Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Court Examination Of The Discovery File On A Motion For Summary Judgment, Michigan Law Review
Court Examination Of The Discovery File On A Motion For Summary Judgment, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
This Note examines the history and ambiguous language of rule 56 to determine whether courts have a duty to examine the discovery file before granting a summary judgment. Section I discusses courts' differing interpretations of the rule. Section II shows that the Supreme Court Advisory Committee which drafted the rule contemplated that courts would examine routinely filed discovery materials when considering a motion for summary judgment. Section III concludes, however, that the expansion of pre-trial discovery since the enactment of the federal rules renders such a trial court duty inconsistent with the drafters' intent that the rules "be construed to …
Notice By Citizen Plaintiffs In Environmental Litigation, Michigan Law Review
Notice By Citizen Plaintiffs In Environmental Litigation, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
This Note evaluates judicial handling of citizen suits tainted by defective notice. After reviewing the legislative history of the citizen suit provisions, the Note presents an array of judicial responses to defective notice and classifies decisions by their stringency in applying the notice provision. In the final section, the Note argues that Congress's purpose in requiring notice should determine the limits of judicial tolerance of defective notice. It concludes that courts should dismiss citizen suits unless actual notice of intent to sue, whether or not in the form specified by EPA regulations, was given sixty days before the filing of …
Collateral Estoppel And Supreme Court Disposition Of Moot Cases, Michigan Law Review
Collateral Estoppel And Supreme Court Disposition Of Moot Cases, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
In response to the Government's novel proposal in Velsicol, this Note reconsiders the procedures by which the Supreme Court could dispose of moot cases. Section I examines the collateral estoppel effects of the Supreme Court's present procedure and the Government's proposal in Velsicol. Section II concludes that both procedures afford excessive protection from collateral estoppel because they misconceive the purpose of Supreme Court review. The Note suggests that, when faced with a moot federal petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court should either deny the petition or, if certiorari has already been granted, dismiss the case.