Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- University of Richmond (8)
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (5)
- Cornell University Law School (4)
- UC Law SF (4)
- Emory University School of Law (3)
-
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (3)
- University of Georgia School of Law (3)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (3)
- University of Baltimore Law (2)
- Pace University (1)
- Southern Methodist University (1)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (1)
- University of Michigan Law School (1)
- University of Pittsburgh School of Law (1)
- Keyword
-
- F.R.C.P. Rule 11 (4)
- Litigation (4)
- Civil Procedure (3)
- Federal Courts (3)
- Jurisdiction (3)
-
- Practice and Procedure (3)
- Supplemental jurisdiction statute (3)
- ADR Scholarship (2)
- Arbitrability (2)
- Arbitration (2)
- Civil procedure (2)
- Congress (2)
- Due process (2)
- Empirical legal studies (2)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (2)
- Intervention (2)
- Jurisprudence (2)
- Legislation (2)
- Legislative history (2)
- Supreme Court (2)
- 1906 Address (1)
- 1983 amendments (1)
- A cognitive theory of juror decision making: the story model (1)
- Act (1)
- Adhesion (1)
- Adhesive (1)
- Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1)
- Agreements (1)
- Alienage (1)
- Arbitrate (1)
Articles 1 - 30 of 40
Full-Text Articles in Law
Telling Tales In Court: Trial Procedure And The Story Model, Richard O. Lempert
Telling Tales In Court: Trial Procedure And The Story Model, Richard O. Lempert
Articles
There are three ways in which stories may figure prominently at trials. First, litigants may tell stories to jurors. Not only is there some social science evidence that this happens, but trial lawyers have an instinctive sense that this is what they do. Ask a litigator to describe a current case and she is likely to reply, "Our story is ... " Second, jurors may try to make sense of the evidence they receive by fitting it to some story pattern. If so, the process is likely to feed back on itself. That is, jurors are likely to build a …
Compounding Or Creating Confusion About Supplemental Jurisdiction? A Reply To Professor Freer, Thomas D. Rowe Jr., Stephen B. Burbank, Thomas M. Mengler
Compounding Or Creating Confusion About Supplemental Jurisdiction? A Reply To Professor Freer, Thomas D. Rowe Jr., Stephen B. Burbank, Thomas M. Mengler
All Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Certification And Civil Rights, Carl W. Tobias
Certification And Civil Rights, Carl W. Tobias
Law Faculty Publications
In this 1991 article, Carl Tobias responds to Professor Arthur Miller's suggestion that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 should not be prematurely revised.
"Professor Miller's admonitions may convince some observers, especially those authorized to propose revisions in, or to amend, the Rule that there is little wrong with Rule 11's application and that the federal judiciary simply needs a few more years to refine the implementation of this new concept. Numerous problems, however, remain substantial and some may be intrinsic or even irremediable, while certain litigants, especially civil rights plaintiffs, cannot afford to wait. I trust that Professor Miller's …
The World In Our Courts, Stephen B. Burbank
The World In Our Courts, Stephen B. Burbank
All Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Defining “Co-Party” Within Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 13(G): Are Cross-Claims Between Original Defendants And Third-Party Defendants Allowable?, John Bessler
All Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Plotting The Next "Revolution" In Choice Of Law: A Proposed Approach, Gary J. Simson
Plotting The Next "Revolution" In Choice Of Law: A Proposed Approach, Gary J. Simson
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Federal Court Procedural Reform In Montana, Carl W. Tobias
Federal Court Procedural Reform In Montana, Carl W. Tobias
Law Faculty Publications
Much activity related to civil procedure recently occurred that could significantly affect practice in the Montana Federal District Court. During October 1991, the Committee to Redraft the Uniform District Court Rules (Local Rules Committee), which is charged with considering revision of the local rules, issued an Interim Report that includes suggested changes in those rules. The Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States (Standing Committee) distributed in August 1991 preliminary drafts of proposals to amend in varying degrees eighteen Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Advisory Group to Implement the Civil …
A Comparison Of Civil Procedure Practices In Products Liability Actions Between The United States And Japan: Underlying Reasons For Basic Differences, Akio Hayashi
LLM Theses and Essays
Both the U.S. and Japan are highly industrialized countries and many of the same products are used in both countries. So, why is there such a large difference in the number of products liability suits filed?
The present work explores the differences in the American and Japanese legal systems with a focus on products liability claims. The conclusion will show that it is the difference in the two countries applicable civil procedures that explain the disparity in suits.
The Relationship Between Plaintiff Sucess Rates Before Trial And At Trial, Theodore Eisenberg
The Relationship Between Plaintiff Sucess Rates Before Trial And At Trial, Theodore Eisenberg
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Legal cases that reach trial are a biased subset of underlying disputes. This makes it difficult to study the legal system by observing tried cases. This paper examines the relationship between plaintiff success at pretrial motion and trial stages across many categories of cases. The large, significant positive relationship between plaintiff success rates at these two procedural stages suggests that characteristics of case categories influence outcomes at both stages. Observers of a category of tried cases or cases resolved by motion can make informed judgments about how that category of cases fares at the other procedural stage.
Personal Jurisdiction And The Beetle In The Box, Wendy Collins Perdue
Personal Jurisdiction And The Beetle In The Box, Wendy Collins Perdue
Law Faculty Publications
In 1980 in World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, the Supreme Court described personal jurisdiction as "an instrument of interstate federalism." Two years later in Insurance Corporation of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, the Court back-pedaled and explained that personal jurisdiction "represents a restriction on judicial power not as a matter of sovereignty, but as a matter of individual liberty." Then, in 1985 in Phillips Petroleum v. Shutts, the Court explained that the purpose of personal jurisdiction is "to protect a defendant from the travail of defending in a distant forum." Three years later in Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, …
Standing To Intervene, Carl W. Tobias
Standing To Intervene, Carl W. Tobias
Law Faculty Publications
The Supreme Court has rarely considered what applicants must show to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) since the Court amended the provision in 1966. This dearth of Supreme Court treatment has meant that primary responsibility for interpreting Rule 24(a)(2) has devolved upon the lower federal courts. Many of these courts and numerous commentators have recognized that it is very difficult to identify precisely what the Rule demands of those that seek to intervene of right. During much of the last quarter century, however, the federal judiciary agreed about one important proposition: Rule 24(a)(2) does …
Judicial Discretion And The 1983 Amendments To The Federal Civil Rules, Carl W. Tobias
Judicial Discretion And The 1983 Amendments To The Federal Civil Rules, Carl W. Tobias
Law Faculty Publications
The first section of this Article briefly describes the developments which created the perception that the federal courts were experiencing a litigation explosion and which ultimately led to the promulgation of the 1983 amendments as one response to the perceived explosion. It also examines the substantive content of those changes, especially how the revisions enlarged federal judicial discretion. The second section evaluates the courts' implementation of the 1983 amendments and finds that this application has adversely affected numerous litigants, particularly civil rights plaintiffs, while providing some benefits, namely fostering more expeditious dispute resolution.
The third section provides suggestions for the …
Rule 11 Recalibrated In Civil Rights Cases, Carl W. Tobias
Rule 11 Recalibrated In Civil Rights Cases, Carl W. Tobias
Law Faculty Publications
The United States Supreme Court promulgated the 1983 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure out of growing concern about abuse of the civil litigation process. The most controversial aspect of the implementation of these revisions has been judicial enforcement of amended Rule 11 (the Rule) in ways that disadvantage or "chill" civil rights plaintiffs and attorneys. As the federal judiciary enters its eighth year of implementing the Rule, courts apparently have improved their application of it by becoming more solicitous of the needs of civil rights plaintiffs and their counsel, in recognition of the important social function that …
Recent Work Of The Civil Rules Committee, Carl W. Tobias, Margaret L. Sanner
Recent Work Of The Civil Rules Committee, Carl W. Tobias, Margaret L. Sanner
Law Faculty Publications
Congress reformed the procedures for amending the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1988 by prescribing greater public participation in the rules revision process. Since that time, the Advisory Committee on the Civil Rules, which has primary responsibility for studying the Rules and developing proposals for change in them, has examined several important Rules and made controversial recommendations for modifying those provisions. Although the Committee has assessed and suggested controversial revision in summary judgment and discovery, this article analyzes recent efforts of the Committee involving Rule 11, a provision that was fundamentally amended as recently as 1983.
Montana Rule 11 …
New York Civil Practice, Jay C. Carlisle
New York Civil Practice, Jay C. Carlisle
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
During the Survey year, the New York Court of Appeals issued important opinions with respect to strict compliance for service of process, the foreign object exception under CPLR 214-a, and disclosure against corporate employees. The Court also imposed sanctions for the first time under Part 130 of the Uniform Rules, and ruled that issue preclusion could be given to a criminal conviction to preclude subsequent civil litigation. In addition the Court recognized that substituted service could be used against a criminal contemnor. New York appellate courts issued instructive decisions regarding long-arm jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and discovery of surveillance videos. …
Close Enough For Government Work: What Happens When Congress Doesn't Do Its Job, Thomas C. Arthur, Richard Freer
Close Enough For Government Work: What Happens When Congress Doesn't Do Its Job, Thomas C. Arthur, Richard Freer
Faculty Articles
There's the beef. The supplemental jurisdiction statute, particularly section 1367(b), is a nightmare of draftsmanship. The problems that flow from that fact are more than aesthetic. The sloppiness makes easy cases hard and sows confusion in areas where there should be, and so easily could have been, clarity. It creates that most wasteful type of litigation - fights over jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction rules ought to be clear and capable of near-mechanical application whenever possible. Such precision was possible in the supplemental jurisdiction, if only someone had spent as much time writing the statute as the trio has spent writing …
1992: High Time For American Lawyers To Learn From Europe, Or Roscoe Pound's 1906 Address Revisited, James Maxeiner
1992: High Time For American Lawyers To Learn From Europe, Or Roscoe Pound's 1906 Address Revisited, James Maxeiner
All Faculty Scholarship
Shows how the key points Roscoe Pound made in his famous law reform address point to foreign law study for future reform.
Compounding Confusion And Hampering Diversity: Life After Finley And The Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute, Richard D. Freer
Compounding Confusion And Hampering Diversity: Life After Finley And The Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute, Richard D. Freer
Faculty Articles
It has been a tough couple of years for supplemental jurisdiction. In recent decades, the doctrine, which earlier had been called the "child of necessity and sire of confusion," had become somewhat less confusing. The Supreme Court created a flurry of concern over the future of the doctrine with a pair of restrictive decisions in the late 1970s, but showed no further interest; the lower courts generally interpreted those holdings narrowly. With exceptions in a couple of areas, the application of supplemental jurisdiction in the various joinder situations became relatively clear and predictable, and the doctrine played a major role …
The Politics Of Crisis In The Federal Courts, Lauren K. Robel
The Politics Of Crisis In The Federal Courts, Lauren K. Robel
Articles by Maurer Faculty
No abstract provided.
Pragmatism Without Politics -- A Half Measure Of Authority For Jurisdictional Common Law, Gene R. Shreve
Pragmatism Without Politics -- A Half Measure Of Authority For Jurisdictional Common Law, Gene R. Shreve
Articles by Maurer Faculty
No abstract provided.
Rehnquist Or Rorty?, Carl W. Tobias
Rehnquist Or Rorty?, Carl W. Tobias
Law Faculty Publications
A postmodern response to Gene Shreve, Eighteen Feet of Clay: Thoughts on Phantom Rule 4(m), 67 Ind. L.J. 85 (1991).
Rewriting History: The Propriety Of Eradicating Prior Decisional Law Through Settlement And Vacatur, Jill E. Fisch
Rewriting History: The Propriety Of Eradicating Prior Decisional Law Through Settlement And Vacatur, Jill E. Fisch
All Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Discovery Confidentiality Controversy, Richard L. Marcus
The Discovery Confidentiality Controversy, Richard L. Marcus
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Discovery Along The Litigation/Science Interface, Richard L. Marcus
Discovery Along The Litigation/Science Interface, Richard L. Marcus
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Experts–Use And Abuse (Part I): Commentary, William W. Schwarzer
Experts–Use And Abuse (Part I): Commentary, William W. Schwarzer
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Slaying The Monsters Of Cost And Delay: Would Disclosure Be More Effective Than Discovery?, William W. Schwarzer
Slaying The Monsters Of Cost And Delay: Would Disclosure Be More Effective Than Discovery?, William W. Schwarzer
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Against An Elite Federal Judiciary: Comments On The Report Of The Federal Courts Study Committee, Michael L. Wells
Against An Elite Federal Judiciary: Comments On The Report Of The Federal Courts Study Committee, Michael L. Wells
Scholarly Works
No doubt some reform of the federal courts is essential if they are to cope with the proliferation of litigation over the past thirty years and the resulting "congestion, delay, expense, and expansion" in the federal courts. While the problem may not amount to an "impending crisis", the burgeoning caseload surely poses a threat, at least in the long run, to the ability of the federal courts to function effectively. The hard question is not whether something should be done, but what to do about it. There is no shortage of interesting ideas. Some of the ideas that clamor for …
Congress's Paramount Role In Setting The Scope Of Federal Jurisdiction, Michael L. Wells
Congress's Paramount Role In Setting The Scope Of Federal Jurisdiction, Michael L. Wells
Scholarly Works
Article III presents a conundrum for scholars seeking a coherent explanation of the federal courts' role in our system of government. On the one hand, the framers set up the judiciary as a separate branch with jurisdiction over federal law and other matters of federal interest. They granted federal judges life tenure and undiminishable salary in order to preserve judicial independence from executive and legislative pressure. It is evident from these provisions that the framers saw a need for a strong national judiciary. At the same time, article III explicitly leaves to Congress the decision whether to create any lower …
Rethinking Work Product, Elizabeth G. Thornburg
Rethinking Work Product, Elizabeth G. Thornburg
Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters
This article analyzes the traditional and law & economics explanations purporting to justify the exclusion of work product materials from discovery. It argues that none of these arguments are well founded and that, instead, the privilege increases costs and decreases the system's ability to produce appropriate settlements and accurate fact finding. To the extent that the privilege serves legitimate ends, narrower and more narrowly tailored protections would provide the necessary protection.
Complex-Litigation Reform And The Legislative Process, Charles G. Geyh
Complex-Litigation Reform And The Legislative Process, Charles G. Geyh
Articles by Maurer Faculty
No abstract provided.