, and ultimately suggests that the status of absent class members should depend on the procedural right being asserted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2023

18. Kirby McInerney LLP Reminds Maxeon Solar Technologies, Ltd. (MAXN) Investors of Class Action Filing and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

Subjects
Solar energy, Class actions (Civil procedure), Green technology, Stockholders' derivative actions, Parties to actions, Petroleum, energy and mining industries
Abstract

(GlobeNewswire) - The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California [...]

Published
2024

20. Kirby McInerney LLP Reminds American Airlines (AAL) Investors of Class Action Filing and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

Subjects
American Airlines Inc., Class actions (Civil procedure), Stockholders' derivative actions, Parties to actions, Airlines, Business, international, Law
Abstract

(GlobeNewswire) - The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas [...]

Published
2024

21. Does Privilege Prevail? : Litigation in High Courts Across the Globe

Author

Stacia L Haynie, Kirk A Randazzo, Reginald S Sheehan, Stacia L Haynie, Kirk A Randazzo, and Reginald S Sheehan

Subjects
Parties to actions, Judicial process, Courts of last resort, Constitutional law, Judicial power
Abstract

The first transnational comparative study of legal party capability theory Justice is supposed to be blind. Cynics will say they know better. But what do the facts say? This groundbreaking study provides objective, data-driven answers to long-standing questions about winners and losers in courtrooms across the world. Does the party with the greater resources, such as money and influence, always prevail—and if so, why? Does Privilege Prevail? is the first book to evaluate these questions using a multi-country approach and, in doing so, assess what legal professionals and political scientists call party capability theory. Stacia Haynie, Kirk Randazzo, and Reginald Sheehan analyze over fifteen thousand litigation outcomes of the high courts of six countries—Australia, Canada, India, the Philippines, South Africa, and the United Kingdom—from 1970 to 2000. This unprecedented trove of data reveals that while the “haves” of society do undoubtedly enjoy certain advantages in the judicial system, a more complex explanation for legal outcomes is required than party capability theory provides—especially when it comes to assessing the role of attorneys and their legal teams or the components of the docket where judges can provide avenues for the “have nots” to succeed.

Published
2024

22. RECALIBRATING SECTION 220.

Author

HUNT, ALYSSA

Subjects
*STOCKHOLDERS' derivative actions, *ACTIONS & defenses (Law), *CORPORATION law, *PARTIES to actions, *STOCKHOLDERS
Abstract

The importance of Delaware's Section 220 in shareholder derivative litigation has dramatically increased over the past few decades, and for good reason: Section 220 can help sort out meritorious derivative claims from frivolous ones, thus generating successful claims that serve corporate governance objectives by holding managers accountable. But perverse incentives--deriving both from the preclusion issues of multijurisdictional shareholder litigation and from the incentive to draw out Section 220 litigation with overly aggressive defensive and offensive tactics--threaten the utility of Section 220. Without recalibration of these incentives, concerns that Section 220 has created surrogate proceedings where Delaware intended summary proceedings are only exacerbated. Accordingly, I propose that Delaware consider two legislative changes to recalibrate Section 220. First, because plaintiffs engaged in multijurisdictional litigation are incentivized by the threat of preclusion to forego prefiling investigations, I propose a limited fee-shifting provision in Section 220 that would more narrowly target the causes of frivolous litigation without overly deterring litigation. Second, to reduce the intensity and misuse that increasingly characterizes Section 220 proceedings, Section 220 should be streamlined by providing presumptive access to formal board-level materials to plaintiffs that state a proper purpose. Ultimately, the proposals put forth in this Comment provide tailored solutions to the incentive problems facing Section 220, seeking to mitigate the burden on litigants and the courts while maintaining its critical role in shareholder litigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2023

23. Should the Federal Circuit Stand Down on Standing?

Author

Welker, Avery J.

Subjects
*LOCUS standi, *PARTIES to actions
Abstract

The article analyzes the Federal Circuit's approach to the doctrine of standing arising from appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Topics include doctrines of standing and patent nonobviousness and novelty requirements; ModernaTx, Inc. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corp. court case dealing with the doctrine of standing; and the way Federal Circuit's decision in tension with and diverges from the congressional intent of the America Invents Act.

Published
2023

30. Kirby McInerney LLP Reminds Biogen, Inc. (BIIB) Investors of Class Action Filing and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

Subjects
Biogen Inc., Biological products industry, Class actions (Civil procedure), Stockholders' derivative actions, Parties to actions, Business, international, Law
Abstract

(GlobeNewswire) - The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP notifies investors of approaching July 22, 2024 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action [...]

Published
2024

31. July 16, 2024 Filing Deadline in Securities Class Action - Contact Lieff Cabraser

Subjects
Class actions (Civil procedure), Parties to actions, General interest, News, opinion and commentary
Abstract

SAN FRANCISCO: LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP has issued the following news release: National plaintiffs law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP encourages investors in Vestis Corporation ('Vestis' [...]

Published
2024

35. Brayton Purcell partner, James Nevin, published in Daily Journal

Subjects
Parties to actions, Business, News, opinion and commentary
Abstract

NOVATO, Calif., June 12, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- On June 11, 2024, Brayton Purcell partner James Nevin and Ralph Metzger, founder of Metzger Law Group were published in the Daily Journal. [...]

Published
2024

38. Kirby McInerney LLP Reminds Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) Investors of Class Action Filing and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

Subjects
Lincoln National Corp., Class actions (Civil procedure), Insurance industry, Financial statements, Stockholders' derivative actions, Parties to actions, Insurance industry, Business, international, Law
Abstract

(GlobeNewswire) - The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania [...]

Published
2024

41. Kirby McInerney LLP Reminds Equinix, Inc. (EQIX) Investors of Class Action Filing and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

Subjects
Equinix Inc., Class actions (Civil procedure), Telecommunications services industry, Stockholders' derivative actions, Parties to actions, Communications industry, Telecommunications services industry, Business, international, Law
Abstract

(GlobeNewswire) - The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California [...]

Published
2024

46. Kirby McInerney LLP Reminds Li Auto Inc. (LI) Investors of Class Action Filing and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

Subjects
Li Auto Inc., Transportation equipment industry, Class actions (Civil procedure), Stockholders' derivative actions, Parties to actions, Business, international, Law
Abstract

(GlobeNewswire) - The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New [...]

Published
2024

48. Trial Lawyer Barrett Robin Named Partner at Dallas Plaintiffs Law Firm Hamilton Wingo

Subjects
Walmart Inc., Law firms, Discount stores, Attorneys, Parties to actions, General interest, News, opinion and commentary
Abstract

DALLAS: Hamilton Wingo LLP has issued the following news release: The Dallas plaintiffs' law firm Hamilton Wingo is proud to announce the promotion of experienced trial attorney Barrett Robin to [...]

Published
2024

49. Trial Lawyer Barrett Robin Named Partner at Dallas Plaintiffs Law Firm Hamilton Wingo

Subjects
Thomson Reuters Corp., Online information services, Law firms, Online services, Attorneys, Information services, Parties to actions, Gas utilities, Online information service, Business, News, opinion and commentary
Abstract

DALLAS, May 14, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- The Dallas plaintiffs' law firm https://c212.net/c/link/?t=0&l=en&o=4166319-1&h=173396409&u=https%3A%2F%2Fhamiltonwingo.com%2F&a=Hamilton+Wingo is proud to announce the promotion of experienced trial attorney https://c212.net/c/link/?t=0&l=en&o=4166319-1&h=4123417006&u=https%3A%2F%2Fhamiltonwingo.com%2Fattorney%2Fbarrett-robin%2F&a=Barrett+Robin to partner. Mr. Robin continued his impressive [...]

Published
2024

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results