Staff View
The rule of law in multidistrict litigation

Descriptive

TypeOfResource
Text
TitleInfo
Title
The rule of law in multidistrict litigation
Name (type = personal); (authority = orcid); (authorityURI = http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/identifiers/orcid.html); (valueURI = http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3807-1309)
NamePart (type = family)
Noll
NamePart (type = given)
David L.
Affiliation
Dean's Office (School of Law-Newark), Rutgers University
Role
RoleTerm (type = text); (authority = marcrt)
author
Name (type = corporate); (authority = RutgersOrg-Department)
NamePart
Dean's Office (School of Law-Newark)
Name (type = corporate); (authority = RutgersOrg-School)
NamePart
School of Law-Newark
Genre (authority = RULIB-FS)
Article, Non-refereed
Genre (authority = NISO JAV)
Accepted Manuscript (AM)
OriginInfo
DateCreated (encoding = w3cdtf); (qualifier = exact); (keyDate = yes)
2019
Abstract (type = Abstract)
From the Deepwater Horizon disaster to the opioid crisis, multidistrict litigation—or simply MDL—has become the preeminent forum for devising solutions to the most difficult problems in the federal courts. MDL works by refusing to follow a regular procedural playbook. Its solutions are case-specific, evolving, and ad hoc. This very flexibility, however, provokes charges that MDL violates basic requirements of the rule of law.
At the heart of these charges is the assumption that MDL is simply a larger version of the litigation that takes place every day in federal district courts. But MDL is not just different in scale than ordinary litigation; it is different in kind. In structure and operation, MDL parallels programs like Social Security where an administrative agency continuously develops new procedures to handle a high volume of changing claims. Accordingly, MDL is appropriately judged against the “administrative” rule of law that emerged in the decades after World War II, and which underpins the legitimacy of the modern administrative state.
When one views MDL as an administrative program instead of a larger version of ordinary civil litigation, the real threats to the legitimacy of its model of aggregate litigation come into focus. The problem is not that MDL is ad hoc. Rather, it is that MDL lacks guarantees of transparency, public participation, and judicial review that administrative agencies have operated under since the middle of the twentieth century. The history of the administrative state suggests that MDL’s continued success as a forum for resolving staggeringly complex problems depends on how it addresses these governance deficits.
Language
LanguageTerm (authority = ISO 639-3:2007); (type = text)
English
PhysicalDescription
InternetMediaType
application/pdf
Extent
1 online resource (62 pages)
Subject (authority = local)
Topic
Multidistrict litigation
Subject (authority = local)
Topic
MDL
Subject (authority = local)
Topic
Civil procedure
Subject (authority = local)
Topic
Ad hoc procedure
Subject (authority = local)
Topic
Administrative law
Subject (authority = local)
Topic
Administrative Procedure Act
Subject (authority = local)
Topic
Judicial administration
Subject (authority = local)
Topic
Deepwater Horizon
Subject (authority = local)
Topic
Opioids
Subject (authority = local)
Topic
Vioxx
Subject (authority = local)
Topic
Litigation
Subject (authority = local)
Topic
1407
Extension
DescriptiveEvent
Type
Citation
DateTime (encoding = w3cdtf)
2019
AssociatedObject
Name
Michigan Law Review
Type
Journal
Relationship
Has part
Identifier (type = volume and issue)
118
RelatedItem (type = host)
TitleInfo
Title
Noll, David L.
Identifier (type = local)
rucore30247400001
Location
PhysicalLocation (authority = marcorg); (displayLabel = Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey)
NjNbRU
Identifier (type = doi)
doi:10.7282/t3-x062-1q10
Back to the top

Rights

RightsDeclaration (AUTHORITY = FS); (TYPE = [FS] statement #1); (ID = rulibRdec0004)
Copyright for scholarly resources published in RUcore is retained by the copyright holder. By virtue of its appearance in this open access medium, you are free to use this resource, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings. Other uses, such as reproduction or republication, may require the permission of the copyright holder.
Copyright
Status
Copyright protected
Availability
Status
Open
Reason
Permission or license
RightsEvent
Type
Permission or license
AssociatedObject
Type
License
Name
Sole author license v. 1
Detail
I hereby grant to Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (Rutgers) the non-exclusive right to retain, reproduce, and distribute the deposited work (Work) in whole or in part, in and from its electronic format, without fee. This agreement does not represent a transfer of copyright to Rutgers.Rutgers may make and keep more than one copy of the Work for purposes of security, backup, preservation, and access and may migrate the Work to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation and access in the future. Rutgers will not make any alteration, other than as allowed by this agreement, to the Work.I represent and warrant to Rutgers that the Work is my original work. I also represent that the Work does not, to the best of my knowledge, infringe or violate any rights of others.I further represent and warrant that I have obtained all necessary rights to permit Rutgers to reproduce and distribute the Work and that any third-party owned content is clearly identified and acknowledged within the Work.By granting this license, I acknowledge that I have read and agreed to the terms of this agreement and all related RUcore and Rutgers policies.
Back to the top

Technical

RULTechMD (ID = TECHNICAL1)
ContentModel
Document
CreatingApplication
Version
1.7
ApplicationName
Microsoft® Word for Office 365
DateCreated (point = end); (encoding = w3cdtf); (qualifier = exact)
2019-04-14T18:50:51
DateCreated (point = end); (encoding = w3cdtf); (qualifier = exact)
2019-04-14T18:50:51
Back to the top
Version 8.3.13
Rutgers University Libraries - Copyright ©2020