Yale Law Journal最新文献_第5页

A Cooperative Federalism Approach to Shareholder Arbitration 合作联邦制对股东仲裁的影响

IF 6.4 1区社会学

Yale Law Journal Pub Date : 2018-07-09 DOI: 10.31228/osf.io/2yu3t

Z. Clopton, Verity Winship

{"title":"A Cooperative Federalism Approach to Shareholder Arbitration","authors":"Z. Clopton, Verity Winship","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/2yu3t","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/2yu3t","url":null,"abstract":"128 Yale Law Journal Forum 169 (2018).Arbitration dominates private law across an ever-expanding range of fields. Its latest target, however, may not be a new field as much as a new form: mandatory arbitration provisions built into corporate charters and bylaws. Recent developments in corporate law coupled with signals from the Securities and Exchange Commission suggest that regulators may be newly receptive to shareholder arbitration. What they do next may have dramatic consequences for whether and how corporate and securities laws are enforced.The debate about the merits of arbitration is well worn, but its application to shareholder claims opens the door to a different set of responses. In particular, the overlapping authority of federal and state actors with respect to corporate law calls for approaches that sound in cooperative federalism. Yet cooperative-federalist approaches have been absent from recent debates about shareholder arbitration. This Essay explains why cooperative federalism is a natural fit for addressing these issues. Moreover, we marshal specific examples of cooperative solutions in this area that could help frame federal-state coordination going forward. Such a cooperative response would avoid unnecessary federal-state conflict and allow policymakers to approach shareholder arbitration with expertise, accountability, and mutual respect.","PeriodicalId":48293,"journal":{"name":"Yale Law Journal","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2018-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90650034","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Group Litigation in History 历史上的集体诉讼

1区社会学

Yale Law Journal Pub Date : 2018-04-19 DOI: 10.2307/j.ctt2250x10.14

引用次数: 0

Notes 笔记

1区社会学

Yale Law Journal Pub Date : 2018-04-19 DOI: 10.2307/j.ctt2250vz0.15

引用次数: 0

Adaptation and Conflict 适应与冲突

1区社会学

Yale Law Journal Pub Date : 2018-03-02 DOI: 10.2307/j.ctt211qx0v.8

引用次数: 0

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY: 书目的文章:

1区社会学

Yale Law Journal Pub Date : 2018-03-02 DOI: 10.2307/j.ctt211qwmp.17

引用次数: 0

Pleading Poverty in Federal Court 在联邦法院以贫穷为借口

IF 6.4 1区社会学

Yale Law Journal Pub Date : 2018-01-15 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.3102522

Andrew Hammond

{"title":"Pleading Poverty in Federal Court","authors":"Andrew Hammond","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3102522","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3102522","url":null,"abstract":"What must a poor person plead to gain access to the federal courts? How do courts decide when a poor litigant is poor enough? This Article answers those questions with the first comprehensive study of how district courts determine when a litigant may proceed in forma pauperis in a civil lawsuit. This Article shows that district courts lack standards to determine a litigant’s poverty and often require litigants to answer an array of questions to little effect. As a result, discrepancies in federal practice abound — across and within district courts — and produce a pleading system that is arbitrary, inefficient, and invasive. This Article makes four contributions. First, it codes all the poverty pleadings currently used by the 94 federal district courts. Second, the Article shows that the flaws of these pleading procedures are neither inevitable nor characteristic of poverty determinations. By comparing federal practice to other federal means tests and state court practices, the Article demonstrates that a more streamlined, yet rights-respecting approach is possible. Third, the Article proposes a coherent in forma pauperis standard — one that would align federal practice with federal law, promote reasoned judicial administration, and protect the dignity of litigants. Such a solution proves that judges need not choose between extending access to justice and preserving court resources. In this instance and perhaps others, judges can serve both commitments of the federal system. Fourth, the Article illustrates how to study procedure from the bottom up. Given the persistent levels of inequality in American society, no account of civil procedure is complete without an understanding of how poor people litigate today.","PeriodicalId":48293,"journal":{"name":"Yale Law Journal","volume":"38 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2018-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87322452","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

INDEX 指数

1区社会学

Yale Law Journal Pub Date : 2017-12-31 DOI: 10.12987/9780300159769-012

Edward J. Larson

引用次数: 0

7. The Ungentlemanly Weapon 7. 不绅士的武器

1区社会学

Yale Law Journal Pub Date : 2017-12-31 DOI: 10.12987/9780300163667-011

Ian F.W. Beckett

引用次数: 0

finding list 找到列表

1区社会学

Yale Law Journal Pub Date : 2017-12-31 DOI: 10.12987/9780300138252-007

William Shakespeare

引用次数: 0

Title VII's Statutory History and the Sex Discrimination Argument for LGBT Workplace Protections 第七章的法定历史和LGBT工作场所保护的性别歧视论点

IF 6.4 1区社会学

Yale Law Journal Pub Date : 2017-08-22 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.3024259

William N. Eskridge

{"title":"Title VII's Statutory History and the Sex Discrimination Argument for LGBT Workplace Protections","authors":"William N. Eskridge","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3024259","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3024259","url":null,"abstract":"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Seventh Circuit have taken the position that Title VII’s bar to employment discrimination “because of * * * sex” applies to discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons. This interpretation follows from the ordinary meaning of the statute, read as a whole and in light of its purpose. If an employer fires a woman because she is married to another woman, rather than a man, the employer has, literally, acted “because of” her sex (if she had been a man, marriage to a woman would have been fine) and because of the sex of her partner. It is hard to deny that “sex” is not at least one “motivating factor” in the employment decision, which is all that the current version of Title VII requires for liability. Moreover, this reading of Title VII accords with its purpose, which is to entrench a merit-based workplace where specified traits or status-based criteria (race, color, national origin, religion, and sex) are supposed to be irrelevant to a person’s job opportunities. \u0000Treatment of anti-gay discrimination as a form of sex discrimination is not a new idea, but for several decades most federal judges have rejected it, and most Members of Congress have ignored it. This is an idea that has ripened over time, however. New circumstances have rendered the argument not only plausible but compelling. The biggest new development has been social facts and assumptions about sex minorities: In 1964, employees thought to be “homosexuals” were outside the scope of the merit-based workplace, because Americans believed them to be mentally ill, psychopathic, and predatory. Today, those views have been discredited, and this connects with a second new circumstance, a radically different constitutional baseline. As late as 2003, “homosexuals” could constitutionally be considered presumptive criminals, but the Supreme Court has for twenty years been developing a constitutional norm that gay people cannot be excluded from the law because of who they are. Indeed, the Court has ruled that the constitutional right to marry applies to same-sex (i.e., “homosexual”) couples. It is constitutionally jarring to know that, in most states, a lesbian couple can get married on Saturday and be fired from their jobs on Monday, without legal redress. \u0000A third new development has been the formal evolution of Title VII itself. Judges as well as commentators have largely ignored the “statutory history” of Title VII — its formal evolution through a process of amendment by Congress and authoritative interpretation by the Supreme Court. The Trump Administration and other skeptics of a broad reading of sex discrimination maintain that Title VII divides the world into males and females and does nothing more than require employers to apply the same rules to both sexes; anti-homosexual workplace exclusions or harassment operates equally on both sexes (i.e., both lesbians and gay men are harmed). But the Supreme","PeriodicalId":48293,"journal":{"name":"Yale Law Journal","volume":"14 1","pages":"322"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2017-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79367624","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 16