LHSS｜Remedy, Relief, Consequences

Title：Remedy, Relief, Consequences

Speaker：Duane Rudolph, Associate Professor of Law, University of San Francisco School of Law

Moderator：Norman Ho, Professor of Law, Peking University School of Transnational Law

Date and Time: November 15, 2024 (Friday), 12:15 PM – 1:30 PM (China Standard Time)

Venue: Online Seminar

            Zoom Meeting ID: 838 8375 3784
            Passcode: 770637

Langauge：English

About the Speaker:

Duane Rudolph is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of San Francisco School of Law.  He works on remedies, legal philosophy, and civil rights.  He previously served as a Visiting Assistant Professor of Law (2017-2019) and Assistant Professor of Law (2021-2023) at the Peking University School of Transnational Law.

Lecture Summary:

Recent precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States, state precedent going back at least two centuries, recent Remedies casebooks, and seminal works dealing with remedies appear to support the proposition that “remedy” and “relief” are synonymous. By relying on the influential case from the Court of Appeals of New York in 1889, Riggs v. Palmer (the case of the murderous grandson who poisoned his propertied grandfather so that his grandfather’s will would be executed), this lecture tests this association of “remedy” with “relief” over time. This lecture also tests the association of “remedy” with other terms often considered substitutes for “remedy,” including “redress,” “restore,” “outcome,” and “bottom line.” Are “remedy” and “relief” synonymous? Does “remedy” mean the same thing as “redress,” “restore,” “outcome,” and “bottom line”? What of “consequences”? What is the relationship between “remedy” and “consequences”? How does Riggs v. Palmer help us respond to these questions?

Poster：