Latest Case: Crouch Railway Consulting, LLC v. LS Energy Fabrication, LLC (Civil Procedure)

He Said/She Said, Save Our Sons, and the Stories that Stick: Part One of a Two-Part Series of Columns

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on the U.S. Department of Education’s recent push toward a higher burden of proof in determinations of sexual harassment or assault under Title IX. In this first part, Colb suggests that men who say “not guilty” in response to a sexual assault accusation are not especially credible and that we accordingly need an explanation for why people find the accuser’s words equally lacking in credibility (and therefore call the dispute a “he said/she said” dilemma for the factfinder).

Read More

“Remain Humble and Compassionate—And Have a Plan to Kill Everyone You Meet”

JOSEPH MARGULIES

Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies argues that to fix policing, we must change police culture and norms, starting with ending the warrior model of policing. Margulies describes what this model means and explains why it is such a substantial obstacle to productive relationships between the police and the communities they serve.

Read More

Crouch Railway Consulting, LLC v. LS Energy Fabrication, LLC

Docket: M2017-02540-SC-R11-CV

Opinion Date: October 6, 2020

Judge: Bivins

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Contracts

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the chancery court dismissing this complaint against a Texas company for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction was constitutionally permissible. The Texas company contracted with a Tennessee civil engineering company for services related to the potential construction of a railcar repair facility in Texas. When the Texas company failed to pay in full, the Tennessee company filed a breach of contract action in Tennessee. The chancery court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the Texas company lacked the minimum contacts necessary for the exercise of personal jurisdiction and that requiring the Texas company to litigate in Tennessee would be unreasonable and unfair. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Tennessee company established a prima facie case for the valid exercise of personal jurisdiction over the Texas company; and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction was fair and reasonable.