Follow POL on Twitter As we discussed in July, the California Supreme Court upheld an arrangement where Santa Clara hired contingent-fee attorneys to bring a public nuisance case against ARCO. ARCO has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (No. 10-546) on the theory that the use of private prosecutors who have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of governmental prosecutions violates the Due Process Clause. The Chamber (in a brief with Victor Schwartz as lead counsel) and NAM, inter alia, have weighed in in favor of certiorari. Sean Wajert discusses.
State-hired contingent fee counsel: Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Santa Clara
Related Entries:
- On the Supreme Court cert docket (II): Limelight v. Akamai
- NY's highest court rejects medical monitoring claim
- The Bond That Ties: A Case-Study in Federalism
- The Unconscionability of California's "Amendable" Arbitration Agreements
- TLI Update: Supreme Court To Hear Patent Troll Cases
- Businessweek on class actions
- In the Matter of McCutcheon: The Merits of Campaign-Finance "Aggregation"
- "A Facebook Deal That Needs Unfriending"
- The cy pres morass and In re BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation
- CEI, Cato, and PLF weigh in on Mount Holly
- Marek v. Lane & Dry Max Pampers in today's NY Times
- Epstein on the pro-business Supreme Court myth
- Supreme Court Ethics Act of 2013
- Cy pres in SCOTUS? Facebook Beacon settlement certiorari petition
- Recess Appointments Update
 |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
 |
| Katherine Lazarski Press Officer, Manhattan Institute klazarski@manhattan-institute.org |
