集体诉讼第二部分:从衰退中得到喘息

Robert H. Klonoff
{"title":"集体诉讼第二部分:从衰退中得到喘息","authors":"Robert H. Klonoff","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2881484","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a 2013 article, I explained that the Supreme Court and federal circuits had cut back significantly on plaintiffs' ability to bring class actions. As I explain in the present article, that trend has subsided. First, the Supreme Court has denied certiorari in several high profile cases. Second, the Court's most recent class action rulings have been narrow and fact specific. Third, the federal circuits have likewise adopted narrow and fact specific approaches to class actions. One explanation for this new trend is that defendants have been overly aggressive in their arguments, losing credibility and causing courts to push back.","PeriodicalId":151826,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Class Actions (Sub-Topic)","volume":"102 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Class Actions Part II: A Respite from the Decline\",\"authors\":\"Robert H. Klonoff\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2881484\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In a 2013 article, I explained that the Supreme Court and federal circuits had cut back significantly on plaintiffs' ability to bring class actions. As I explain in the present article, that trend has subsided. First, the Supreme Court has denied certiorari in several high profile cases. Second, the Court's most recent class action rulings have been narrow and fact specific. Third, the federal circuits have likewise adopted narrow and fact specific approaches to class actions. One explanation for this new trend is that defendants have been overly aggressive in their arguments, losing credibility and causing courts to push back.\",\"PeriodicalId\":151826,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Class Actions (Sub-Topic)\",\"volume\":\"102 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-02-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Class Actions (Sub-Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2881484\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Class Actions (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2881484","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在2013年的一篇文章中,我解释说,最高法院和联邦巡回法院已经大大削弱了原告提起集体诉讼的能力。正如我在本文中所解释的那样,这种趋势已经消退。首先,最高法院在几起引人注目的案件中拒绝了调取案卷的请求。其次,最高法院最近的集体诉讼裁决都是狭隘的,而且是针对事实的。第三,联邦巡回法院同样对集体诉讼采取狭隘的和具体事实的方法。对这种新趋势的一种解释是,被告在他们的论点中过于咄咄逼人,失去了可信度,导致法院予以回击。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Class Actions Part II: A Respite from the Decline
In a 2013 article, I explained that the Supreme Court and federal circuits had cut back significantly on plaintiffs' ability to bring class actions. As I explain in the present article, that trend has subsided. First, the Supreme Court has denied certiorari in several high profile cases. Second, the Court's most recent class action rulings have been narrow and fact specific. Third, the federal circuits have likewise adopted narrow and fact specific approaches to class actions. One explanation for this new trend is that defendants have been overly aggressive in their arguments, losing credibility and causing courts to push back.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信