DOCSLIB.ORG

111.4 Woolhandler.Docx

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
111.4 Woolhandler.Docx Copyright 2017 by Ann Woolhandler Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 111, No. 4 ADVERSE INTERESTS AND ARTICLE III Ann Woolhandler ABSTRACT—In an important article in the Yale Law Journal, James Pfander and Daniel Birk claim that adverseness is not required by Article III for cases arising under federal law. This Article takes the position that Pfander and Birk have not made the case for reconsidering adversity requirements for Article III cases. Adverseness may be present when there is adversity of legal interests, even when adverse argument is not present. From this perspective, a number of Pfander and Birk’s examples of non- contentious jurisdiction manifested adverseness. In rem-type proceedings such as bankruptcy and prize cases required the determination of adverse interests, in situations where impediments often existed to voluntary extrajudicial resolution. Service or notice in some form was generally provided, which gave opportunities for adverse argument. In addition, the issuance of warrants, while ex parte, involved adverse interests in a context where predeprivation notice would undermine the utility of the proceeding, notice occurred on execution of the warrant, and opportunity for argument was then often available. Pfander and Birk’s examples of pension and naturalization determinations are not as readily characterized as adverse. The Court, however, treated federal judges’ pension determinations as appropriate, if at all, as the work of individual commissioners rather than Article III judges. Naturalization petitions are perhaps Pfander and Birk’s best example of non-contentious jurisdiction, but the Court explicitly approved the practice as appropriate under Article III only after provisions for notice to, and potential appearance by, the United States. AUTHOR—William Minor Lile Professor of Law and Class of 1966 Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia Law School. Thanks to Michael Collins, Rich Hynes, Jonathan Nash, George Rutherglen, and participants in the Emory Law School faculty workshop for their comments. Special thanks to Caleb Nelson for many ideas in this Article. 1025 N O R T H W E S T E R N U N I V E R S I T Y L A W R E V I E W INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1026 I. DISTINGUISHING ADVERSE LEGAL INTERESTS AND ADVERSE ADVOCACY ............ 1032 A. Adverse Interests and Adverse Arguments .................................................... 1032 B. Involuntary Termination of Legal Interests Often Requires a Judgment ..... 1033 II. IN REM AND LIMITED-FUND PROCEEDINGS .......................................................... 1036 A. Bankruptcy and Equity Receiverships .......................................................... 1036 B. Prize Jurisdiction .......................................................................................... 1036 C. Remission of Forfeitures ............................................................................... 1041 III. WARRANTS .......................................................................................................... 1043 IV. COLLUSIVE SUITS ................................................................................................. 1047 V. PENSIONS AND CITIZENSHIP .................................................................................. 1055 A. Revolutionary War Pensions ........................................................................ 1056 B. Naturalization ............................................................................................... 1061 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 1065 INTRODUCTION “In every court,” Blackstone wrote in 1768, “there must be at least three constituent parts, . : the actor, or plaintiff, who complains of an injury done; the reus, or defendant, who is called upon to make satisfaction for it; and the judex, or judicial power.”1 In 1800, Representative John Marshall interpreted the “Case[]”2 in Article III to incorporate a similar set of requirements: “[t]here must be parties to come to court, who can be reached by its process, and bound by its power; whose rights admit of ultimate decision by a tribunal to which they are bound to submit.”3 1 3 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES *25; see also 1 EDWARD COKE, THE FIRST PART OF THE INSTITUTES OF THE LAWES OF ENGLAND 39 (London 1628) (“[I]n everie Judgement there ought to be three persons, Actor, Reus, and Iudex.”); Caleb Nelson, Sovereign Immunity as a Doctrine of Personal Jurisdiction, 115 HARV. L. REV. 1559, 1568 & n.29 (2002) (“For centuries, Anglo-American lawyers have thought that the very existence of most kinds of judicial proceedings depends upon the presence (actual or constructive) of adverse parties.”). 2 U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2. 3 The Honorable John Marshall, Speech Delivered in the House of Representatives, of the United States, on the Resolutions of the Hon. Edward Livingston, Relative to Thomas Nash, Alias Jonathan Robbins (March 7, 1800), in 4 THE PAPERS OF JOHN MARSHALL 82, 96 (Charles T. Cullen ed., 1984) [hereinafter John Marshall Speech]; id. at 95 (“A case in law or equity . was a controversy between parties which had taken a shape for judicial decision.”). 1026 111:1025 (2017) Adverse Interests Numerous Supreme Court decisions reiterate the need for parties with adverse interests who will be bound by the results of the litigation.4 In addition, standing doctrine reflects the need for adverse interests that will be affected by the litigation. Standing requires not only a plaintiff who claims a legally cognizable interest that will be affected by the controversy but also a defendant who has in some sense caused injury to the plaintiff’s interests and can provide redress. The causation may consist in the defendant’s having an adverse legal interest that the plaintiff seeks to diminish or transfer to himself rather than that the defendant necessarily has disturbed the status quo.5 Under existing doctrine, though, the fact that Congress or a state legislature is willing to treat the parties as having sufficient adverse interests does not automatically make it so.6 While several scholars have defended adversity as an Article III requirement and criticized certain types of proceedings as failing to meet 7 8 it, the adversity requirement also has its critics. In an impressive article in 4 See, e.g., United States v. Ferreira, 54 U.S. (13 How.) 40, 46 (1852) (indicating that certain determinations of treaty claims were not cases because, inter alia, the United States was not authorized to appear as a party to oppose the claim); Marye v. Parsons, 114 U.S. 325, 330 (1885) (“[N]o court sits to determine questions of law in thesi. There must be a litigation upon actual transactions between real parties, growing out of a controversy affecting legal or equitable rights as to person or property.”); California v. San Pablo & Tulare R.R. Co., 149 U.S. 308, 314 (1893) (“The duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted in the particular case before it.”); United States v. Duell, 172 U.S. 576, 588 (1899) (determining that the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia could review the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, and stating that “the proceeding in the Court of Appeals on an appeal in an interference controversy presents all the features of a civil case, a plaintiff, a defendant and a judge”); Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 361 (1911) (stating that judicial power “is the right to determine actual controversies arising between adverse litigants, duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction”); see also id. at 357 (indicating that a case requires “the existence of present or possible adverse parties whose contentions are submitted to the court for adjudication” (quoting In re Pac. Ry. Comm’n, 32 F. 241, 255 (C.C.N.D. Cal. 1887))). 5 See, e.g., HENRY L. MCCLINTOCK, HANDBOOK OF THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY §§ 192–195 (2d ed. 1948) (describing actions to quiet title and to remove a cloud on title); id. § 194, at 523 (“Where adverse possession has given title to the land, the adverse possessor may maintain the suit . [to quiet title] against the holder of record title.”). 6 See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 573 (1992) (rejecting the argument that “the injury- in-fact requirement had been satisfied by congressional conferral upon all persons of an abstract, self- contained, noninstrumental ‘right’ to have the Executive observe the procedures required by law”); Muskrat, 219 U.S. at 360–63 (dismissing a suit that Congress explicitly authorized to contest the constitutionality of a congressional statute); New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U.S. 76, 91 (1883) (dismissing claims where state legislation authorized the state to sue on behalf of citizens holding bonds of another state, stating that “one State cannot create a controversy with another State, within the meaning of that term as used in the judicial clauses of the Constitution, by assuming the prosecution of debts owing by the other State to its citizens”). 7 See, e.g., Ralph E. Avery, Article III and Title 11: A Constitutional Collision, 12 BANKR. DEV. J. 397, 400 (1996) (arguing that some of the main elements of the bankruptcy code do not comply with 1027 N O R T H W E S T E R N U N I V E R S I T Y L A W R E V I E W the Yale Law Journal, James Pfander and Daniel Birk claim that adverseness
Load more

Recommended publications
  • INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol
    Federal Court Jurisdiction in Civil Forfeitures of Personal Property Pursuant to the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act Karen L. Fisher* Introduction Civil forfeiture under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act 1 has become surrounded by much controversy, since the Reagan Administration's introduction in March 1988 of a zero- tolerance policy in the war on drugs. Since then, federal and state drug enforcement activities have included the increasing use of civil forfeiture as a means of deterring illegal drug trafficking, punishing drug dealers and users, and providing additional revenues for the war on drugs. Under the Drug Control Act, a person may forfeit any real or personal property used to facilitate the manufacture, transportation, sale, or possession of illegal drugs or property acquired with proceeds connected with drug trade. 2 This Note will focus on federal civil procedure in cases involving forfeiture of personal property pursuant to the Drug Control Act. The issue considered is whether execution of a civil forfeiture judgment should extinguish federal courts' jurisdiction, thereby precluding a claimant from seeking relief from an adverse judgment. Personal property, especially intangibles, is of particular interest because the situs, or jurisdictional location, of such property is movable and often difficult to ascertain. Civil forfeiture cases under the Drug Control Act traditionally have followed in rem admiralty procedures. Under admiralty rules, the court's jurisdiction continues only so long as it maintains physical control over the property. Hence, the court loses jurisdiction once it executes judg- ment. However, in recent years, several circuits instead have asserted in personam jurisdiction over the government as plaintiff, thereby preserving a losing claimant's right of appeal after execution of the judgment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ambiguous Role and Responsibilities of a Guardian Ad Litem in Texas in Personal Injury Litigation
    SMU Law Review Volume 51 Issue 1 Article 7 1998 The Ambiguous Role and Responsibilities of a Guardian Ad Litem in Texas in Personal Injury Litigation Jennifer L. Anton Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Jennifer L. Anton, Comment, The Ambiguous Role and Responsibilities of a Guardian Ad Litem in Texas in Personal Injury Litigation, 51 SMU L. REV. 161 (1998) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol51/iss1/7 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. Comments THE AMBIGUOUS ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A GUARDIAN AD LITEM IN TEXAS IN PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION Jennifer L. Anton TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ....................................... 162 II. H ISTO RY ................................................ 162 III. WHAT IS A GUARDIAN AD LITEM? ................. 164 IV. WHY SHOULD A GUARDIAN AD LITEM BE APPOINTED IN A CIVIL MATTER? ................... 165 V. DISTINCTION BETWEEN A GUARDIAN AD LITEM AND AN ATTORNEY AD LITEM ...................... 167 VI. WHEN DURING THE LITIGATION PROCESS SHOULD THE COURT APPOINT A GUARDIAN AD L IT E M ? .................................................. 168 A. DEFENDANT'S PERSPECTIVE ........................... 169 B. PLAINTIFF'S PERSPECTIVE ............................. 169 VII. WHO MAY BE APPOINTED AS A GUARDIAN AD LITE M ? .................................................. 170 VIII. THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A GUARDIAN AD LITEM ................................ 171 A. THE ROLE OF THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM REGARDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS ............................ 172 1. Evaluating the Minor's Damages .................. 174 2. Evaluating the Adequacy of the Settlement A m ount ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT of OHIO EASTERN DIVISION LINDSAY RAFFERTY, on Behalf of Herself and All Other
    Case: 5:18-cv-02409-SL Doc #: 16 Filed: 07/08/19 1 of 16. PageID #: 229 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION LINDSAY RAFFERTY, on behalf of ) CASE NO. 5:18-cv-2409 herself and all other similarly situated, ) ) PLAINTIFF, ) JUDGE SARA LIOI ) vs. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) AND ORDER DENNY’S, INC., ) ) DEFENDANT. ) Before the Court is the motion to dismiss filed by defendant Denny’s, Inc. (“Denny’s”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 7 (“Mot.”).) Plaintiff Lindsay Rafferty (“Rafferty”) has filed a response in opposition, with two supplements. (Doc. No. 11 (“Opp’n”); Doc. No. 13 (“Suppl.”); Doc. No. 14.) Denny’s filed a reply. (Doc. No. 12 (“Reply”).)1 For the reasons set forth herein, defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. I. BACKGROUND On October 17, 2018, Rafferty filed her complaint (Doc. No. 1, Complaint [“Compl.”]) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated (the “collective members”). The FLSA provides, in relevant part: An action to recover the liability [for violations of provisions of the FLSA] may be maintained against any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated. No employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought.
    [Show full text]
  • Acquiring in Personam Jurisdiction in Federal Question Cases: Procedural Frustration Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4
    Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons Faculty Scholarship 1-1-1982 Acquiring In Personam Jurisdiction in Federal Question Cases: Procedural Frustration Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 Marilyn Berger Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/faculty Part of the Civil Procedure Commons, and the Jurisdiction Commons Recommended Citation Marilyn Berger, Acquiring In Personam Jurisdiction in Federal Question Cases: Procedural Frustration Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, 1982 UTAH L. REV. 285 (1982). https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/faculty/679 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Acquiring in Personam Jurisdiction in Federal Question Cases: Procedural Frustration Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 Marilyn J. Berger* I. INTRODUCTION The role of federal courts as enforcers of federally created law recently has received renewed attention. Proposals to curtail diver- sity jurisdiction, the elimination of the monetary requirement for federal question cases and the proliferation of civil cases brought in federal courts4 suggest a resurgence of the idea that the primary function of federal courts is to entertain cases involving federally granted rights. The interest in having federal forums hear federal questions makes it particularly important for federal courts to ac- quire personal jurisdiction in such cases. The federal court system originally was established to provide a national forum for the protection of federally granted rights.5 De- * Associate Professor of Law, University of Puget Sound School of Law, B.S., 1965, Cornell University, J.D., 1970, University of California at Berkeley.
    [Show full text]
  • The Doctrine of Virtual Representation in Texas
    SMU Law Review Volume 11 Issue 2 Article 7 1957 The Doctrine of Virtual Representation in Texas L. A. Duffy Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation L. A. Duffy, Comment, The Doctrine of Virtual Representation in Texas, 11 SW L.J. 210 (1957) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol11/iss2/7 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. THE DOCTRINE OF VIRTUAL REPRESENTATION IN TEXAS Of universal application in the United States is the rule that judg- ments and decrees are binding only upon the parties to the con- troversy. Like many legal rules, equity has developed exceptions to alleviate what in some instances would be an intolerable result. The doctrine of virtual representation, more popularly known as the class suit, is such an exception. Developed in the equity courts of England, this rule has been generally accepted in varying forms throughout the country,1 and several states have adopted the doc- trine by statute.! Texas, at one time or another, has applied almost all facets of the rule, although only part of it has been codified.' ELEMENTS OF THE DOCTRINE The doctrine of virtual representation recognizes that there are situations where all requisite parties cannot appear before the court, and therefore provides that the absent proper parties can be repre- sented by persons present who hold the same interest in the con- troversy and who will therefore adequately protect the absent proper parties' interest.
    [Show full text]
  • Complex Family Matters in Guardianship
    COMPLEX FAMILY MATTERS IN GUARDIANSHIP Updated by DARLENE PAYNE SMITH SHARON B. GARDNER Presented by DARLENE PAYNE SMITH State Bar of Texas ADVANCED GUARDIANSHIP COURSE March 6, 2009 Houston CHAPTER 11 Special thanks to Sarah Patel Pacheco for use of portions of her Contested Guardianship and Peace Treaties speeches. SHARON BRAND GARDNER is a shareholder with Crain, Caton & James, P.C. in Houston, Texas. Ms. Gardner specializes in probate, trust, and guardianship law. She is Editor of the Texas Guardianship Manual published by the State Bar of Texas and a Co-Author of The Texas Probate Practice Series published by West Publishing. She is an adjunct professor teaching estate administration and guardianship at South Texas College of Law, Houston, Texas. She is a Fellow of the American College of Probate and Trust Counsel. DARLENE PAYNE SMITH Crain, Caton & James, P.C. 1700 Five Houston Center Houston, Texas 77010-4035 713-752-8640 Email - [email protected] EDUCATION Bachelor of Science: Criminal Justice, University of Houston (Magna Cum Laude) Doctor of Jurisprudence, University of Houston Law Center MEMBERSHIPS & CERTIFICATIONS Texas Bar Association; Houston Bar Association; Texas Bar Foundation; Probate Legislative Sub-Committee -- Houston; Past President –Women Attorneys in Tax and Probate; Former Vice President – Disability and Elder Law Lawyers Association; Planning Committee – Elder Law Section, State Bar; Planning Committee – Wills and Probate Institute; Elder Law Committee; Certified by the State Bar of Texas Pursuant to Texas Probate Code § 647A as Ad Litem PERSONAL Married – Michael David Smith; Three Children – Stephan, Coleman and Hallie; Hobbies - Singing, pistol shooting, tennis and squash. SPEAKER/AUTHOR Speaker: Estate Planning for the Cancer Patient.
    [Show full text]
  • Minimum Contacts and Contracts: the Rb Eached Relationship
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 40 | Issue 4 Article 12 Fall 9-1-1983 Minimum Contacts And Contracts: The rB eached Relationship Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Civil Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Minimum Contacts And Contracts: The Breached Relationship, 40 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1639 (1983), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol40/iss4/12 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MINIMUM CONTACTS AND CONTRACTS: THE BREACHED RELATIONSHIP In InternationalShoe Co. v. Washington,1 the United States Supreme Court dramatically changed the traditional notion of personal jurisdiction by shifting the focus of jurisdictional inquiry from physical control to fairness.' Prior to InternationalShoe, the Supreme Court limited a court's jurisdiction to cases involving persons or property located within the forum state.' The InternationalShoe Court held, however, that an out-of-state defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of a court if the defendant has minimum contacts with the state where the court is located.4 The minimum contact theory of in personam jurisdiction has had a profound impact on state courts by significantly increasing the possibility that an out-of-state defendant will have to defend himself in a foreign jurisdiction.5 Courts, ' 326 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • In Personam Jurisdiction in Federal Courts Over Foreign Corporations: the Need for a Federal Long-Arm Statute
    Denver Journal of International Law & Policy Volume 14 Number 1 Article 5 May 2020 In Personam Jurisdiction in Federal Courts over Foreign Corporations: The Need for a Federal Long-Arm Statute Barry E. Cohen Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/djilp Recommended Citation Barry E. Cohen, In Personam Jurisdiction in Federal Courts over Foreign Corporations: The Need for a Federal Long-Arm Statute, 14 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 59 (1985). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Journal of International Law & Policy by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],dig- [email protected]. In Personam Jurisdiction in Federal Courts Over Foreign Corporations: The Need for a Federal Long-Arm Statute BARRY E. COHEN* I. INTRODUCTION Since the United States Supreme Court's approval of "minimum con- tacts" as a basis for state court jurisdiction over persons not present in a forum state, general purpose long-arm statutes have become part of the jurisprudence of almost every state. These statutes typically subject a party who is not present in a state to suit there, so long as the cause of action arises from certain contacts of the party in the state. An example of this type of long-arm jurisdiction is an action in one state to recover for personal injuries incurred within its borders, but resulting from the use of a defective product manufactured by a company with no physical presence in the forum.
    [Show full text]
  • Rule Interpleader, the Anti-Injunction Act, in Personam Jurisdiction, and M.C
    Pace University DigitalCommons@Pace Pace Law Faculty Publications School of Law 1-1-1996 What's Wrong with This Picture?: Rule Interpleader, the Anti- Injunction Act, In Personam Jurisdiction, and M.C. Escher Donald L. Doernberg Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty Part of the Civil Procedure Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, and the Litigation Commons Recommended Citation Donald L. Doernberg, What's Wrong with This Picture?: Rule Interpleader, the Anti-Injunction Act, in Personam Jurisdiction, and M.C. Escher, 67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 551 (1996), http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/ lawfaculty/45/. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?: RULE INTERPLEADER, THE ANTI- INJUNCTION ACT, IN PERSONAIM JURISDICTION, AND M.C. ESCHER Plate 'Waterfall" O 1995 M.C. EscherICordon Art-Baarn-Holland. All rights reserved. Reprinted by permission. - At first glance, the picture above may seem unremarkable; the eye is apt to brush over the image uncritically, taking in the whole without focusing on the details. On closer examination, * Charles A. Frueauff Research Professor of Law, Pace University. B.A., Yale University; J.D.,Columbia University. Heinonline -- 67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 551 1996 552 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW vol. 67 one notices that the structure is physically impossible, pleasing to the eye but not of the real world-unless, of course, there is some undiscovered place where water spontaneously recycles itself from the bottom of a waterfall to the top.
    [Show full text]
  • COURT APPROVAL of SETTLEMENTS INVOLVING MINORS OR INCOMPETENTS by WILLIAM S
    COURT APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENTS INVOLVING MINORS OR INCOMPETENTS By WILLIAM S. MILLS GLENN, MILLS & FISHER, P.A. DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA I. SETTLEMENTS INVOLVING MINORS Settlements involving the claims of minors present several procedural and ethical issues for the attorney. Because your client is a minor, he or she cannot be bound by contracts such as releases, if the minor chooses to disavow the contract after the minor reaches the age of majority. As a result, procedures have developed as a result of a combination between various statutes and case law requiring that any settlement contract be approved by the court. A. COURT APPROVED MINOR’S SETTLEMENTS Settlements of claims involving minors should be approved by court order. This applies regardless of whether settlement is reached before or after filing suit. A minor cannot be bound by proposed compromise and settlement of a minor’s personal injury claim unless it is properly approved by a judge. Gillikan v. Gillikan, 252 N.C. 1, 113 S.E.2d 38 (1960). The courts of this state have inherent authority over the property of infants and will exercise this jurisdiction whenever necessary to preserve and protect children’s estates and interests, Sternberger Foundation, Inc. v. Tannenbaum, 273 N.C. 658, 161 S.E.2d 116 (1968), and will look closely into contracts or settlements materially affecting the rights of infants. Redwine v. Clodfelter, 226 N.C. 366, 38 S.E. 2d 203. A court approved settlement and subsequent judgment issued thereon, and the satisfaction of that judgment by the settling defendant, is not the satisfaction of a judgment under North Carolina General Statute §1B-3(e) and does not operate to discharge the other tortfeasors.
    [Show full text]
  • Insurance Law
    SMU Law Review Volume 47 Issue 4 Annual Survey of Texas Law Article 18 1994 Insurance Law Philip K. Maxwell Tim Labadie Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Philip K. Maxwell & Tim Labadie, Insurance Law, 47 SMU L. REV. 1227 (1994) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol47/iss4/18 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. INSURANCE LAW Philip K. Maxwell* Tim Labadie* I. UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS (ARTICLE 21.21 & THE DTPA) A. WHO CAN SUE AND WHO CAN BE SUED 1. Standing to Sue OME of the cases discussed in this section deny "standing" to sue under article 21.21 to so-called "third parties," i.e. those not a party to an insurance contract. Use of the words "standing" and "third party," however, are of doubtful application to a statutory cause of action. The San Antonio Court of Appeals had the following to say about "stand- ing" in a DTPA suit: In order for any person to maintain a suit it is necessary that they have standing to litigate the matters in issue. Standing consists of some inter- est peculiar to the person individually and not as a member of the gen- eral public. This general rule of standing applies in all cases absent a statutory exception to the contrary. The DTPA provides us with just an exception.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Civil War and Reconstruction, 1865-1873 David P
    The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Civil War and Reconstruction, 1865-1873 David P. Curriet The appointment of Salmon P. Chase as Chief Justice in De- cember 1864, like that of his predecessor in 1836, marked the be- ginning of a new epoch in the Court's history. Not only had the Civil War altered the legal landscape dramatically; Chase was to preside over an essentially new complement of Justices. Of those who had sat more than a few years with Chief Justice Roger Ta- ney, only Samuel Nelson and Robert Grier were to remain for a significant time. With them were six newcomers appointed be- tween 1858 and 1864, five of them by Abraham Lincoln and four of them Republicans: Nathan Clifford, Noah H. Swayne, Samuel F. Miller, David Davis, Stephen J. Field, and Chase himself. These eight Justices were to sit together through most of the period until Chase's death in 1873. Taney's longtime colleagues James M. Wayne and John Catron were gone by 1867; William Strong, Jo- seph P. Bradley, and Ward Hunt, appointed at the end of Chase's tenure, played relatively minor roles. The work of the Chase period was largely done by eight men.1 Chase was Chief Justice for less than nine years, but his ten- ure was a time of important constitutional decisions. Most of the significant cases fall into three categories. The best known cases, which serve as the subject of this article, involve a variety of ques- tions arising out of the Civil War itself. Less dramatic but of com- parable impact on future litigation and of comparable jurispruden- tial interest were a number of decisions determining the inhibitory effect of the commerce clause on state legislation.
    [Show full text]