Printer Friendly

Reviewing the law reviews.

Law Review Highlights:

Jurisdiction and the Internet

The pervasiveness of the Internet in daily life has challenged traditional views of considering jurisdictional issues in legal matters. Concepts of territorial borders have changed within the context of the World Wide Web. The question courts are wrestling with is how those changes effect determinations of jurisdiction when looking at minimum contacts and forum states. There is still no uniform determination among nations or even circuits within the U.S. on how best to make determinations of jurisdiction when dealing with injury on the Internet. Some courts have used settled standards to rule on jurisdictional issues, while others have held that the Internet provides a unique set of considerations that take it outside the traditional rules for deciding jurisdiction. Several articles in this bibliography analyze the issues of jurisdiction and the Internet.

In his article, You Can't Always' Use the Zippo Code." The Fallacy of a Uniform Theory of Internet Personal Jurisdiction, (1) Dennis Yokoyama examines the current state of Internet jurisdiction jurisprudence. Yokoyama maintains that principles governing jurisdiction on the Internet should continue to follow the traditional model of personal jurisdiction, rather than separating Internet jurisdiction from those examples. He does this by first looking at decisions that were on the forefront of Internet personal jurisdiction that spawned a number of conflicting judicial decisions and commentary. The article also considers United States Supreme Court cases that articulate the traditional principles governing general and specific jurisdiction before contrasting those ideals with cases regarding Internet jurisdiction specifically. While Yokoyama believes that trying to state a uniform test encompassing the entirety of the Internet is not possible, he attempts to provide a framework for evaluating Internet jurisdiction issues that will be practical and effective.

A second article, Caveat E-Emptor: Solutions to the Jurisdictional Problem of Internet Injury (2) by John J. Schulze addresses jurisdictional issues generally raised in dealing with the Internet and proposes solutions for dealing with those problems. He examines three current jurisdictional theories: "totality of contacts" theory, "effects" test, "deliberate and continuous dissemination" approach. Schulze considers jurisdiction in an international law context, not only looking at the approaches of individual countries, but also reviewing the EU E-Commerce Directive and its approach to Internet culpability. Additionally, the article looks at forum selection clauses and their impact on cyber-jurisdiction issues. Finally, the author attempts to develop possible solutions for international jurisdiction issues that are raised by the article.

Jurisdiction in Internet Libel Cases (3) by Eric Barendt looks at jurisdiction specifically with respect to the tort of libel. The article starts with an analysis of the Australian case Dow Jones & Co. v. Gutnik (4) where the Court found that there should not be special rules adopted for the Internet because the Internet does not necessarily provide for a wider dissemination of information than other global broadcasting technologies. This is a different conclusion than many U.S. courts have reached. Courts in the U.S. often focus on whether or not the defendant had "targeted" the communication to readers in the forum state through use of the Internet. The author suggests that while there is no real reason to treat the Internet as presenting a completely unique set of circumstances when determining jurisdiction, courts should also be willing to recognize that there are some unique features to communication over the Internet. Courts should, therefore, exercise more discretion when it is clear that the defendant could not foresee harm to a plaintiff in a foreign forum.

The following list is a selective bibliography of current law review literature thought to be of interest to civil defense counsel.

U.S. and International


Richard Abel, General Damages Are Incoherent, Incalculable, Incommensurable, and Inegalitarian (But Otherwise a Great Idea), 55 DEPAUL L. REV. 253 (2006). <>

Ronen Avraham, Putting a Price on Pain-and-Suffering Damages: A Critique of the Current Approaches and a Preliminary Proposal for Change, 100 NW. U. L. REV. 87 (2006).<>

Roderick Bagshaw, Monetary Remedies in Public Law--Misdiagnosis and Misprescription, 26 LEGAL STUDS. 4 (2006). <>

Dato' P Balan, Damages for Personal Injuries Causing Death: A Critical Survey, 31 J. MALAYSIAN & COMP. L. 45 (2004). Journal of Malaysian & Comparative Law, Faculty of Law, University of Malaya, Lembah Pantai, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Giovanni Comande, Towards a Global Model for Adjudicating Personal Injury Damages: Bridging Europe and the United States, 19 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 241 (2005). <>

Rima N. Daniels, Monetary Damages in Mandatory Classes: When Should Opt-Out Rights Be Allowed?, 57 ALA. L. REV. 499 (2005). <>

Stephen Daniels & Joanne Martin, The Texas Two-Step: Evidence on the Link Between Damage Caps and Access to the Civil Justice System, 55 DEPAUL L. REV. 635 (2006). <>

Daniel D. Doyle & Jennifer A. Fletcher, OOIDA Class-Action Damages and Other Relief, 32 TRANSP. L.J. 199 (2005). <>

Anthony Duggan, Exemplary Damages in Equity: A Law and Economics Perspective, 26 OXFORD J. LEG. STUDS. 303 (2006). <>

E. Martin Estrada, Pushing Doctrinal Limits: The Trend Toward Applying Younger Abstention to Claims for Monetary Damages and Raising Younger Abstention Sua Sponte on Appeal, 81 N.D.L. REV. 475 (2005). <>

Blaine Evanson, Note, Due Process in Statutory Damages, 3 GEO. J.L. PUB. POL'Y 601 (2005). <>

Erik S. Fisk, Stigma Damages in Construction Defect Litigation: Feared by Defendants, Championed by Plaintiffs, Awarded by (Almost) No Courts--What Gives?, 55 DEF. L.J. 73 (2006). <>

George Clemon Freeman, Jr. & Makram B. Jaber, Further Progress in Defining Constitutional Constraints on Punitive Damages and Other Monetary Punishments,, 61 Bus. LAW. 517 (2006). <>

Timothy R. Freeman, Comment, Compensatory or Punitive Damages? Tarr v. Ciasulli Blurs the Distinction, 36 SETON HALL L. REV. 1285 (2006). <>

Mark A. Geistfeld, Due Process and the Determination of Pain and Suffering Tort Damages, 55 DEPAUL L. REV. 331 (2006). <>

John C. P. Goldberg, Two Conceptions of Tort Damages: Fair v. Full Compensation, 55 DEPAUL L. REV. 435 (2006). <>

John Y. Gotanda, Awarding Damages Under the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods: A Matter of Interpretation, 37 GEO. J. INT'L L. 95 (2005). <>

Michael D. Green, The Intersection of Factual Causation and Damages, 55 DEPAUL L. REV. 671 (2006). <>

Sara D. Guardino & Richard A. Daynard, Punishing Tobacco Industry Misconduct: The Case for Exceeding a Single Digit Ratio Between Punitive and Compensatory Damages, 67 U. PITT. L. REV. 1 (2005). <>

Edward J. Hickling, et al., The Psychological Impact of Litigation: Compensation Neurosis, Malingering, PTSD, Secondary Traumatization, and Other Lessons from MVAs, 55 DEPAUL L. REV. 617 (2006).<>

Rachel M. Janutis, Fair Apportionment of Multiple Punitive Damages, 75 MISS. L.J. 367 (2006). <>

Jenny Miao Jiang, Comment, Whimsical Punishment: The Vice of Federal Intervention, Constitutionalization, and Substantive Due Process in Punitive Damages Law, 94 CAL. L. REV. 793 (2006). <>

Kelly Kotur, An Extreme Response or a Necessary Reform ? Revealing How Caps on Noneconomic Damages Actually Affect Medical Malpractice Victims and Malpractice Insurance Rates, 108 W. VA. L. REV. 873 (2006). <>

Elissa Levy, Note, The Health Act's FDA Defense to Punitive Damages: A Gift to Drug Makers or to the Public?, 74 FORDHAM L. REV. 2425 (2006). <>

Qiao Liu, Claiming Damages upon an Anticipatory Breach: Why Should an Acceptance Be Necessary?, 25 LEGAL STUDS. 559 (2005). <>

Keith P. McManus, Civil Liability for Wartime Environmental Damage: Adapting the United Nations Compensation Commission for the Iraq War, 33 B.C. ENVTL. AFFS. L. REV. 417 (2006). <>

James McMillan, Comment, Contributory Negligence and Statutory Damage Limits--An Old Alternative to a Contemporary Movement? 42 IDAHO L. REV. 269 (2005). <>

Michael R. Nelson & C. Theresa Barone, Controlling the Scope of Deposition Discovery in Bad Faith and Punitive Damage Cases, 56 FDCC Q. 409 (2006). <>

Jennifer C. Parker, Note, Beyond Medical Malpractice: Applying the Lost Chance Doctrine to Cure Causation and Damages Concerns with Educational Malpractice Claims, 36 U. MEM. L. REV. 373 (2006). <>

Robert S. Peck, Violating the Inviolate: Caps on Damages and the Right to Trial by Jury, 31 U. DAYTON L. REV. 307 (2006). <>

Paul Perell, A Bit about Bites: Liability for Damages Caused by a Dog, 31 ADVOCS. Q. 347 (2006). < ProductID=175&CategoryID=12>

Steven Plitt & Christie L. Kriegsfeld, The Punitive Damages Lottery Chase is Over: Is There a Regulatory Alternative to the Tort of Common Law Bad Faith and Does It Provide an Alternative Deterrent?, 37 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 1221 (2005). < >

Robert L. Rabin, Pain and Suffering and Beyond: Some Thoughts on Recovery for Intangible Loss, 55 DEPAUL L. REV. 359 (2006). <>

Djakhongir Saidov, Standards of Proving Loss and Determining the Amount of Damages, 22 J. CONT. L. 27 (2006). < products/catalog/current_htm/JCL.asp?productid=JCL&jurisdiction=0& category=11&medium=0>

Joseph Sanders, Why Do Proposals Designed to Control Variability in General Damages (Generally) Fall on Deaf Ears (and Why This Is Too Bad), 55 DEPAUL L. REV. 489 (2006). <>

Victoria A. Schall, The New Extreme Makeover: The Medical Malpractice Crisis, Non-Economic Damages, the Elderly, and the Courts, 5 APPALACHIAN J.L. 151 (2006). <>

Anthony J. Sebok, Translating the Immeasurable: Thinking About Pain and Suffering Comparatively, 55 DEPAUL L. REV. 379 (2006). <>

G. Shapira, Damages and Territorial Jurisdiction: Judicial Interpretation of Rule 219(a) and the Case for Reform, 11 OTAGO L. REV. 233 (2006). <>

Steven Shavell, Specific Performance Versus Damages for Breach of Contract: An Economic Analysis, 84 TEX. L. REV. 831 (2006). <>

Duane L. Steffey, et al., Statistical Assessment of Damages in Breach of Contract Litigation, 46 JURIMETRICS 129 (2006). <>

Stephen D. Sugarman, A Comparative Law Look at Pain and Suffering Awards, 55 DEPAUL L. REV. 399 (2006). < tudent_orgs/lawdlr/>

Richard H. Tilghman IV, Comment, Rethinking Constitutional Limitations on Punitive Damages: Providing Economically Efficient Incentives to Prevent Nursing Home Abuse, 54 DEPAUL L. REV. 1007 (2005). < _students/student_orgs/lawdlr/>

Jonathan T. Tomlin & David R. Merrell, The Accuracy and Manipulability of Lost Profits Damages Calculations: Should the Trier of Fact Be "Reasonably Certain?" 7 TRANSACTIONS: TENN. J. BUS. L. 295 (2006).< entrep/claytontransactions.htm>

Martin V. Totaro, Note, Modernizing the Critique of Per Diem Pain and Suffering Damages, 92 VA. L. REV. 289 (2006). <>

Cathleen B. Tumulty, Note, Capping Non-Economic Damages: Is It Really What the Doctor Ordered? Predicting the Effect of Federal Tort Reform by Examining the Impact of Tort Reform at the State Level, 39 SUFFOLK U. L. REV. 817 (2006). < review/>

Carrie Lynn Vine, Comment, Addressing the Medical Malpractice Insurance Crisis: Alternatives' to Damage Caps, 26 N. ILL. U. L. REV. 413 (2006). < go.cfm?do=Page.View&id=107>

Eric E. Walker, Note, State Action and Punitive Damages: A New Twist on an Old Doctrine, 38 CONN. L. REV. 833 (2006). <>

Charlie Webb, Performance and Compensation: An Analysis of Contract Damages and Contractual Obligation, 26 OXFORD J. LEGAL STUDS. 41 (2006). <>

David J. Weiner, Comment, Assignee Liability in State Predatory Lending Laws: How Uncapped Punitive Damages Threaten the Secondary Mortgage Market, 55 EMORY L.J. 535 (2006). <>

Molly L. Zohn, Comment, How Antitrust Damages Measure up with Respect to the Daubert Factors, 13 GEO. MASON L. REV. 697 (2005). < lawreview/>

Paul J. Zwier, The Utility of a Nonconsequentialist Rationale for Civil-Jury-Awarded Punitive Damages, 54 U. KAN. L. REV. 403 (2006). <>


Stuart S. Clark & Christina Harris, Obtaining Evidence in Australia for Use in the U.S. and Other Hague Convention Countries, 73 DEF. COUNS. J. 235 (2006). <>

William V. Dorsaneo, III, Evolving Standards of Evidentiary Review: Revising the Scope of Review, 47 S. TEX. L. REV. 225 (2005). <>

Stephen D. Easton, That Is Not All There Is: Enhancing Daubert Exclusion by Applying "Ordinary" Witness Principles to Experts, 85 NEB. L. REV. 675 (2006). <>

Neal Feigenson, Too Real? The Future of Virtual Reality Evidence, 28 L. & POL'Y 271 (2006). < BALDYCENTER/lawandpolicy.htm>

Simone Ling Francini, Note, Expert Handwriting Testimony: Is the Writing Really on the Wall?, 11 SUFFOLK J. TRIAL & APP. ADVOC. 99 (2006). < orgs/moot/journal.cfm>

Edward J. Imwinkelried, "Junk Science" in the Courtroom: Will the Changes in the American Law of Expert Testimony Influence the Irish Courts?, 26 DUBLIN U. L.J. 83 (2004). <>

Charles N. W. Keckler, Cross-Examining the Brain: A Legal Analysis of Neural Imaging for Credibility Impeachment, 58 HASTINGS L.J. 509 (2006). <>

Michael J. Lichtenstein, Settling the Law in the Circuits: Presenting Hearsay Evidence in a Preliminary Injunction Hearing, 29 AM. J. TRIAL ADVOC. 415 (2005). < journal/>

Joan Loughrey, The Confidentiality of Medical Records: Informational Autonomy, Patient Privacy, and the Law, 56 N. IRELAND LEGAL Q. 293 (2005). < Brochure1?Books.ID=57&bookid=57& category=Periodicals>

Gary E. Marchant, Genetic Data in Toxic Tort Litigation, 14 J. L. & POL'Y 7 (2006). <>

Miah Rosenberg, Note, Do You Hear What I Hear? Expert Testimony in Music Infringement Cases in the Ninth Circuit, 39 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1669 (2006). <>

Ryan M. Seidemann, et al., Closing the Gate on Questionable Expert Witness Testimony: A Proposal to Institute Expert Review Panels, 33 S.U.L. REV. 29 (2005). < review.htm>

R. Matthew Wise, Comment, From Price Waterhouse to Dukes and Beyond: Bridging the Gap Between Law and Social Science by Improving the Admissibility Standard for Expert Testimony, 26 BERKELEY J. EMP. & LAB. L. 545 (2005). <>


David T. Case & Matthew L. Jacobs, Insurance Coverage for Governmental Investigations of Financial Institutions, 123 BANKING L.J. 256 (2006). <>

Thomas O. Farrish, "Diminished Value" in Automobile Insurance: The Controversy and Its Lessons, 12 CONN. INS. L.J. 39 (2005). < html>

Sean M. Fitzpatrick, The Small Laws: Eliot Spitzer and the Way to Insurance Market Reform, 74 FORDHAM L. REV. 3041 (2006). < ihtml?pubid=500>

Joan T.A. Gabel, et al., The Peculiar Moral Hazard of Employment Practices Liability Insurance: Realignment of the Incentive to Transfer Risk with the Incentive to Prevent Discrimination, 20 NOTRE DAME J.L. ETHICS & PUB. POL'Y 639 (2006). <>

John Dwight Ingram, Misrepresentations in Applications for Insurance, 14 U. MIAMI BUS. L. REV. 103 (2005). < business-law-review/>

Edward J. Kionka, Things to Do (or Not) to Address the Medical Malpractice Insurance Problem, 26 N. ILL. U. L. REV. 469 (2006). <,View& id=107>

Aimee Jodoi Lure, Comment, America's Two Days of Infamy: The Immediate and Lasting Effects of Pearl Harbor and September 11th on the Ever-Evolving Insurance Industry, 27 U. HAW. L. REV. 111 (2004). < service/student-organizations/lawreview/index.html>

George A. Nation III, Obscene Contracts: The Doctrine Unconscionability and Hospital Billing of the Uninsured, 94 KY. L.J. 101 (2006). < /Law/current_students/ky_law_journal.html>

Meredith C. Nerem, Note, Miss-and-Run Accidents and the Physical Contact Requirement: An Unfair Advantage for Insurance Companies in the Insurance Capital of the Heartland, 54 DRAKE L. REV. 535 (2006). <>

Jeffrey O'Connell & John Linehan, Neo NoFault Early Offers: A Workable Compromise Between First and Third-Party Insurance, 41 GONZ. L. REV. 103 (2005). < Program/Law+Reviews/Gonzaga+Law+ Review/default.asp>

Benjamin M. Parrott, Note, For Better or for Worse? The Iowa Supreme Court's Decision to Compensate the Innocent Coinsured Spouse in Sager v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, 54 DRAKE L. REV. 561 (2006). <>

Guy H. Riddle, Aviation Insurance Coverage Issues "Beware the Renter Pilot," 70 J. AIR L. & COM. 407 (2005). <>

Sarah Ritz, The Need for Parity in Health Insurance Benefits for the Mentally and Physically Disabled: Questioning Inconsistency Between Two Leading Anti Discrimination Laws, 18 J.L & HEALTH 263 (2004). < students/JLH/index.html>

E. Daniel Robinson, Note, Embracing Equity: A New Remedy for Wrongful Health Insurance Denials, 90 MINN. L. REV. 1447 (2006). <>

David J. Rosenberg, et al., Insurance Industry Woes in the Aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina & Rita, 73 DEF. COUNS. J. 141 (2006). <>

Thomas F. Segalla & Carrie P. Parks, Misrepresentations in Insurance Applications: Dangers in Those Lies, 73 DEF. COUNS. J. 118 (2006). <>

Farbod Solaimani, Watching the Client's Back: A Defense of Mandatory Insurance Disclosure Laws, 19 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 963 (2006). < edu/journals/ethics/>

Scott D. Stevens & Tom Baker, Comment, A Comparative Look at Alabama's Stance on Ethical Issues Faced By Insurance Defense Lawyers, 30 J. LEGAL PROF. 159 (2006). <>

Paola Morales Torrado, Political Risk Insurance and Breach of Contract Coverage: How the Intervention of Domestic Courts May Prevent Investors from Claiming Insurance, 17 PACE INT'L L. REV. 301 (2005). <>

Roger Van den Bergh & Michael Faure, Compulsory Insurance of Loss to Property Caused by Natural Disasters: Competition or Solidarity?, 29 WORLD COMPETITION L. & ECON. REV. 25 (2006). < area=Journals&mode=bypub&level=4& values=Journals~~World+Competition>

Patrick J. Wielinski & Marc A. Young, New Challenges to Insurance Coverage for Defective Construction, 56 FDCC Q. 175 (2006). <>

Jan Woloniecki & Kim Wilkerson, The U.S. Corporate Defendant's Captive Insurer's Dilemma: Third Party Liability Claims and Recovery Under English Law, 73 DEF. COUNS. J. 291 (2006). <>

Albert Yoon, Offer-of-Judgment Rules and Civil Litigation: An Empirical Study of Automobile Insurance Litigation in the East, 59 VAND. L. REV. 155 (2006). < html>


Eric Barendt, Jurisdiction in Internet Libel Cases, 110 PENN ST. L. REV. 727 (2006). < cfm>

Debra Lyn Bassett, The Defendant's Obligation to Ensure Adequate Representation in Class Actions, 74 UMKC L. REV. 511 (2006). <>

Vivian Berger, et al., Summary Judgment Benchmarks for Settling Employment Discrimination Lawsuits, 23 HOFSTRA LAB. & EMP. L.J. 45 (2005). < law_laborlaw.cfm>

Robert M. Bloom, Jury Trials in Japan, 28 LOY. L.A. INT'L & COMP. L. REV. 35 (2006). <>

Brian D. Boone, Comment, Bullseye!: Why a "Targeting" Approach to Personal Jurisdiction in the E-Commerce Context Makes Sense Internationally, 20 EMORY INT'L L. REV. 241 (2006). <>

Andrew Bradt, "Much to Gain and Nothing to Lose" Implications of the History of the Declaratory Judgment for the (b)(2) Class Action, 58 ARK. L. REV. 767 (2006). <>

Philip Bryden, Understanding the Standard of Review in Administrative Law, 54 U. NEW BRUNSWICK L.J. 73 (2005). <>

Elizabeth J. Cabraser, The Manageable Nationwide Class: A Choice-of-Law Legacy of Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 74 UMKC L. REV. 543 (2006). <>

Stephanie A. Casey, Comment, Balancing Deterrence, Comity Considerations, and Judicial Efficiency: The Use of the D.C. Circuits Proximate Cause Standard for Determining Subject Matter Jurisdiction over Extraterritorial Antitrust Cases, 55 AM. U. L. REV. 585 (2005). <http://www.wcl.>

Frank Chirino, Comment, Business Without Borders: Tailoring American and Canadian Personal Jurisdiction Principles to Provide Greater Certainty for Online Businesses, 12 Sw. J. L. & TRADE AM. 97 (2005). < journal.htm>

Richard A. Dilgren III, As a Matter of Fact, It's a Question of Law: A Case for De Novo Review of Likelihood of Confusion in Trademark Cases, 28 HASTINGS COMM. & ENT. L.J. 109 (2005). <>

David W. Feder, Note, The Forum Non Conveniens Dismissal in the Absence of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, 74 FORDHAM L. REV. 3147 (2006). < ihtml?pubid=500>

C.E. Foster, Social Science Experts' and Amicus Curiae Briefs in International Courts and Tribunals: The WTO Biotech Case, 52 NETHERLANDS INT'L L. REV. 433 (2005). <>

Eric C. Hawkins, Note, General Jurisdiction and Internet Contacts: What Role, If Any, Should the Zippo Sliding Scale Test Play in the Analysis?, 74 FORDHAM L. REV. 2371 (2006). <http://law. publications/index.ihtml?pubid=500>

Laura J. Hines & Steven S. Gensler, Driving Misjoinder: The Improper Party Problem in Removal Jurisdiction, 57 ALA. L. REV. 779 (2006). <>

Latour "LT" Lafferty, Trial Objections: The Way of Advocacy, 11 SUFFOLK J. TRIAL & APP. ADVOC. 1 (2006). < orgs/moot/journal.cfm>

Richard L. Marcus, E-Discovery & Beyond: Toward Brave New World or 1984?, 25 REV. LITIG. 633 (2006). <>

Nancy S. Marder, Bringing Jury Instructions into the Twenty-First Century, 81 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 449 (2006). <>

Geoffrey P. Miller, Rethinking Certification and Notice in Opt-Out Class Actions, 74 UMKC L. REV. 637 (2006). <>

Jeremy M. Miller, Judicial Recusal and Disqualification: The Need for a Per Se Rule on Friendship (Not Acquaintance), 33 PEPP. L. REV. 575 (2006). <http://law.pepperdine. edu/prospective/academics/law_review/>

Derek O'Brien, The Caribbean Court of Justice and its Appellate Jurisdiction: A Difficult Birth, 2006 PUB. L. 344. < ?prodid=7040&unitid=7040&search=public %201aw&format=J&publisher=all&subject= all&from=1&to=50>

Paul Perell, The Authority of the Superior Court of Justice, the Legislature and the Civil Rules Committee to Make Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 ADVOCS. Q. 185 (2006). < m?DSP=Detail&ProductID=175&Category ID=12>

John J. Schulze, Jr., Caveat E-Emptor: Solutions to the Jurisdictional Problem of Internet Injury, 29 AM. J. TRIAL ADVOC. 615 (2006). < law/trialjournal/>

Hakeem Seriki, Anti-Suit Injunctions and Arbitration: A Final Nail in the Coffin?, 23 J. INT'L ARB. 25 (2006). < area=Journals&mode=bypub&level=4& values=Journals~~Journal+of+International+ Arbitration>

Amy E. Sloan, Appellate Fruit Salad and Other Concepts: A Short Course in Appellate Process, 35 U. BALT. L. REV. 43 (2005). <>

Jan Jerker B. Svantesson, Borders On, or Border Around--the Future of the Internet, 16 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 343 (2006). <>

Nathalie Voser & Anna Katharina Mueller, Appointment of Experts by the Arbitral Tribunal: the Civil Law Perspective, 7 BUS. L. INT'L 73 (2006). < publications/Business_Law_International.cfm>

Thomas E. Willging & Shannon R. Wheatman, Attorney Choice of Forum in Class Action Litigation: What Difference Does It Make?, 81 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 591 (2006). <>

Dennis T. Yokoyama, You Can't Always Use the Zippo Code: The Fallacy of a Uniform Theory of Internet Personal Jurisdiction, 54 DEPAUL L. REV. 1147 (2005). < _students/student_orgs/lawdlr/>

Products Liability

Michael H. Bagot, Jr., The Ebb and Flow of East River: Consideration of the Supreme Court's Decision on Products Liability in Shipbuilding Contracts, 30 TUL. MAR. L.J. 137 (2006). < maritime/index.cfm>

Laura E. Derr, When Food Is Poison: The History, Consequences, and Limitations of the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004, 61 FOOD & DRUG L.J. 65 (2006). < /Journal%20Online/>

Jennifer Rudis Deschamp, Comment, Has the Law of Products Liability Spoiled the True Purpose of Trademark Licensing? Analysing the Responsibility of a Trademark Licensor for Defective Products Bearing Its Mark, 25 ST. LOUIS U. PUB. L. REV. 247 (2006). <>

Matthew W. Gissendanner, Tort Recovery for Defective Products Posing a Threat of Bodily Harm: An Exception to the Economic Loss Rule?, 57 S.C.L. REV. 619 (2006). <>

Anton Mauer, German Product Liability Plaintiffs Make Progress with the Pharmaceutical Act and the Products Liability Act, 73 DEF. COUNS. J. 275 (2006). <>

Gordon McKee & Robin Linley, The Evolving Landscape for Pharmaceutical Product Liability Litigation in Canada, 73 DEF. COUNS. J. 242 (2006). <>

Jason Parent, Comment, Every Dog Can Have Its Day: Extending Liability Beyond the Seller by Defining Pets As "Products" Under Products Liability Theory, 12 ANIMAL L. 241 (2006). <>

Jessica J. Penkal, Comment, When Legislative Regulation Strikes Out: Proving a Products Liability Case Against Metal Baseball Bat Manufacturers, 67 MONT. L. REV. 31 (2006). <>

Jerry J. Phillips, The Unreasonably Unsafe Product and Strict Liability, 72 TULANE L. REV. 833 (2006). < lawrev/review.htm>

Brian A. Rosenblatt, I Know, It's Only Rock and Roll, But Did They Like It?: An Assessment of Causes of Action Concerning the Disappointment of Subjective Consumer Expectations Within the Live Performance Industry, 13 UCLA ENT. L. REV. 33 (2005). <>

Sumiko Takaoka, Product Defects and the Value of the Firm in Japan: The Impact of the Product Liability Law, 35 J. LEGAL STUDS. 61 (2006). <http://www.journals.>

Daniel Weiss, Product Liability and Safety Concerns Amid the Growing Custom Motorcycle Industry: Motorcycle Inspections as the Most Effective Solution, 14 U. MIAMI BUS. L. REV. 241 (2006). <http://current>

Matthew R. Wilmot, Baseball Bats in the High Tech Era: A Products Liability Look at New Technology, Aluminum Bats, and Manufacturer Liability, 16 MARQ. SPORTS L. REV. 353 (2006). <http://law.marquette. edu/cgi-in/>

David Wilkinson & Adam Blanchard, Mass Tort Treatment of Pharmaceutical Product Liability Cases in England, 73 DEF. COUNS. J. 264 (2006). <>

Professional Responsibility

Larry D. Barnett, Social Productivity, Law, and the Regulation of Conflicts of Interest in the Investment Industry, 3 CARDOZO PUB. L. POL'Y & ETHICS J. 793 (2006). <>

Daniel D. Blinka, Ethics, Evidence, and the Modern Adversary Trial, 19 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 1 (2006). <>

Ethan S. Burger & Carol M. Langford, The Future of Legal Ethics: Some Potential Effects of Globalization & Technological Change on Law Practice Management in the Twenty-First Century, 15 WIDENER L.J. 267 (2006). < current/publications/wlj/index.shtml>

John D. Comerford, Competent Computing: A Lawyer's Ethical Duty to Safeguard the Confidentiality and Integrity of Client Information Stored on Computers and Computer Networks, 19 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 629 (2006). <>

Zach Dostart, Comment, Selective Disclosure: The Abrogation of the Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work Product Doctrine, 33 PEPP. L. REV. 723 (2006). < academics/law_review/>

Susan Saab Fortney, The Billable Hours Derby: Empirical Data on the Problems and Pressure Points, 33 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 171 (2005). < /index.ihtml?pubid=400>

Sandra Liss Friedman & Helena D. Sullivan, Optrex and the Attorney-Client Privilege: Implications and Potential Significance, 39 J. MARSHALL L. REV. 1 (2005). < review/index.shtml>

Larry O. Natt Gantt II, More Than Lawyers: The Legal and Ethical Implications of Counseling Clients on Nonlegal Considerations, 55 DEF. L.J. 151 (2006). < product/41036.html>

Guy R. Gruppie & Gilbert Perez III, Ethical Issues in the Use of Trial Consultants, 56 FDCC Q. 267 (2006). <>

Fred Hagans, The Future of Litigation Ethics, 25 REV. LITIG. 747 (2006). <>

Peter J. Henning, Lawyers, Truth, and Honesty in Representing Clients, 20 NOTRE DAME J. L. ETHICS & PUB. POL'Y 209 (2006). <>

Kimberly Kirkland, Ethics in Large Law Firms: The Principle of Pragmatism, 35 U. MEM. L. REV. 631 (2005). <>

Katerina P. Lewinbuk, Transformation of the Ethical Boundaries of the Attorney-Client Privilege in Response to the Growing Complexity of the Modern Business World, 42 WILLAMETTE L. REV. 79 (2006). <http://>

Carlos Wing-Hung Lo & Ed Snape, Lawyers in the People's Republic of China: A Study of Commitment and Professionalization, 53 AM. J. COMP. L. 433 (2005). <http://www.>

Samuel A. Marcosson, Client Counseling as an Ethical Obligation: Advising Employers Before They Discriminate, 33 N. KY. L. REV. 221 (2006). <>

William E. Matthews, et al., Conflicting Loyalties Facing In-House Counsel: Ethical Care and Feeding of the Ravenous Multi-Headed Client, 37 ST. MARY'S L.J. 901 (2006). < group=program&page=lawJournal.php>

Suzanne McCorkle, The Murky Worm of Mediation Ethics: Neutrality, Impartiality, and Conflict of Interest in State Codes of Conduct, 23 CONFLICT RESOL. Q. 165 (2005). < crq.htm>

William C. McMahon III, Declining Professionalism in Court: A Comparative Look at the English Barrister, 19 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 845 (2006). <>

Nelson P. Miller, The Nobility of the American Lawyer: The Ennobling History, Philosophy, and Morality of a Maligned Profession, 22 T.M. COOLEY L. REV. 209 (2005). < orgs/lawreview/>

Thomas D. Morgan, The Corporate Lawyer and "The Perjury Trilemma," 34 HOFSTRA L. REV. 965 (2006). <http://www.hofstra. edu/Academics/Law/law_lawrev.cfm>

Brenna G. Nava, Comment, Hurricane Katrina: The Duties and Responsibilities of an Attorney in the Wake of a Natural Disaster, 37 ST. MARY'S L.J. 1153 (2006). < group=program&page=lawJournal.php>

Donald Nicolson, Making Lawyers Moral? Ethical Codes and Moral Character, 25 LEGAL STUDS. 601 (2005). < publications/page.cfm?no=16>

Andrew M. Perlman, Untangling Ethics Theory from Attorney Conduct Rules: The Case of Inadvertent Disclosures, 13 GEO. MASON L. REV. 767 (2005). < lawreview/>

Burnele V. Powell, Creating Space for Lawyers to Be Ethical: Driving Towards an Ethic of Transparency, 34 HOFSTRA L. REV. 1093 (2006). < law_lawrev.cfm>

Margaret Raymond, The Professionalization of Ethics, 33 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 153 (2005). <http://law. edu/publications/index.ihtml?pubid=400>

Deborah L. Rhode, Legal Ethics in an Adversary System: The Persistent Questions, 34 HOFSTRA L. REV. 641 (2006). < law_lawrev.cfm>

Deborah Rhode, Profits and Professionalism, 33 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 49 (2005). <http://law. /index.ihtml?pubid=400>

Douglas R. Richmond, The Attorney-Client Privilege and Associated Confidentiality Concerns in the Post-Enron Era, 55 DEF. L.J. 1 (2006). <http://bookstore.>

Kenneth M. Rosen, Lessons on Lawyers, Democracy, and Professional Responsibility, 19 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 155 (2006). < ethics/>

Tiffany Seeman, Comment, Safeguarding the Attorney-Client Privilege in the Face of Federal Securities Regulations, 4 DEPAUL BUS. & COMM. L.J. 309 (2006). < students/student_orgs/lawblj/>

Tobin A. Sparling, Keeping up Appearances: The Constitutionality of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct's Prohibition of Extra judicial Speech Creating the Appearance of Bias, 19 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 441 (2006). <>

Campbell C. Steele, Note, Attorneys Beware: Metadata's Impact on Privilege, Work Product, and the Ethical Rules, 35 U. MEM. L. REV. 911 (2005). <>

Marc I. Steinberg & Chris Claassen, Attorney Liability Under the State Securities Laws: Landscapes and Minefields, 3 BERKELEY BUS. L.J. 1 (2005). <>

Paul R. Tremblay, Migrating Lawyers and the Ethics of Conflict Checking, 19 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 489 (2006). <>

Robert K. Vischer, Legal Advice As Moral Perspective, 19 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 225 (2006). < journals/ethics/>


Elizabeth Adjin-Tettey, Protecting the Dignity and Autonomy of Women: Rethinking the Place of Constructive Consent in the Tort of Sexual Battery, 39 U.B.C.L. REV. 3 (2006). <http://www.ubc>

Stephen Bailey, Public Authority Liability in Negligence: The Continued Search for Coherence, 26 LEGAL STUDS. 155 (2006). < tions/page.cfm?no=16>

Shyamkrishna Balganesh, Property Along the Tort Spectrum: Trespass to Chattels and the Anglo-American Doctrinal Divergence, 35 COMMON L. WORLD REV. 135 (2006).

Benjamin H. Barton, Tort Reform, Innovation, and Playground Design, 58 FLA. L. REV. 265 (2006). <>

Russell Brown, Rethinking Privacy: Exclusivity, Private Relation and Tort Law, 43 ALBERTA L. REV. 589 (2006). <>

Ellen M. Bublick, Tort Suits Filed by Rape and Sexual Assault Victims in Civil Courts: Lessons for Courts, Classrooms and Constituencies, 59 SMU L. REV. 55 (2006). <>

Jim Barr Coleman, Note, Digital Photography and the Internet, Rethinking Privacy Law, 13 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 205 (2005). <>

James A. Comodeca, et al., Killing the Golden Goose by Evaluating Medical Care Through the Retroscope: Tort Reform from the Defense Perspective, 31 U. DAYTON L. REV. 207 (2006). <>

Ian Cram, Political Expression, Qualified Privilege and Investigative Journalism--An Analysis of Developments in English Defamation Law Post Reynolds v. Times Newspapers, 11 CANTERBURY L. REV. 143 (2005). < clr/clrindex.shtml>

Caroline Davidson, Tort au Canadien: A Proposal for Canadian Tort Legislation on Gross Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, 38 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L. 1403 (2005). <http://law.>

Stacey L. Dogan & Mark A. Lemley, What the Right of Publicity Can Learn ,from Trademark Law, 58 STAN. L. REV. 1161 (2006). <>

Dilan A. Esper & Gregory C. Keating, Abusing "Duty," 79 S. CAL. L. REV. 265 (2006). <>

Youseph Farah, Jurisdictional Aspects of Electronic Torts, in Footsteps of Shevill v. Presse Alliance SA, 11 COMPUTER & TELECOMM. L. REV. 196 (2005). Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, Sweet & Maxwell, 100 Avenue Road, London NW3 3PF, United Kingdom

Kenneth R. Feinberg, Negotiating the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001: Mass Tort Resolution Without Litigation, 19 WASH. U. J.L. & POL'Y 21 (2005). <>

Eric D. Green, et al., Future Claimant Trusts and "Channeling Injunctions" to Resolve Mass Tort Environmental Liability in Bankruptcy: The Met-Coil Model, 22 EMORY BANKR. DEV. J. 157 (2005). < php?id=521 >

Sarah Green, Coherence of Medical Negligence Cases: A Game of Doctors and Purses, 14 MED. L. REV. 1 (2006). <>

Walter W. Heiser, Forum Non Conveniens and Choice of Law: The Impact of Applying Foreign Law in Transnational Tort Actions, 51 WAYNE L. REV. 1161 (2005). < lawrev/>

Holger P. Hestermeyer, Personal Jurisdiction for Internet Torts: Towards an International Solution?, 26 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 267 (2006). <>

Richard Lewis, The Politics and Economics of Tort Law: Judicially Imposed Periodical Payments of Damages, 69 MOD. L. REV. 418 (2006). <http://www.blackwellpublishing. com/journal.asp?ref=0026-7961 >

Stacey Lulham, What Is, and What Should Be, the Extent of New Zealan's New Tort of Breach of Privacy?, 11 CANTERBURY L. REV. 91 (2005). <http://www.laws.>

Edward C. Lyons, Balancing Acts: Intending Good and Foreseeing Harm--The Principle Of Double Effect in the Law of Negligence, 3 GEO. J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 453 (2005). <http :// gjlpp/>

Kathleen A. Mahoney, Note, Malpractice Claims Resulting from Negligent Preconception Genetic Testing: Do these Claims Present a Strain of Wrongful Birth or Wrongful Conception, and Does the Categorization Even Matter?, 39 SUFFOLK U. L. REV. 773 (2006). < review/>

Richard S. Markovits, Liberalism and Tort Law: On the Content of the Corrective-Justice-Securing Tort Law of a Liberal, Rights-Based Society, 2006 U. ILL. L. REV. 243. <>

Richard S. Markovits, On the Economic Inefficiency of a Liberal-Corrective-Justice-Securing Law of Torts, 2006 U. ILL. L. REV. 525. <>

John H. Marks, The Limit to Premises Liability for Harms Caused by "Known or Obvious" Dangers: Will It Trip and Fall over the Duty-Breach Framework Emerging in the Restatement (Third) of Torts?, 38 TEX. TECH. L. REV. 1 (2005). <>

Frank McClellan, Medical Malpractice Law, Morality and the Culture Wars: A Critical Assessment of the Tort Reform Movement, 27 J. LEGAL MED. 33 (2006). < 7648.asp>

Francis E. McGovern, A Proposed Settlement Rule for Mass Torts, 74 UMKC L. REV. 623 (2006). <>

Joelle Anne Moreno, Toxic Torts, Autism, and Bad Science: Why the Courts May Be Our Best Defense Against Scientific Relativism, 40 NEW ENG. L. REV. 409 (2006). <>

Toni Moyes, 'Handle With Care'--Labels and Content of the Duty of Care in Negligence, 11 CANTERBURY L. REV. 1 (2005). <http :// clr/clrindex.shtml>

David A. Myers, Defamation and the Quiescent Anarchy of the Internet: A Case Study of Cyber Targeting, 110 PENN. ST. L. REV. 667 (2006). < groups/lawreview.cfm>

Justin Pidot, Note, The Applicability of Nuisance Law to Invasive Plants: Can Common Law Liability Inspire Government Action?, 27 U. PENN. J. INT'L ECON. L. 183 (2006). <>

Geoffrey Christopher Rapp, Doctors, Duties, Death and Data: A Critical Review of the Empirical Literature on Medical Malpractice and Tort Reform, 26 N. ILL. U. L. REV. 439 (2006). <http://law.niu. edu/go.cfm?do=Page.View&id=107>

Diane Rowland, Griping, Bitching and Speaking Your Mind: Defamation and Free Expression on the Internet, 110 PENN. ST. L. REV. 519 (2006). <http://www.dsl. fm>

Michael L. Rustad & Thomas H. Koenig, The Tort of Negligent Enablement of Cybercrime, 20 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1553 (2005). <>

Victor E. Schwartz & Phil Goldberg, The Law of Public Nuisance: Maintaining Rational Boundaries on a Rational Tort, 45 WASHBURN L.J. 541 (2006). <>

William Spyro Speros, Note, Friend-of-a-Friendly Fire: A Future Tort Issue of Contractors on the Battlefield, 35 PUB. CONT. L.J. 297 (2006). <>

Matthew C. Sullivan, Comment, Tort Reform: Mississippi's Tort Reforms as Compared to Other Jurisdictions Abroad--A Sensible Treatment Protocol for the U.S. Tort System Ills or Not?, 19 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 507 (2005). <>

Martin Vranken, Accident Compensation in Personal Injury Scenarios and the Function of Appellate Courts in Civil Trials by Jury, 13 TORT L. REV. 153 (2005). Tort Law Review, Lawbook Co., P.O. Box 3502, Rozelle, NSW 2009, Australia

Jim Webb, Comment, Does This Home Rule the Courts? Carbondale's Tort Reform Ordinance, 30 S. ILL. U. L.J. 123 (2005). < htm>

Brinton M. Wilkins, Note, Splitting the Baby: An Analysis of the Supreme Court's Take on Customary International Law Under the Alien Tort Statute in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 2005 BYU L. REV. 1415. <>

Katherine S. Williams, On-Line Anonymity, Deindividuation and Freedom of Expression and Privacy, 110 PENN. ST. L. REV. 687 (2006). < law_review.cfm>

Benjamin C. Zipursky, Coming Down to Earth: Why Rights-Based Theories of Tort Can and Must Address Cost-Based Proposals for Damages Reform, 55 DEPAUL L. REV. 469 (2006). < edu/current_students/student_orgs/lawdlr/>

(1) Dennis T. Yokoyama, You Can't Always Use the Zippo Code: The Fallacy of a Uniform Theory of Internet Personal Jurisdiction, 54 DEPAUL L. REV. 1147 (2005).

(2) John J. Schulze, Jr., Caveat E-Emptor." Solutions to the Jurisdictional Problem of Internet Injury, 29 AM. J. TRIAL ADVOC. 615 (2006).

(3) Eric Barendt, Jurisdiction in Internet Libel Cases', 110 PENN ST. L. REV. 727 (2006).

(4) (2002) 210 C.L.R. 575.

Compiled by Elizabeth M. Youngdale


University of Texas School of Law
COPYRIGHT 2006 International Association of Defense Counsels
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2006 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Youngdale, Elizabeth M.
Publication:Defense Counsel Journal
Article Type:Bibliography
Date:Oct 1, 2006
Previous Article:Expanding the scope of judicial review of arbitration awards: speak clearly.
Next Article:Plans for the future.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters