Law Commons^™

Insuring Rule 11 Sanctions, Cary Coglianese

Michigan Law Review

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 requires courts to sanction attorneys who file frivolous papers. Since 1983, when the rule was amended, attorney sanctions have emerged as an increasingly significant aspect of civil litigation in the United States.

Can these and other attorneys find coverage for sanctions under their existing policies? Should they be allowed to obtain coverage for sanctions at all? This Note addresses these questions and attempts to sketch the landscape surrounding the looming issue of insurance coverage for rule 11 sanctions. To determine whether sanctions can and should be insurable, it is necessary first to understand the …

The Constitutional Conundrum Of Black Lung Appeals: Two Proposed Solutions, Pete S. Michaels

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I of this Article explains the statutory requirements that a black lung benefits claimant must meet and how these claimants' failure to meet statutory prerequisites results in the dismissal of their claims. Part II argues that the current procedures are inadequate to protect the rights of black lung benefits claimants. Dismissal of their claims violates the petitioners' rights to due process of law and pro se representation. Part III proposes two solutions to the crisis. The first proposal is simply a form that would be distributed to all claimants explaining the procedures they must follow to avoid dismissal. Part …

Blind Man's Bluff: An Analysis Of The Discovery Of Expert Witnesses Under Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 26(B)(4) And A Proposed Amendment, Mathew R. Wildermuth

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Appellate Review Of Rule 11 Issues-De Novo Or Abuse Of Discretion? Thomas V. Capital Security Services, Inc., D. Lee Decker

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gaining Access To The Jury: A Critical Guide To The Law Of Jury Selection In West Virginia, Part Two, Charles R. Disalvo

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Civil Procedure—Arkansas Rule Of Civil Procedure 53(B)—An End To The Use Of Special Referees In Arkansas. Hutton V. Savage, Richard E. Olszewski

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equitable Tolling Of Statutory Benefit Time Limitations: A Congressional Intent Analysis, David D. Doran

Washington Law Review

Courts toll time limitations that limit a statutory right to sue when tolling is consonant with congressional intent. Courts have left open, however, whether to extend this congressional intent analysis to toll time limitations that limit a statutory right to receive a benefit. This Comment analyzes how the United States Supreme Court's 1988 decision in INS v. Pangilinan affects the power of courts to equitably toll time limitations limiting the application period for a statutory benefit. The Comment concludes that these benefit time limitations should be tollable when they are consonant with congressional intent.

God, Metaprocedure, And Metarealism At Yale, Linda S. Mullenix

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Procedure by Robert M. Cover, Owen M. Fiss, and Judith F. Resnik

The Right To Appointed Counsel For Indigent Civil Litigants: The Demands Of Due Process, William L. Dick Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Grand Jury Reform: A Proposal For Change In Virginia, Charles E. Wall

University of Richmond Law Review

Once a cornerstone of American jurisprudence, the requirement of prosecution based upon grand jury indictment no longer stands unchallenged. Instead, alternate means of commencing prosecution, most notably by information and the preliminary hearing, have prompted lawmakers to look at the grand jury with a heightened scrutiny. Subsequently, such alternatives have become the primary prosecutorial tools in many states. Virginia, however, retains the grand jury system which was implemented in colonial times.

Jury Nullification: An Historical Perspective On A Modern Debate, Philip B. Scott

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Campbell V. Greer: Impeaching Witnesses With Prior Conviction Evidence In A Civil Trial

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Continuing Questions Regarding Citizen Suits Under The Clean Water Act: Gwaltney Of Smithfield, Ltd. V. Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sanctioning Defendants' Non-Willful Delay:The Failure Of Rule 55 And A Proposal For Its Reform, Carl B. Schultz

University of Richmond Law Review

For as long as parties have pursued claims through litigation, those against whom claims are asserted have delayed the litigation process. Defendants, and other parties against whom claims are asserted, (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants), fail to answer complaints against them in time; they delay in responding to discovery requests, motions and court orders, and they fail to appear for trials and other proceedings.

Attorney Sanctions In Illinois Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137, George W. Timberlake Honorable, Nancy Pionk

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Civil Pro Se Litigant V. The Legal System, Howard M. Rubin

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Civil Procedure, Michael J. Gallagher Honorable, Mary Beth Snyder

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Civil Procedure And Practice, W. Hamilton Bryson

University of Richmond Law Review

Rules 2:4 and 3:3(c) of the Rules of Virginia Supreme Court ("Rules of Court") require the dismissal of an action if service of process is not accomplished within one year after the filing thereof unless the plaintiff can show "due diligence" or good cause for the delay. Since the plaintiff can get personal service on a defendant who has absconded by means of the general long arm statute, it will be a heavy burden in practice to show due diligence or good cause or it will be a highly unusual situation. Recently, two issues have arisen regarding these rules.

Achille Lauro Missed The Boat: The Second Circuit's Refusal In Chasser V. Achille Lauro Lines To Hear Defendant's Interlocutory Appeal Under Collateral Order Exception

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Trower V. Jones: Expanding The Scope Of Permissible Cross-Examination Of Expert Witnesses, Julie A. Correll

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Gaining Access To The Jury: A Critical Guide To The Law Of Jury Selection In West Virginia, Charles R. Disalvo

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Suing A State In Federal Court Under A Private Cause Of Action: An Eleventh Amendment Primer, Donald L. Boren

Cleveland State Law Review

A major obstacle facing an attorney, whose client is suing a state in federal court under a right created by a federal law, is the restraints placed on the federal court's jurisdiction by the eleventh amendment to the United States Constitution. The purpose of this article is to provide assistance through this wonderland of eleventh amendment jurisprudence. This article examines three major eleventh amendment issues, plus-and perhaps more importantly-methods of avoiding eleventh amendment litigation. Section I of the article examines the historical evidence on whether the amendment was intended to apply to cases in which a citizen of a state …

Attorney Sanctions - Procedural Aspects Of Rule 11 Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure - Third Circuit Adopts Supervisory Rule Requiring That Rule 11 Motions Be Filed Prior To Final Judgment In The District Court, David A. Peckman

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Civil Procedure - Avoiding Duplicative Litigation - The First-Filed Rule, Jean D. Renshaw

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.