Jones Day

About: Jones Day is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Arbitration. The organization has 118 authors who have published 112 publications receiving 882 citations.

Are Federal Agencies the Sole Judges of Their Own Authority

Abstract: Federal agencies incrementally expand their regulatory power by adopting statutory interpretations that go beyond the underlying legislation’s plain meaning and purpose. The courts are supposed to check this overreach, but they increasingly defer to agencies’ own “discretion” in exercising their authority. The U.S. Supreme Court had the opportunity to reverse this trend in National Corn Growers Association v. Environmental Protection Agency, a suit that challenged the EPA’s refusal to hold public evidentiary hearings concerning “material issues of fact,” contrary to federal law. Unfortunately, the Court has passed on this opportunity.

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit opens new window for removal of State court cases to federal court (Roth / CHA Hollywood Medical Center)

Abstract: A defendant generally may remove a civil action from state court to federal district court if the district court would have had jurisdiction had the action been originally filed in that court. 28…

Les politiques de clémence en Europe

Abstract: Inventes il y a peu, a l'origine decries, les programmes de clemence se sont rapidement reveles un outil tres efficace de detection des ententes. Des responsables d'autorites, des praticiens et des…

Arbitrability of Intellectual Property Disputes in France

Abstract: Litigation involving intellectual property rights occurs frequently in France. Although parties may wish to have recourse to arbitration in order to settle their disputes, insecurity remains as long as parties can easily challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitrators by putting forward arguments relating to the existence of the intellectual property right. The French judiciary recently took a step towards circumventing this difficulty in a case involving a patent. This decision may also have an impact on the issues related to other forms of intellectual property rights.

Hormesis and toxic torts: traditional torts and claims for subclinical harm.

Abstract: This article explores the implications of hormesis on toxic tort litigation, in particular litigation regarding claims for medical monitoring or subclinical harm. In considering medical monitoring issues, courts have described medical monitoring both as a remedy and as an independent claim. If medical monitoring is upheld as an indepedent claim - as opposed to a remedy awarded after negligence or another claim is plead and proven - the article explains that the evidentiary showing necessary to succeed on the medical monitoring claim may be less rigorous than would be the case if the issues were considered separately. Because hormesis by definition involves low dose exposures that are more likely to involve subclinical harm, exposure evidence that includes a hormetic effect may well become an issue in medical monitoring cases, and may complicate an already confusing doctrine.