Before She Died, “Jane Roe” Said She Was Never Really Pro-Life: Does It Matter?

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the revelation that before she died, Norma McCorvey—the woman who was the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade and who had subsequently become a prominent spokesperson for overturning the decision—said she was never really pro-life after all. Using this example, Dorf explains why, in some ways, the individual plaintiff’s identity does not matter for the purpose of deciding an important legal issue, yet in other ways, the plaintiff’s underlying story can be very important for other reasons.

Read More

Sierra Frac Sand, LLC v. CDE Global Limited

Docket: 19-40489

Opinion Date: May 26, 2020

Judge: Leslie H. Southwick

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

After plaintiff filed suit for fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of contract, defendant moved to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens based on a forum-selection clause found in a document external to, but incorporated into, the parties' contract. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's enforcement of the forum-selection clause and dismissal of the complaint. The court held that the forum-selection clause was incorporated into the contract and is binding. In this case, all the forum non conveniens private-interest factors weigh in defendant's favor of litigating the case in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, there are no unusual circumstances that warrant retaining the litigation in Texas.

Pan Am Equities, Inc. v. Lexington Insurance Co.

Docket: 19-20363

Opinion Date: May 26, 2020

Judge: Don R. Willett

Areas of Law: Contracts, Insurance Law

This insurance coverage case concerns flood damage from Hurricane Harvey to two office buildings owned by Pan Am and insured by Lexington. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Lexington. The court held that the unequivocal language of the "Windstorm" deductible, which covered flood damage, controls. Therefore, Pan Am may not recover because its buildings were damaged solely by flooding. Furthermore, even if the generic $100,000 "Flood" deductible were to also apply, the 5% TIV-based deductible would prevail under the policy's anti-stacking clause.