Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (3)
- Abstention doctrine (1)
- Acevedo v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (1)
- Administrative Procedure Act (1)
- Advisory Committee Note (1)
-
- Bad faith (1)
- Berwick Grain Co. v. Illinois Department of Agriculture (1)
- Business litigants (1)
- Caseload (1)
- Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1)
- Chilling effect (1)
- Class actions (1)
- Coghlan v. Starkey (1)
- Colorable (1)
- Congress (1)
- Corporate jury trials (1)
- Corporate litigation (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (1)
- Federal waiver (1)
- Forum selection clause (1)
- Gilles v. Burton Construction Co. (1)
- Hill v. Norfolk (1)
- Hunter v. Bryant (1)
- Institutional appellant (1)
- Just damage (1)
- Kiowa Tribe v. Manufacturing Technologies Inc. (1)
- Law reform (1)
- Mass torts (1)
- Mellon Bank Corp. v. First Union Real Estate Equity & Mortgage Investments (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Towards Tribal Sovereignty And Judicial Efficiency: Ordering The Defenses Of Tribal Sovereign Immunity And Exhaustion Of Tribal Remedies, Kirsten Matoy Carlson
Towards Tribal Sovereignty And Judicial Efficiency: Ordering The Defenses Of Tribal Sovereign Immunity And Exhaustion Of Tribal Remedies, Kirsten Matoy Carlson
Michigan Law Review
In 1985, the Narragansett Indian Tribe ("Tribe") created the Narragansett Indian Wetuornuck Housing Authority ("Authority"). The Authority, which acts on the Tribe's behalf in its housing development and operations, entered into a contract with the Ninigret Development Corporation for the construction of a low-income housing development. After construction began, disputes developed over how to proceed with the construction. When conciliation efforts failed, the Authority cancelled the contract. The Narragansett Tribal Council, the governing body of the Tribe, followed the forum selection clause in the contract and notified the disputants that it would hold a hearing to resolve the dispute. Ninigret …
Keeping Courts Afloat In A Rising Sea Of Litigation: An Objective Approach To Imposing Rule 38 Sanctions For Frivolous Appeals, Scott A. Martin
Keeping Courts Afloat In A Rising Sea Of Litigation: An Objective Approach To Imposing Rule 38 Sanctions For Frivolous Appeals, Scott A. Martin
Michigan Law Review
As their dockets swell, federal judges' tolerance for attorney misconduct wears thin. More than ever, judges are willing to impose sanctions for abuses of federal court processes, including frivolous appeals. As one judge explained, "[w]ith courts struggling to remain afloat in a constantly rising sea of litigation, a frivolous appeal can itself be a form of obscenity." Aside from the need to reduce caseloads, other factors underlie the courts' willingness to impose sanctions for frivolous appeals. One concern is that the costs to responsible, ethical litigants increase sharply when the court system's resources are diverted to meritless claims. Another motivating …
"Business On Trial: The True Story." Review Of Business On Trial: The Civil Jury And Corporate Responsibility, Richard O. Lempert
"Business On Trial: The True Story." Review Of Business On Trial: The Civil Jury And Corporate Responsibility, Richard O. Lempert
Reviews
Jury trials are very much an affair of stories. Lawyers tell stories to juries. Evidence is more convincing when presented in story order. Jurors use stories to make sense of evidence. And litigants, particularly losing litigants, tell stories about juries. One of the favorite stories of losing business litigants, second only to the irrational jury story, is the Robin Hood story. Juries love to play Robin Hood, to steal from the rich (businesses and insurance companies) and to give to the poor (individual litigants, especially individual tort litigants). The storytellers see no mystery here. Jurors are "little guys," like the …
Simplified Rules Of Federal Procedure?, Edward H. Cooper
Simplified Rules Of Federal Procedure?, Edward H. Cooper
Articles
Writing in 1924, seventy-eight volumes ago, Professor Edson R. Sunderland began The Machinery of Procedural Reform with this sentence: "Much has been said and written about the imperfections of legal procedure."' Much of his article describes circumstances in which procedural reform occurred only in response to conditions that had become "intolerable." A decade later, Congress enacted the Rules Enabling Act that still provides the framework for reforming federal procedure.2 The Enabling Act establishes a deliberate and open process for amending the rules initially adopted under its authority. It may take longer today to consider and adopt a single rule amendment …
Federal Class Action Reform In The United States: Past And Future And Where Next?, Edward H. Cooper
Federal Class Action Reform In The United States: Past And Future And Where Next?, Edward H. Cooper
Articles
Predicting the likely future developments in class action practice in the federal courts of the United States must begin in the past.