Michael E. Solimine / Summer 2013

Posted on by

Over the summer, Michael helped draft and was a signatory to an amicus curiae brief of Ohio law professors filed in the case of ProgressOhio v. JobsOhio, currently pending in the Ohio Supreme Court (No. 2012-1272). The case concerns whether Ohio courts should follow the standing to sue requirements developed in federal courts. Oral argument in the case is set for November.

On August 27 Michael served as a panelist at the celebration of the “75th Anniversary of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” sponsored by the College of Law and moderated by NYU law professor Arthur Miller.

Several of Michael’s articles were cited.

  • Revitalizing Interlocutory Appeals in the Federal Courts, 58 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1165 (1990), in Richard L. Marcus, et al., Civil Procedure: A Modern Approach (West Publishing, 6th ed., 2013); Andrew S. Polis, Civil Rule 54(b): Seventy-Five and Ready for Retirement, 65 Fla. L. Rev. 711 (2013); Hannah M. Smith, Note, Using the Scientific Method: Examining State Interlocutory Appeals Procedures That Would Improve Uniformity, Efficiency, and Fairness in the Federal Appellate System, 61 Clev. St. L. Rev. 259 (2013); Bryan Lammon, Rules, Standards, and Experimentation in Appellate Jurisdiction, 74 Ohio St. L.J. 423 (2013);
  • The Quiet Revolution in Personal Jurisdiction, 73 Tulane L. Rev. 1 (1998), in Richard L. Marcus, et al., Civil Procedure: A Modern Approach (West Publishing, 6th ed., 2013); Alan W. Trammell, Jurisdictional Sequencing, 47 Ga. L. Rev. 1099 (2013);
  • Deregulating Voluntary Dismissals, 36 U. Mich. J. L. Ref. 367 (2003) (with Amy Lippert), in Richard L. Marcus, et al., Civil Procedure: A Modern Approach (West Publishing, 6th ed., 2013);
  • Forum-Selection Clauses and the Privatization of Procedure, 25 Cornell Int’l L.J. 51 (1992), in Erin O’Hara O’Connor & Larry E. Ribstein, Exit and the American Illness, in The American Illness: Essays on the Rule of Law (Yale University Press, F.H. Buckley, ed., 2013); Colter L. Paulson, Evaluating Contracts for Customized Litigation by the Norms Underlying Civil Procedure, 45 Ariz. St. L.J. 471 (2013);
  • An Economic and Empirical Analysis of Choice of Law, 24 Ga. L. Rev. 49 (1989), in Erin O’Hara O’Connor & Larry E. Ribstein, Exit and the American Illness, in The American Illness: Essays on the Rule of Law (Yale University Press, F.H. Buckley, ed., 2013); Gregory H. Shill, Ending Judgment Arbitrage: Jurisdictional Competition and the Enforcement of Foreign Money Judgments, 54 Harv. Int’l L.J. 459 (2013);
  • The Next Word. Congressional Response to Supreme Court Statutory Decisions, 65 Temple L. Rev. 425 (1992) (with James Walker), in Ethan J. Lieb, David L. Ponet & Michael Serota, A Fiduciary Theory of Judging, 101 Cal. L. Rev. 699 (2013); Danieli Evans, What Would Congress Want? If We Want to Know, Why Not Ask?, 81 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1191 (2013);
  • Deciding to Decide: Class Action Certification and Interlocutory Review by the United States Courts of Appeals Under Rule 23(f), 41 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1531 (2000) (with Christine Oliver Hines), in Richard L. Marcus, et al., Civil Procedure: A Modern Approach (West Publishing, 6th ed., 2013); Bryan Lammon, Rules, Standards, and Experimentation in Appellate Jurisdiction, 74 Ohio St. L.J. 423 (2013);  Kevin Walsh, Comment, Collision Course: How Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) Has Silently Undermined the Prohibition of American Pipe Tolling During Appeals of Class Certification Denials, 73 La. L. Rev. 1183 (2013);
  • The Supreme Court and the DIG: An Empirical and Institutional Analysis, 2005 Wis. L. Rev. 1421 (with Rafael Gely), in Gabriel J. Chin, Cindy Hwang Chiang & Shirley S. Park, The Lost Brown v. Board of Education of Immigration Law, 91 N.C. L. Rev. 1657 (2013);
  • Congress, Separation of Powers, and Standing, 59 Case Wes. Res. L. Rev. 1023 (2009), in Samuel D. Bruson, Watching the Watchers: Preventing I.R.S. Abuse of the Tax System, 14 Fla. Tax Rev. 223 (2013);
  • Supreme Court Monitoring of the United States Courts of Appeals En banc, 9 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 171 (2001) (with Tracey George), in Matthew Spitzer & Eric Talley, Left, Right and Center: Strategic Information Acquisition and Diversity in Judicial Panels, 29 J. Law., Econ. & Organ. 638 (2013);
  • State Amici, Collective Action, and the Development of Federalism Doctrine, 46 Ga. L. Rev. 355 (2012), in Bruce A. Green, Gideon’s Amici: Why Do Prosecutors So Rarely Defend the Rights of the Accused?, 122 Yale L.J. 2336 (2013); Greg Goelzhauser & Nicole Vouvalis, State Coordinating Institutions and Agenda Setting on the U.S. Supreme Court, 41 Am. Pol. Res. 819 (2013);
  • Judicial Influence: A Citation Analysis of Federal Courts of Appeals Judges, 27 J. Legal Stud. 271 (1998)(with William M. Landes & Lawrence Lessig), in Yonatan Lupu & James H. Fowler, Strategic Citations to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court, 42 J. Legal Stud. 151 (2013); Joshua D. Wright & Angela M. Dively, Do Expert Agencies Outperform Generalist Judges? Some Preliminary Evidence from the Federal Trade Commission, 1 J. Antitrust Enforcement 82 (2013);
  • Due Process and En Banc Decisionmaking, 48 Ariz. L. Rev. 325 (2006), in Mario Lucero, The Second Circuit’s En banc Crisis, 2013 Cardozo L. Rev. de-novo 32;
  • Interstate Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage, the Public Policy Exception, and Clear Statements of Extraterritorial Effect, 41 Cal. W. Int’l L.J. 105 (2010), in Harry Anastopulos, Jurisdictional Russian Roulette: The Intersection of Comity, Family Security, and Access to Same-Sex Divorce, 14 Geo. J. Gender & Law 133 (2013); and
  • Institutional process, Agenda Setting, and the Development of Election Law on the Supreme Court, 68 Ohio St. L.J. 767 (2007), in Rebecca Curry, Making Law with Lawsuits: Understanding Judicial review in Campaign Finance Policy, 46 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 389 (2013).

Comments are closed.