Law Commons^™

Entombed Writs' Effective Renaissance: Surveying And Sealing Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 60(B)'S Interpretive Gaps, Amir Shachmurove

Cleveland State Law Review

For centuries, the hoary principle of finality and the Latin-denominated writs devised so as to mollify its obduracy cast fearsome shadows, unchallenged within the courts of the British Isles. In the United States, these expatiated doctrines stalked with equal aplomb from the time of Chief Justice John James Marshall to the advent of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For nearly 150 years, therefore, federal procedural law recognized only the skimpiest opportunities for renewed introspection afforded by these increasingly anachronistic constructs, ones nonetheless imbued with more and more of antiquity’s nearly sacerdotal sheen with each passing year.

In time, as …

The Shifting Sands Of Cost Shifting, Andrew M. Pardieck

Cleveland State Law Review

The cost-shifting analysis employed by the federal courts in ruling on discovery disputes is flawed. There is tremendous variability in how courts interpret the factors guiding the analysis. There is tremendous variability in the information courts rely on in deciding whether to preclude the discovery or shift its costs. The result is waste for the litigants, courts, and society as a whole. This Article argues that there is a better way: mandate cooperation before cost shifting. The courts should condition proportionality and cost-shifting rulings on cooperation. The cooperation should be substantive: require disclosure of objective information about the disputed discovery …

Ripple Effects: The Unintended Change To Jurisdictional Pleading Standards After Iqbal, James E. Von Der Heydt

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note describes a little-observed ripple effect of the new pleading standard announced in Iqbal, the antiterrorism case whose holding swept broadly and changed the ground rules for considering allegations in so-called 12(b)(6) motions for all civil cases. This Note examines the interplay between the Twombly/Iqbal doctrine and federal courts’ practical approach to subject-matter jurisdiction. Part II describes the background jurisprudence on subject-matter jurisdiction, including the sharp line the Supreme Court has consistently re-drawn between claims lacking merit and those lacking jurisdictional basis, from Bell v. Hood through Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. The consistent theme of this jurisprudence …

Addressing The Adversarial Dilemma Of Civil Discovery, Michael E. Wolfson

Cleveland State Law Review

There can be no question that the emergence of modern pretrial discovery has contributed enormously to making the conduct of a lawsuit a more fair, just, and efficient process. But discovery also offers a substantial potential for mischief. Since few civil cases today are actually resolved at trial, trouble in the pretrial phase of litigation signals potentially major problems in the legal system's role as the nation's primary dispute resolution mechanism. It is the purpose of this Article to examine the issue of discovery abuse in light of the fundamental adversarial dilemma of the discovery process and propose a new …

The Summary Jury Trial, Thomas D. Lambros, Thomas H. Shunk

Cleveland State Law Review

The American judicial system must necessarily rely on a steady flow of dispositions of cases by settlement lest it collapse because of a demand for trials beyond the ability of the courts to try cases. Settlements are achieved through a variety of procedures and techniques, yet many cases result in trials because of the uncertainty about prospective juror perceptions that pervades settlement discussions. Summary trial helps to eliminate this element of uncertainty and, at the same time, provides an additional basis for settlement of cases otherwise committed to trial. This is not to suggest that trial is to be avoided …

The Summary Jury Trial, Thomas D. Lambros, Thomas H. Shunk

Cleveland State Law Review

The American judicial system must necessarily rely on a steady flow of dispositions of cases by settlement lest it collapse because of a demand for trials beyond the ability of the courts to try cases. Settlements are achieved through a variety of procedures and techniques, yet many cases result in trials because of the uncertainty about prospective juror perceptions that pervades settlement discussions. Summary trial helps to eliminate this element of uncertainty and, at the same time, provides an additional basis for settlement of cases otherwise committed to trial. This is not to suggest that trial is to be avoided …