原告在行政诉讼中举证责任分配的几个问题

行政诉讼中原告也承担相应的举证责任。原告在行政诉讼中对某些程序性问题应承担举证责任。在特殊类型的行政诉讼中,应根据行政行为的不同特点来决定原、被告的举证责任分配,并通过立法将其类型化。     

Filing a Nuisance Claim to Induce Successive Lawsuits

In this article, I provide a rationale for nuisance suits. Ishow that a plaintiff may file a nuisance suit if he expectsthat his suit may induce suits by other plaintiffs. If an initialplaintiff is too pessimistic about this possibility, a nuisancesuit may not be filed even though it would be meritorious withjoinder with another plaintiff. In this case, lawyers may playthe role of reducing such coordination failure due to asymmetricinformation by providing potential plaintiffs with relevantinformation.     

From tobacco to health care and beyond--a critique of lawsuits targeting unpopular industries.

The 1998 settlement between state Medicaid agencies and the five major tobacco companies heralded a new form of litigation in which individual or government plaintiffs allied with private class action attorneys use economic, political and moral leverage to extract huge settlements from entire industries. Beginning with several class action suits filed in late 1999 against managed care companies by aggrieved HMO enrollees, and continuing with government suits against the paint and handgun industries, this new form of litigation has become a powerful vehicle for plaintiffs to punish unpopular--but entirely legal--industries. In this Note, the author demonstrates that the popular appeal of these suits conceals legal theories of recovery that probably could not survive courtroom scrutiny. The author argues that the thin legal merits of these class action claims are often tolerated by courts, who urge settlement in order to clear their dockets, and by the industries, who regard settlement merely as a cost of doing business. The author concludes that the tobacco litigation and its progeny encourage citizens and the executive branches of government to seek restitution and fundamental social change in the courts after losing in the legislative arena, thus forcing the judiciary branches into the unwise and improper role of policymaker.     

Injunctions and the Public Interest in Fair Use Cases After eBay

The indeterminacy of the fair use doctrine can frustrate those who wish to use copyrighted material to create something new. When coupled with the ready availability of injunctive relief for plaintiffs in infringement suits, this uncertainty can cause a chilling effect that prevents artists, scholars and others from asserting their fair use rights to the fullest. This article examines procedural changes regarding the award of injunctions that were mandated by the Supreme Court of the United States in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. and extended to copyright cases by the Second and Ninth United States Circuit Courts of Appeals. It concludes that the procedural safeguards instituted in these cases will help shift the balance of power in fair use cases away from copyright plaintiffs to protect defendants with credible fair use claims and better serve the public interest.     

从"马萨诸塞州诉环境保护总署"案谈美国公民公益诉讼制度及对我国的启示

2007年4月美国联邦最高法院对"马萨诸塞州诉环境保护总署"案的终审判决,体现了公民诉讼制度的立法本意。该案进一步明确了公民诉讼的性质,肯定了地方政府和非政府组织或公民为适格的原告,降低了原告关于损害事实的证明负担,淡化了因果关系要求。借鉴美国制度,建立公益诉讼制度,赋予相关机关、社会团体和公民提起环保公益诉讼的权利,是我国有效治理污染的唯一途径。     

我国环境公益诉讼立法存在的问题及其对策——美国判例法的新近发展及其经验借鉴

美国是世界上首创环境公民诉讼制度的国家,其判例对该制度的创新和发展起着非常重要的推动作用。1992年联合国环境与发展大会以来,美国环境公民诉讼判例法在诉讼目的的实现途径、原告的范围、起诉权的要件、法院的受案范围、诉讼的请求、律师参与诉讼的支持机制等技术层面具有一定的发展和变化。相比之下,中国的相关立法则很不发达。发展我国的环境公益诉讼立法,在法律体系方面,不仅应修订《宪法》、《环境保护法》、《民事诉讼法》和《刑事诉讼法》,还应当修订单行环境立法,发挥司法解释的作用;在具体规定方面,要明确规定环境公民诉讼的受案范围、主体要件、前提条件、程序规则、诉讼请求、举证方式和条件,不仅应承认公民的环境权,扩展环境损害的范围,扩大社会团体以及非直接利害关系人行使起诉权的案件范围,还要建立介入诉讼、环境公诉制度及有利于律师参与和代理诉讼的收费标准。     

论反垄断民事诉讼中证据规则的改进

在反垄断民事诉讼中,由于原被告之间信息的不对称,致使在证据的调查和收集,以及举证责任的分配方面,私人主体很难做到与垄断企业相抗衡。反垄断案件的特殊性决定了"谁主张,谁举证"的民事证据规则是不能适用的。否则,将出现大多数受害者的民事权益难以得到救济的局面。所以,应当改进既有的证据规则,旨在减轻原告相关的法律责任,因为,合理的证据规则对于贯彻适当鼓励私人进行民事诉讼的立法精神具有重要意义。     

ISSUES AND MISCONCEPTIONS IN PRISONER LITIGATION: A CRITICAL VIEW*

In the past quarter-century, the number of suits filed by prisoners in federal courts has substantially increased. Critics have borrowed metaphors from ballistics or pathologv to describe this increase as an “epidemic” of “legal pollution” or an “explosion.” The causes of this “hyperlexis,” or excessive litigation, are often attributed to prisoners' attempts to retry their cases once they have lost, or to some psychological attribute of plaintiffs who view litigation as a means of striking back at their keepers. This paper examines several common conceptions of prisoner litigation. National ling data from federal district courts are used to assess the merits of each. The data provide little support for many of the conceptions of and explanations for prisoner suits. It is suggested that prisoners' use of courts may be a form of social resistance to conditions for which there is no other legitimate avenue for relief:     

Paint It Black: Rhode Island Supreme Court Rejects Lead Paint Nuisance Suit

During the past decade, state and local governments have increasingly brought suits to redress harm caused by products, including cigarettes, firearms, and toxins such as asbestos, lead paint, and even greenhouse gases, based not on the products liability or negligence theories conventionally applied, but on the public nuisance doctrine. Although the public nuisance doctrine potentially offers governmental plaintiffs more lenient standards with respect to issues like product and manufacturer identification, control of the product, proximate cause, and application of statutes of limitation, while limiting manufacturers' defenses, and has generated insurance claims and pressure to enter settlements, nearly all applications of public nuisance law to products claims have ultimately failed when heard by the courts on the merits. In February 2007, however, a Rhode Island trial court, in a groundbreaking decision, entered a judgment on a jury verdict imposing liability on three lead pigment manufacturers for creating a public nuisance, and ordered them to abate the nuisance in Rhode Island at a cost estimated to exceed two billion dollars.

On July 1, 2008, the Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment against the lead paint manufacturers and held that the state attorney general's complaint should have been dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The state had not, and could not, allege facts sufficient to support a public nuisance claim, as the doctrine was construed in Rhode Island or nationally. Relief from the serious harms caused by lead paint was available only through specific Rhode Island legislation and products liability law, not the public nuisance doctrine. The Rhode Island Supreme Court's decision is consistent with recent decisions from other state courts, most notably opinions issued by the highest courts of New Jersey and Missouri during 2007, and has already influenced other public nuisance plaintiffs to abandon their lead paint suits.     

Constitutional law--New Jersey abortion statute unconstitutionally vague on its face

The old New Jersey abortion statute held that abortion before the quickening of the child was not indictable. The Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA) of Princeton, New Jersey, is a consolidation of 2 suits in the District Court questioning the constitutionality of the New Jersey statute. The court ruled that the women plaintiffs were without standing to raise the question of constitutionality. The court also ruled that because of the prosecutions for committing illegal abortions, the abortions, the physicians had a sufficient legal interest to argue that the statute deprives the physician of the right to practice medicine according to the highest standards of medical practice and violates the right to privacy of the patients.     

Technology and torts: Memory costs, nondurable precautions and interference effects

This article examines the influence of nondurable precaution technologies on the expansion of tort awards. We provide four contributions to the literature. First, we present a general, formal model on durable and non-durable precaution technology that focuses on memory costs. Second, because liability exposure creates interference, we argue that tort law perpetuates the expansion of awards. Third, because plaintiffs do not consider the social costs of interference effects, private litigation induces socially excessive suits. Fourth, while new harm-reducing technologies likely increase accident rates, such technologies also raise the ratio of trial costs to harm, leaving undetermined the overall effect of new technologies on the rate of litigation.     

Products liability issues in school asbestos litigation

The hazards posed by deteriorating friable asbestos in the nation's schools are causing serious concerns for public health officials, school boards, parents and school employees. Reports by both the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Attorney General's Office agree that both school children and school employees stand a substantially increased risk of contracting some form of asbestos-related disease as a result of exposure to deteriorating asbestos materials in school buildings. School systems plagued by the asbestos hazards are now filing suits against asbestos manufacturers alleging causes of action in breach of warranty, negligence and strict products liability in tort. Some plaintiffs in school asbestos litigation seek to recover the costs of EPA-mandated asbestos inspection and abatement programs which have already been completed. Still others request injunctions to compel the manufacturers themselves to conduct inspections and finance abatement. This Note examines the school asbestos situation from a legal perspective and focuses primarily on whether the schools' claims should be considered as economic losses or as property damage. It examines the impact of statutes of limitations on these cases under both contract and tort theories. The Note argues that school asbestos claims should be decided under a strict products liability standard.     

The Responsibility of the Police Command for Street-Level Actions

This article examines federal judicial doctrine concerning the responsibility of police officials for patrol misconduct. The current standard requiring a showing by plaintiffs of an "affirmative link" between street-level action and the intention of commanders is challenged in two ways. First, through the application of organizational analysis to the premises of leading cases in the doctrine, and, second, by considering three suits alleging patterns of patrol misconduct, in which the elements of a new standard of command responsibility can be discerned. The authors argue that a standard based on a strengthened doctrine of respondeat superior will help insure the preservation of due process rights in citizen encounters with the police. The article recommends the imposition of departmental record keeping requirements for personnel evaluations and for allegations and investigations of patrol misconduct. A further recommendation would require departmental regulations on the use of force.     

在华外国公司犯罪的规律分析与应对策略

伴随在华外国公司投资额度和公司数量的急剧增加,在华外国公司犯罪问题日益凸显,而与此相适应的立法、司法和理论研究却严重滞后。以此为背景,我们随机选择了2002年至2011年间100个在华外国公司犯罪的现实案例,在对犯罪规律和趋势进行多视角剖析的基础上,着力思考如何解决在华外国公司犯罪态势高发、社会责任严重缺失的应对问题,对于如何构建与中国经济地位、国际地位相适应的外国公司犯罪的刑事政策,如何强化中国刑事司法对于外国公司犯罪的防治力度进行了尝试性探索。     

Educational Research and the Protection of Human Subjects

Educational research is increasingly subject to legal restrictions designed for the protection of human subjects of research. In this article the author discusses legal restrictions–both in the courts and under HEW regulations–on educational research, comparing these restrictions with those on biomedical research. He finds that although educational research in particular instances may give rise to suits for damages for invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of psychological distress, the legal issues relating to educational research will most often be resolved in proceedings before institutional review boards charged by HEW with the responsibility for passing upon proposals to conduct research on human subjects. He argues that the interests protected in proceedings before institutional review boards are not limited to those that have received judicial recognition in suits for damages. The author finds that the requirement that the informed consent of subjects be obtained presents difficult issues for educational research. He notes in particular the problems presented by research proposals that as an element of the research design contemplate the observation of subjects without their knowledge and the use of children as research subjects.     

Informational externalities and settlements in mass tort litigations

This paper elaborates on a basic model of mass tort litigation, highlighting the existence of positive informational externalities afforded by the discovery process (as a general technology of production of evidences) in order to study when a class action is formed, or when a sequence of individual trials is more likely. We illustrate the argument that when several plaintiffs file individually a lawsuit against the same tortfeasor, the resolution of the various cases through repeated trials produces positive informational externalities. When class actions are forbidden, these externalities only benefit to the later plaintiffs (through precedents, jurisprudence...). When they are allowed, the first filer may have an incentive to initiate a class action as far as it enables him to benefit from these externalities, through the sharing of information with later filers. We provide sufficient conditions under which a class action is formed, assuming a perfect discovery process. We also show that when contingent fees are used to reward attorneys’ services, plaintiffs become neutral to the arrival of new information on their case.     

Why courts cannot deny ADA protection to plaintiffs who do not use available mitigating measures for their impairments

Congress intended the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") to provide strong standards for addressing and eliminating discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Many commentators have concluded, however, that the federal courts are undermining the goals of the ADA by too narrowly construing membership in the statute's protected class. One example of this trend is courts' hostile treatment of ADA plaintiffs who do not use medications or devices that might alleviate their impairments ("nonmitigating plaintiffs"). Numerous district and appellate decisions have held or suggested that nonmitigating plaintiffs are not protected by the ADA. In addition, some commentators have proposed that courts should evaluate the reasonableness of a plaintiff's decision not to use mitigating measures; they argues that it is unfair to burden an employer with the cost of accommodating a disability that continues to exist only because an employee unreasonably refuses to mitigate it. Contrary to the views of these courts and commentators, however, this Comment will show that nonmitigating plaintiffs are entitled to ADA protection from employment discrimination. It argues that the statute's language, history, and structure, as well as Supreme Court precedent, demonstrate that courts cannot deny ADA protection based on a plaintiff's nonuse of available mitigating measures. It also presents several considerations that weigh against any future congressional enactment that would tie ADA protection to the reasonableness of a plaintiff's decision not to mitigate an impairment.     

The impact of judges' perceptions of credibility in fibromyalgia claims

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a confusing and controversial diagnosis, characterized by widespread pain and tenderness at specific anatomical sites. The cause of this syndrome is unknown, and the course of the condition is difficult to predict. Without a known cause, predictable course, or effective treatment, it is not surprising that FM is a contentious diagnosis from a medical perspective, as well as a civil litigation and disability insurance industry perspective. The purpose of this study was to investigate judges' perceptions of credibility in litigated cases involving FM claims in the Canadian courts, and the relation between perceived credibility and awards granted. A systematic review was conducted of every trial-by-judge litigated FM claim in Canada (N=194 cases) up to 2003. The cases were examined in relation to credibility factors. The role and responsibility of the plaintiff was central in claims involving issues of misrepresentation, fraud, non-disclosure, failure to mitigate, and contributory negligence. The presence of these issues suggested a possible decrease or loss in the claim as a result of the plaintiff's conduct. In regards to the actions of defendants, the presence of investigative and surveillance information alone did not affect the awards granted. However, the credibility of that information had a large effect on the amount of award granted. Plaintiff credibility played a similar role, indicating that plaintiffs perceived as more credible were typically granted greater awards. An examination of medical expert credibility revealed that judges appear to perceive experts as more credible overall than plaintiffs, regardless of the expert's role in the case.     

Juror Judgments in Civil Cases: Effects of Plaintiff's Requests and Plaintiff's Identity on Punitive Damage Awards

Two experiments were conducted to study the manner in which civil jurors assess punitive damage awards. Jury-eligible citizens were shown a videotaped summary of an environmental damage lawsuit and told that the defendant had already paid compensatory damages. They were asked to judge liability for punitive damages and, if damages were to be assessed, to assign a dollar award. Three independent variables were manipulated in the case materials: the dollar amounts that were explicitly requested by the plaintiffs in their closing arguments to the jury, the geographical location of the defendant corporation, and the location of the lead plaintiff. Consistent with prior findings of anchor effects on judgments, we found that the plaintiffs requested award values had a dramatic effect on awards: the higher the request, the higher the awards. We also found that local plaintiffs were awarded more than were geographically remote plaintiffs, while the location of the defendant company did not have reliable effects on the awards. The implications of these results for procedures in civil trials and for theories of juror decision making are discussed.