Congratulations to Professors Christopher Seaman, Susan Franck and Doug Rendleman for their recognition in SSRN’s list of top downloaded papers.
In the Judgments & Liens eJournal Professor Seaman’s article, Willful Patent Infringement and Enhanced Damages After In re Seagate: An Empirical Study, ranks third. Professor Franck’s article, Rationalizing Costs in Investment Treaty Arbitration, appears fifth. Professor Rendleman’s brief Scholars’ Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party: Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (with D. Laycock and M. Gergen) ranks seventh among recently posted papers.
Every year, the faculty at W&L Law convene to share current scholarship and provide feedback to one another. Last week, seven faculty presented their papers and invited discussions, criticism, and suggestions for improvement. The presenters were as follows:
- Josh Fairfield: “Virtual Currency: How to Print Money for Fun and Profit”
- Aaron Haas: “The Marginalization of Religious Persecution in U.S. Asylum Law”
- James Moliterno: “Lawyer Regulation and Innovation”
- Robin Wilson: “Calculus of Accomodation”
- Doug Rendleman: “The Last Tour of Calabresi and Melamed’s Cathedral You Need to Take”
- Michelle Drumbl: “Decoupling Marriage and Taxes: Beyond Innocence and Income Splitting”
- Tim Jost: “The Affordable Care Act Litigation”
Professor Doug Rendleman, Robert E. R. Huntley Professor of Law, will have his article, Measurement of Restitution: Coordinating Restitution with Compensatory Damages and Punitive Damages, 68 Wash. & Lee L Rev. __ (2011), published in the forthcoming volume of the Washington & Lee Law Review. The article was part of the W&L Law Review’s spring symposium discussing the ALI’s proposed Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment.
Courts apply compensatory damages, restitution, and punitive damages to formulate litigants’ civil remedies. The frequently contested policy justifications for these three remedies are often hazy and uncertain. The transitions between the three remedies are disputed. Lawyers and courts often misunderstand restitution with deleterious consequences for litigants and the administration of justice.
Professor Rendleman’s article identifies wiser choices to aid lawyers’ and courts’ remedial decisions and seeks to improve the courts’ administration of litigants’ civil remedies. It focuses on the Restatement’s measurement choices for restitution and explains familiar examples to analyze the choices between compensatory damages, restitution, and punitive damages and to locate the transitions between them.
The article can be found on SSRN here.
Congratulations to Prof. Rendleman.
Professor Doug Rendleman, Robert E. R. Huntley Professor of Law, had his article, Common Law Punitive Damages: Something for Everyone, 7 U. St. Thomas L. J. 1 (2009), published in the University of St. Thomas Law Journal. The article was part of Professor Rendleman’s keynote address for the school’s Exxon Valdez Revisited: Rights and Remedies symposium.
The article addresses some of the interesting features inherent in common law punitive damages, including: a civil court meting out quasi-criminal punishment; a sanction and punishment, imposed after mere civil procedure; a civil jury stretching imprecise instructions into Robin Hood justice; a private plaintiff receiving a windfall that exceeds any reasonable estimate of loss; and the Supreme Court wielding the discredited doctrine of substantive due process. Prof. Rendleman examines these features and the countervailing considerations, devoting more attention to substantive due process. He then turns to Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008) offers a few conclusions.
Congratulations to Professor Rendleman.