Bibliographic record
Abstract
An advantage which it is hoped will be reflected in a judgment is what makes plaintiffs leave home and incur burdens of expense and inconvenience that would be regarded as oppressive if forced upon them.1 As Justice Jackson's words suggest, is not an activity that should be associated with questionable ethics or doubtful legality. It is part of a lawyer's job to bring suit in the forum that is best for the client's interests. The debatable issue is whether a forum that has personal jurisdiction over the defendant should be free to refuse to exercise that jurisdiction because the court determines that the case could more appropriately be tried elsewhere or for some other reason. If a forum is especially attractive to foreign litigants injured abroad, this attraction may be for reasons that justify the forum's pride in its administration of justice-learned judges, able counsel, and the rule of law. On the other hand, the attraction may be based on forum rules that do not advance any significant local policy and give an unwarranted advantage to forum shoppers. If so, perhaps forum courts or legislatures should change these dysfunctional rules. On January 4, 2002, at the annual meeting of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS), the Conflict of Laws section presented a program on International Forum Shopping. This symposium publishes articles based on the presentations during that program. I served as moderator. The program was dedicated to the memory of Professor Friedrich K. Juenger. Fritz Juenger was a friend to many of us in the fields of Conflict of Laws and Comparative Law and, through his published scholarship, the teacher of all of us. With his usual verve and humor, Fritz served as moderator of the Conflict of Laws program at the 2001 AALS meeting. It is hard to believe that he is no longer with us. Some forums are They attract the aggrieved and injured of the world. The United States ranks first among the world's magnet forums. Typically our courts afford to foreign plaintiffs injured abroad lower barriers to suit and higher recoveries than other available forums would offer. As Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno explained: First... strict liability remains primarily an American innovation. Second, the tort plaintiff may choose, at least potentially, from among 50 jurisdictions if he decides to file suit in the United States. Each of these jurisdictions applies its own set of malleable choice-of-law rules. Third, jury trials are almost always available in the United States, while they are never provided in civil law jurisdictions. Even in the United Kingdom, most civil actions are not tried before a jury. Fourth, unlike most foreign jurisdictions, American courts allow contingent attorney's fees, and do not tax losing parties with their opponents' attorney's fees. Fifth, discovery is more extensive in American than in foreign courts.2 The participants in this symposium address various aspects of international forum shopping. Professor Ronald Brand is Professor of Law and Director of the Center for International Legal Education at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. He is currently a member of the U.S. delegation to a special commission of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, which is drafting a multilateral convention on jurisdiction and recognition of judgments. Professor Brand provides a comparative view of forum non conveniens (FNC). INC is an American defendant's primary defense against a forum-- shopping plaintiff. Under this doctrine, a court may dismiss or stay an action if the judge makes two findings: (1) the place where the plaintiff has sued is, in the light of access to evidence and the burden on the court,3 not an appropriate site for the litigation, and (2) an appropriate forum is available elsewhere. Professor Brand first compares FNC in various common law legal systems-Scotland, England, the United States, Canada, and Australia. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".