2024-03-28T20:30:12Zhttps://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/oai/requestoai:scholarsbank.uoregon.edu:1794/121262015-06-17T14:26:13Zcom_1794_3786com_1794_7561com_1794_7550col_1794_12124
2012-04-06T00:41:54Z
urn:hdl:1794/12126
Oregon Law Review : Vol. 90, No. 3, p. 773-796 : Litigation Supply Should Not Exceed Shareholder ADR Demand: How Proper Use of the Demand Requirement in Derivative Suits Can Decrease Corporate Litigation
Barsalona, Joseph C.
24 pages
This Comment explores the contours of the demand requirement—
the forgotten alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism available to all litigating
shareholders—and how its efficient use could be beneficial for all
parties as well as for the greater corporate community. Part I
describes the derivative suit and the demand requirement generally,
with particular attention focused on the procedures in Delaware and
New York. Because these two states have the highest number of
domestic incorporations of all states,13 it is important to see how their
processes change the landscape of the requirement.
Part II delves more deeply into the demand requirement and begins
to explain its ADR policies and characteristics. Part III describes the
MBCA model and explains why it gives the best possibility for
improvement with corporate ADR. Part III discusses the positive
effects in the states that have adopted the MBCA and how the same
changes to other corporate codes could be the best way for companies
and shareholders to save time and money. Finally, the Comment
reemphasizes the importance of the demand requirement, argues why
more states and corporations would benefit from it, and promotes the
MBCA as an effective model for the future.
2012-04-06T00:41:54Z
2012-04-06T00:41:54Z
2012
Article
90 Or. L. Rev. 773 (2012)
0196-2043
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/12126
en_US
rights_reserved
University of Oregon School of Law
oai:scholarsbank.uoregon.edu:1794/121282015-06-17T14:39:49Zcom_1794_3786com_1794_7561com_1794_7550col_1794_12124
2012-04-06T00:50:53Z
urn:hdl:1794/12128
Oregon Law Review : Vol. 90, No. 3, p. 885-912 : Lines in the Dirt: West Linn Corporate Park, Exactions, and the Effort to Clarify Federal Takings Law
Hogue, Jake
28 pages
This Note addresses the Oregon Supreme Court’s opinion
answering the questions certified from the Ninth Circuit. In
particular, it looks to the Oregon Supreme Court’s discussion of when
and how courts ought to apply exactions analysis to evaluate
conditions imposed on development rights. Part I reviews current
interpretations of the federal Takings Clause with a focus on the
present uncertainty regarding the application of Nollan v. California
Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard to monetary
obligations and ad hoc conditions imposed on development rights.
Part II outlines the procedural history of West Linn. Finally, Part III
examines how future courts may utilize West Linn to situate ad hoc
development conditions in the context of federal exactions law. Part
III also addresses how courts may usefully clarify the application of
federal exactions law to ad hoc conditions with greater attention to
the underlying property interest that the condition impacts.
2012-04-06T00:50:53Z
2012-04-06T00:50:53Z
2012
Article
90 Or. L. Rev. 885 (2012)
0196-2043
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/12128
en_US
rights_reserved
University of Oregon School of Law
oai:scholarsbank.uoregon.edu:1794/121322015-06-17T20:13:14Zcom_1794_3786com_1794_7561com_1794_7550col_1794_12124
2012-04-06T01:14:39Z
urn:hdl:1794/12132
Oregon Law Review : Vol. 90, No. 3, p. 703-728 : Tsunami: AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion Impedes Access to Justice
Sternlight, Jean R.
26 pages
It is highly ironic but no less distressing that a case with a name
meaning “conception” should come to signify death for the legal
claims of many potential plaintiffs. The U.S. Supreme Court’s fiveto-
four decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion is proving to
be a tsunami that is wiping out existing and potential consumer and
employment class actions. This Article will explore the decision;
how the decision is being interpreted by lower courts; the decision’s
impact on parties to such litigation; and how, if not legislatively
limited, this case will substantially harm consumers, employees, and
perhaps others.
2012-04-06T01:14:39Z
2012-04-06T01:14:39Z
2012
Article
90 Or. L. Rev.703 (2012)
0196-2043
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/12132
en_US
rights_reserved
University of Oregon School of Law
oai:scholarsbank.uoregon.edu:1794/121302015-06-17T19:42:46Zcom_1794_384com_1794_7551com_1794_7550com_1794_3786com_1794_7561com_1794_691col_1794_385col_1794_12124col_1794_18799
2012-04-06T01:05:55Z
urn:hdl:1794/12130
Oregon Law Review : Vol. 90, No. 3, p. 691-702 : Foreword: ADR for the Masses
Reynolds, Jennifer W.
12 pages
The 2012 Scholarship Series, “ADR for the Masses,” begins with
the present issue and will continue throughout the year. The Series
examines the proliferation of alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
processes in large-scale contexts—such as mass torts, environmental
and public policy decision making, collaborative governance,
consumer disputes, and organizational dispute systems design—and
encompasses both post-dispute processes (designed to accompany or
replace traditional legal approaches to dispute resolution in mass
contexts) and pre-dispute processes (designed to manage widespread
or large-scale conflict and disputes earlier and more effectively).
Sometimes ADR serves as a response or fix to the shortcomings of
the legal system in situations involving multiple disputants or
decision makers; sometimes ADR is an upstream strategy for
managing disputes that, among other things, may render formal legal
intervention unnecessary; sometimes ADR is a companion piece to
traditional legal processes, pre- or post-dispute, when managing a
mass disaster or large-scale dispute or conflict. The Series is an
opportunity to identify not only the creative possibilities of these innovations and hybrids, but also to explore the logistical difficulties
or ideological tensions that these new developments may present.
2012-04-06T01:05:55Z
2012-04-06T01:05:55Z
2012
Article
90 Or. L. Rev. 691 (2012)
0196-2043
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/12130
en_US
2012 Scholarship Series: ADR for the Masses;
rights_reserved
University of Oregon School of Law
oai:scholarsbank.uoregon.edu:1794/121312015-06-17T19:54:07Zcom_1794_3786com_1794_7561com_1794_7550col_1794_12124
2012-04-06T01:09:58Z
urn:hdl:1794/12131
Oregon Law Review : Vol. 90, No. 3, p. 855-884 : Predictable Protection for Mediated Pendent State Claims: A Judicial Solution
Rubstello, Stephanie
30 pages
This Comment begins by providing a general overview of privilege
law. It discusses the differences between privilege and
confidentiality, looks at how choice of law plays into privilege issues,
outlines state and federal privilege, and shows what can happen when
state and federal privileges come into conflict. Next, this Comment
focuses on privilege in the context of mediation by contrasting
mediation privilege with settlement protections, and it gives an
overview of how various courts have looked at addressing questions
of mediation privilege and confidentiality. This Comment concludes
that, in order to provide claimants with predictability surrounding
their mediation communications related to state claims ending up in
federal court, federal courts should always treat state mediation
communication protections as substantive law and apply state
protections to state claims.
2012-04-06T01:09:58Z
2012-04-06T01:09:58Z
2012
Article
90 Or. L. Rev. 855 (2012)
0196-2043
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/12131
en_US
rights_reserved
University of Oregon School of Law
oai:scholarsbank.uoregon.edu:1794/121332015-06-17T14:40:11Zcom_1794_3786com_1794_7561com_1794_7550col_1794_12124
2012-04-06T01:18:39Z
urn:hdl:1794/12133
Oregon Law Review : Vol. 90, No. 3, p. 729-772: Fully Federalizing the Federal Arbitration Act
Yelnosky, Michael J.
44 pages
There is a widely shared belief that the Supreme Court’s Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA) doctrine is far too solicitous of arbitration and
not sufficiently solicitous of state lawmaking power. That may be so,
but the Court has interpreted one provision of the FAA, the savings
clause, to permit the application of state law to invalidate otherwise enforceable arbitration agreements. This Article examines the
savings clause and its impact on provisions in arbitration agreements
that interfere with the ability of claimants to effectively enforce
substantive federal- or state-law rights.
2012-04-06T01:18:39Z
2012-04-06T01:18:39Z
2012
Article
90 Or. L. Rev. 729 (2012)
0196-2043
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/12133
en_US
rights_reserved
University of Oregon School of Law
oai:scholarsbank.uoregon.edu:1794/121292013-04-10T09:02:08Zcom_1794_3786com_1794_7561com_1794_7550col_1794_12124
2012-04-06T00:57:50Z
urn:hdl:1794/12129
Oregon Law Review : Vol. 90, No. 3, p. 837-854 : Law and “The Argumentative Theory”
O'Neill, Timothy P.
18 pages
2012-04-06T00:57:50Z
2012-04-06T00:57:50Z
2012
Article
90 Or. L. Rev. 837 (2012)
0196-2043
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/12129
en_US
rights_reserved
University of Oregon School of Law
oai:scholarsbank.uoregon.edu:1794/121272015-06-17T14:38:46Zcom_1794_3786com_1794_7561com_1794_7550col_1794_12124
2012-04-06T00:46:21Z
urn:hdl:1794/12127
Oregon Law Review : Vol. 90, No. 3, p. 797-836 : The End of the Beginning: The Politics of Death and the American Death Penalty Regime in the Twenty- First Century
Entzeroth, Lyn Suzanne
Death penalty
Capital punishment -- United States -- History -- 21st century
40 pages
This Article examines the evolution of the death penalty in the
United States, focusing on the modern death penalty regime that the
U.S. Supreme Court sanctioned in 1976. As Mr. Davis’s execution
demonstrates, the conversation around the death penalty has
undergone a marked change in the last decade. Since 2007, a few
states have abolished the death penalty, signaling an important turning
point in America’s modern experiment with capital punishment. This
Article traces these developments and the effect they may have on the
future of the U.S. death penalty and the protection the Eighth
Amendment affords.
2012-04-06T00:46:21Z
2012-04-06T00:46:21Z
2012
Article
90 Or. L. Rev. 797 (2012)
0196-2043
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/12127
en_US
rights_reserved
University of Oregon School of Law