Category: Symposium

  • Reply to Doug Cassel

    Many thanks to Doug Cassel for his comments on some of the views I’ve expressed in the symposium. I’d like to respond to his three points in order. Case-Specific Exceptions I have argued that it doesn’t make much sense to have case-specific exceptions to the ordinary rules of recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment.……

  • Response to Ted Folkman

    In his various comments on the symposium contributions, our host Ted Folkman makes three points to which I respond here. Case-Specific Exceptions Generally First, Ted questions whether case-specific grounds for non-enforcement of foreign judgments are needed, so long as the systemic inadequacy of a foreign judicial system is a ground for non-enforcement. If the foreign……

  • A Follow-Up To Professor Brand

    As a humble practicing lawyer in the company of some heavy hitters from the academy, I’ve really enjoyed reading and participating in this discussion! I want to offer some follow-up to the back-and-forth I had with Professor Brand yesterday. In his response to the Whytock/Robertson article, Professor Brand noted an inconsistency between the proposal, which……

  • Response to Aaron Marr Page

    Many thanks to Ted Folkman and the symposium contributors for a rich discussion.  Here I respond to Aaron Page’s post.  Later I will comment on Ted’s posts and comments addressed to me. In Page’s rhetorical view, the fraud in the Ecuadorian litigation against Chevron was a triviality in a teapot that should not deter US……

  • Response to Professors Whytock and Brand

    Chris does a good job of detailing the tension between the traditional approach of the Ashenden analysis and the new approach of the UFCMJRA, which I referenced in my post. In particular I think he correctly describes how the new case-specific UFCMJRA grounds essentially turn the enforcing court into an appellate court on due process……