Muddying the Waters: The Downstream Implications of Wal-Mart v. Dukes for Medical Monitoring Class Actions in Missouri

In 2011, in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, the United States Supreme Court heightened scrutiny of class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 23(a)(2)'s commonality requirement and imposed a strict injunctive standard for relief sought under FRCP Rule 23(b)(2). In 2007, the Missouri Supreme Court followed several other states in acknowledging that claimants tortiously exposed to toxins may seek medical monitoring for latent disease in a class action. Although state courts are not bound by federal procedural rules, class actions increasingly invoke federal jurisdiction, and this Article attempts to analyze the likely implications of Dukes for toxic exposure class actions. Further, using Missouri as a benchmark, this Article provides suggestions for bolstering the chances of recovery for toxic exposure claimants facing removal to federal courts.

Download Full-text

The First Amendment And The Ministerial Exemption: Federal Statutory Mandates

Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR) ◽

10.19030/jabr.v28i5.7239 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 28 (5) ◽

pp. 989

Author(s):

Georgia L. Holmes ◽

Penny Herickhoff

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

First Amendment ◽

Equal Opportunity ◽

United States Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

Federal Courts ◽

Religious Organizations ◽

Font Size ◽

Unemployment Compensation ◽

Special Character

On January 11, 2012 the United States Supreme Court ruled in Hosanna Tabor Evangelical Lutheran School v. Equal Opportunity Commission, et al.<a name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" href="http://journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/JABR/author/saveSubmit/3#_ftn1"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-themecolor: text1;">[1]</a> that the First Amendment free exercise of religion clause requires the recognition of a ministerial exception from the application of the discrimination provisions of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Lower federal courts had long recognized such an exemption in federal anti-discrimination statutes, yet the U.S. Supreme Court had never formally done so. The decision of the Court was unanimous, although separate concurring opinions were filed by Justice Thomas and by Justice Alito, who was also joined by Justice Kagan. Thus, in its decision, the Court has mandated immunity for religious organizations from the laws that prohibit discrimination, and retaliation in the workplace. The Hosanna Tabor decision raises issues of how far such a ministerial exemption extends and to what extent it immunizes religious organizations from liability for other types of statutorily prohibited and tortious conduct. There is concern in some sectors that too broad an exemption would immunize religious organizations under numerous neutral, generally applicable laws, such as those governing sexual abuse, unemployment compensation, employer social Security deductions, and sales taxes, all of which have previously been applied to religious organizations. <div style="mso-element: footnote-list;"> <hr size="1" /><div style="mso-element: footnote;" id="ftn1"> <a name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" href="http://journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/JABR/author/saveSubmit/3#_ftnref1"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast;">[1]</a> ____ U.S. ____. </div> </div>

Download Full-text

United States Supreme Court Rules on Expert Testimony

PEDIATRICS ◽

10.1542/peds.95.6.934 ◽

1995 ◽

Vol 95 (6) ◽

pp. 934-936 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Gary N. McAbee

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Expert Testimony ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

United States Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

Federal Courts ◽

State Courts ◽

Expert Witnesses ◽

Us Supreme Court

Many medical and legal commentators have expressed concern about the validity of scientific evidence that is proffered by expert witnesses at depositions and in courts of law.1,2 The sparse research that is available on the testimony of medical expert witnesses suggests that it is frequently flawed and erroneous.3 On June 28, 1993, the United States (US) Supreme Court ruled on the proper standard for admissibility of scientific evidence in the courtroom.4 Although the ruling establishes guidelines that are binding only in federal courts, it is expected that many state courts will follow the Court's ruling. This commentary reviews the Court's guidelines for admissibility of expert testimony, and expresses concern about their applicability in future cases involving scientific testimony.

Download Full-text

Federalists, Federalism, and Federal Jurisdiction

Law and History Review ◽

10.1017/s0738248011000654 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 30 (1) ◽

pp. 205-244 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Alison L. LaCroix

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Party System ◽

The United States ◽

Federal Courts ◽

Federal Judiciary ◽

Early National ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

History Of ◽

Federal Jurisdiction ◽

Political Turmoil

Historians and legal scholars generally agree that during John Marshall's tenure as chief justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, the federal judiciary expanded its power to interpret the Constitution and asserted with increasing force its authority to speak on behalf of the Union. This single story of judicial nationalism, however, contains two distinct and largely non-overlapping strands. Historians have tended to focus on the Supreme Court alone, to the exclusion of the lower federal courts, and have largely treated early national controversies over the lower federal courts as outgrowths of the political turmoil that accompanied the emergence of the first party system. Legal scholars in the fields of federal courts and constitutional law, meanwhile, have devoted significant attention to the lower federal courts but have largely neglected the history of how those courts developed beyond the key early moments of the Constitutional Convention and the First Congress.

Download Full-text

Which Statute Will Trump

10.37419/lr.v5.i1.3 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. 105-131

Author(s):

Allen Al-Haj

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Labor Relations ◽

United States Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

Unintended Consequences ◽

Class Action ◽

Mutual Aid ◽

National Labor Relations Board ◽

The Cost ◽

Circuit Courts

A law can often be a double-edged sword—its mandate or protection of one right will sometimes come at the cost of another. Compounding this problem of unintended consequences is that laws do not operate in a vacuum. Instead, laws interact with other laws, and if they conflict, courts must determine which will prevail. Determining the validity of class-action waivers in employment arbitration agreements will require reconciling the Federal Arbitration Act’s mandate that arbitration agreements be enforced according to their terms against the National Labor Relations Act’s protection of employees’ right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid and protection. The dispute over the validity of these agreements requires courts to determine which law and congressional policy should prevail. The National Labor Relations Board and circuit courts throughout the country have been unable to reach a uniform decision, which has prompted the United States Supreme Court to grant certiorari on a triad of cases concerning this issue. With a decision from the nation’s highest Court expected during the 2017–18 term, this Comment analyzes the background and legal arguments behind these competing statutes to determine how the Court is likely to rule. This Comment concludes that, given the Court’s previous rulings in arbitration and class-action cases and the recent Supreme Court confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court is likely to rule in favor of validating class-action waivers in employment arbitration agreements.

Download Full-text

Procedure in Cases Involving Immunity of Foreign States in Courts of the United States

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.2307/2189627 ◽

1931 ◽

Vol 25 (1) ◽

pp. 83-96

Author(s):

A. H. Feller

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

United States Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

Federal Courts ◽

Judicial System ◽

United States Supreme ◽

Sovereign Immunity ◽

Procedural Complications ◽

The Law

To the ever-increasing confusion of doctrine which makes up the law of sovereign immunity, the courts of the United States have added procedural complications which, though not as weighty, are nevertheless as puzzling as any of the substantive rules. Of recent years the United States Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts have often had occasion to consider the method whereby the question of immunity was raised. The result has been the evolution of a set of rules so vaguely defined in the decisions as to offer little guidance to the bench and bar, and withal of interest to the scholar who finds that these rules exist in no other judicial system.

Download Full-text

Dura’s Effect on Securities Class Actions

Journal of Law and Commerce ◽

10.5195/jlc.2008.11 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 27 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Scotland M. Duncan

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

United States Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

Class Action ◽

United States Supreme ◽

Ceteris Paribus ◽

Class Actions ◽

Ex Post ◽

Ex Ante ◽

Practical Implications

On April 19, 2005, the United States Supreme Court rendered a unanimous decision in Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, which had been described as “the most important securities case in a decade.” Simply put, the decision raises the pleading standard for Rule 10b-5 cases asserting fraud-onthe-market; instead of requiring a showing of ex ante losses, such as inflation at the time of purchase, Dura requires a showing of ex post losses, such as market decline resulting from a corrective disclosure. This paper assesses the decision’s practical implications by examining and empirically testing whether the Supreme Court’s enhanced pleading requirements have impacted the frequency and magnitude of post-Reform Act (PSLRA) class action securities cases. Specifically, this paper examines Dura’s effect on the filing and settling of cases, as well as on settlement amount. In particular, the results suggest that Dura, ceteris paribus, has had a statistically significant impact on both the filing and settlement of class actions, suggesting a reduction in frivolous litigation.

Download Full-text