Consent Decrees

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey P. Alpert ◽  
Kyle McLean ◽  
Scott Wolfe
Keyword(s):  
1997 ◽  
Vol 23 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 191-220
Author(s):  
Thomas L. Greaney

Justice Stewart’s 1966 dictum about the inevitability of government success in challenging mergers under Section 7 of the Clayton Act held true for another fifteen years or so. In the early 1980s, however, federal enforcement agencies, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), began to find the federal courts less hospitable to antitrust merger cases as more sophisticated economic inquiries and changing proof burdens complicated the task of identifying anticompetitive mergers. Indeed, since the early 1980s, the government has lost more litigated merger cases than it has won and has come under criticism from some quarters for becoming gun shy and not adequately policing the wave of consolidations that have occurred over the past decade.Hospital mergers, however, are a different story. Until two years ago, the government rode a streak of important victories in federal courts and FTC administrative proceedings, and had obtained consent decrees from scores of hospitals that had announced plans to merge.


Author(s):  
Lloyd C. Anderson

 People negotiate agreements "in the shadow of the law," whether in the private ordering of affairs such as drafting contracts or in the public forum of settling lawsuits.[1] A reverse phenomenon, however, has gone largely unnoticed: judges occasionally declare law in the shadow of negotiated settlements. In interpreting the terms of a consent decree[2] when the parties themselves cannot agree on what obligations such terms impose, the judge may determine that both the words and the parties' own intentions are so ambiguous that the words must be interpreted in light of the substantive law that gave rise to the plaintiffs' claim. This writer has previously contended that the meaning of an ambiguous term should be determined, in part, "by reference to the constitutional or statutory rights sought to be vindicated in the litigation." Even if the law is somewhat uncertain, part of the judge's interpretive effort should be to determine which interpretation "will best serve the policies of the relevant law."[3] It appears that the federal courts, at least, have adopted this position.[4]


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Walker

The Department of Justice's pattern-or-practice police reform program has been an unprecedented event in American policing, intervening in local and state law enforcement agencies as never before and requiring a sweeping package of reforms. The program has reached reform settlements with forty agencies, including twenty with judicially enforced consent decrees. Academic research on the program, however, has been fairly modest. Social scientists have largely focused on a few selected issues. There is no study of the full impact of the program on one agency, and there is no comprehensive study of the impact of the program as a whole. Evaluations of individual agencies have been generally favorable, although with backsliding in some agencies. This review argues that the combination of several major goals and the various elements of specific consent decree reforms have created a web of accountability that is unmatched by any previous police reform effort. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Criminology, Volume 5 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.


Author(s):  
Jeffrey L. Metzner

Class action litigation that includes a focus on constitutionally inadequate correctional mental health care systems has been a major and effective force in jail and prison reform during the past four decades. Benefits to correctional mental health systems resulting from such litigation have included increased resources needed to implement basic policies and procedures that are necessary for a constitutionally adequate system. Following the passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, newly initiated consent decrees related to class action litigation involving correctional mental health services significantly decreased. The reduction in litigation related to this act followed from limiting the discretion of judges in approving such decrees that were previously allowed. Private settlement agreements and/or memoranda of agreement or their equivalents (the “Agreement”) have been substituted for the consent decree process. Although the judicial enforcement specific to implementation of these Agreements is weak, the monitoring process of such Agreements is very similar to those previously used with consent decrees. This chapter will summarize the monitoring process frequently involved in an Agreement resulting from a class action lawsuit specific to a correctional mental health care system using a single prison mental health system as an illustrative example. Emphasis will be placed on the importance of developing a quality improvement process that should ultimately eliminate the need for a monitor external to the mental health care system.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document