Law Commons^™

The Ripple Effects Of Gideon: Recognizing The Human Right To Counsel In Civil Adversarial Proceedings, Jonathan K. Stubbs

Law Faculty Publications

Procedural fairness and equal protection were the core of Gideon’s reasoning for a right to counsel for indigent criminal defendants. Under the same constitutional values, there should be a right to legal assistance of counsel for indigent civil litigants, especially in adversarial proceedings. This Article outlines the constitutional basis for a civil right to counsel. Further, it stresses the need for legislation to address the massive shortfall in legal representation available to indigent persons in the United States. Recognition of civil Gideon as part of the Constitution’s promise of justice accommodates a moral revolution. It exemplifies a shift in …

The Parity Principle, Luke P. Norris

Law Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 (FAA) in a broad way that has allowed firms to widely privatize disputes with workers and consumers. The resulting expansive growth of American arbitration law has left commentators both concerned about the structural inequalities that permeate the regime and in search of an effective limiting principle. This Article develops such a limiting principle from the text and history of the FAA itself. The Article reinterprets the text and history of section 1 of the statute, which, correctly read, excludes individual employee-employer disputes from the statute’s coverage. The Article argues …

Bespoke Discovery, Jessica Erickson

Law Faculty Publications

The U.S. legal system gives contracting parties significant freedom to customize the procedures that will govern their future disputes. With forum selection clauses, parties can decide where they will litigate future disputes. With fee-shifting provisions, they can choose who will pay for these suits. And with arbitration clauses, they can make upfront decisions to opt out of the traditional legal system altogether. Parties can also waive their right to appeal, their right to a jury trial, and their right to file a class action. Bespoke procedure, in other words, is commonplace in the United States.

Far less common, however, are …

Labor And The Origins Of Civil Procedure, Luke P. Norris

Law Faculty Publications

A series of changes within civil procedure over the past few decades—including the rise of private arbitration, the accompanying decline of public adjudication, and the erection of barriers to class actions—have diminished the economic power of workers, consumers, and diffuse economic actors. This Article demonstrates that avoiding these economic consequences was a central goal of those who crafted American federal civil procedure in the first place. Driven to action by the procedural issues involved in labor injunction cases, leading procedural reformers behind the modern regime strove to make American federal civil procedure sensitive to questions of political economy and designed …

The Dormant Commerce Clause As A Limit On Personal Jurisdiction, John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

For over 70 years, the Due Process Clause has defined the law of personal jurisdiction. This makes sense, because being forced to stand trial in a far-off state will sometimes be fundamentally unfair. What does not make sense, however, is the Dormant Commerce Clause’s apparent irrelevance to personal jurisdiction. The Dormant Commerce Clause addresses state laws affecting interstate commerce, and a plaintiff’s choice of forum is often a commercially driven choice between different state courts. So why isn’t the Dormant Commerce Clause part of personal jurisdiction doctrine?

This Article makes the case for its relevance, and demonstrates how the Dormant …

Virginia Practice Series: Jury Instructions, Ronald J. Bacigal, Margaret Ivey Bacigal

Law Faculty Publications

Virginia Practice Series-Jury Instructions is a continuation and update of previous editions, which won widespread approval among the bench and bar for almost 40 years.

As in the past, this book is primarily confined to the most common areas of jury trial work, torts and criminal law. Where possible, the language of the instructions is taken directly from reported cases or case records. Where this is not possible, we have set out instructions that should meet both the general rules regarding the form of instructions and the specific substantive legal rules. In the latter cases, close attention has been paid …

A Further Note On Federal Causes Of Action, John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

In the article, I argue that federal causes of action ought to be treated as (1) distinct from substantive rights, (2) synonymous with the availability of a remedy (but not whether a remedy will in fact issue) and (3) distinct from subject matter jurisdiction (unless Congress instructs otherwise). This thesis is built principally on a historical recounting of the cause of action from eighteenth century England to twenty-first century America. In taking an historical approach, I did not mean to argue that federal courts are bound to adhere to centuries-old conceptions of the cause of action. I merely used history …

Why Insurance Contracts Might Be The Trick To Police Reform, John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

How do lawsuits deter misconduct? That is an issue that Professor Joanna Schwartz has written about before, and her latest article on the topic, How Governments Pay: Lawsuits, Budgets and Police Reform, could not be more timely. Over the past year, our county has witnessed dramatic instances of police abuse and the public is understandably demanding reform. Schwartz’s terrific article explains why civil rights actions may fail to instigate reform, and suggests how insurance contracts, of all things, can play a role in fixing this problem.

Heightened Procedure, Jessica Erickson

Law Faculty Publications

When it comes to combating meritless litigation, how much should procedure matter? Conventional wisdom holds that procedure should be uniform, with the same rules applying in all civil cases. Yet the causes of meritless litigation are not uniform, making it difficult for identical procedures to address the problem. As a result, lawmakers frequently turn to what this Article calls “heightened procedure”—additional procedures applicable only in designated areas of the law. Across a variety of substantive areas, lawmakers have adopted heightened pleading standards, stays of discovery, agency review, and a multitude of other tools from the heightened procedural toolbox. Despite the …

What’S Sovereignty Got To Do With It?: Due Process, Personal Jurisdiction And The Supreme Court, Wendy Collins Perdue

Law Faculty Publications

In this symposium contribution I do two things. First, I explore the relationship between sovereignty and due process in personal jurisdiction in some of the more problematic aspects of the Nicastro opinions. I conclude that, although at one time the concept of sovereignty provided an important analytic component of personal jurisdiction analysis, this is largely no longer true.

Corporate Governance In The Courtroom: An Empirical Analysis, Jessica M. Erickson

Law Faculty Publications

Conventional wisdom is that shareholder derivative suits are dead. Yet this death knell is decidedly premature. The current conception of shareholder derivative suits is based on an empirical record limited to suits filed in Delaware or on behalf of Delaware corporations, leaving suits outside this sphere in the shadows of corporate law scholarship. This Article aims to fill this gap by presenting the first empirical examination of shareholder derivative suits in the federal courts. Using an original, hand-collected data set, my study reveals that shareholder derivative suits are far from dead. Shareholders file more shareholder derivative suits than securities class …

Reassessing The Purposes Of Federal Question Jurisdiction, John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

For ages, judges and legal academics have claimed that federal question jurisdiction has three purposes: to provide litigants with a judge experienced in federal law, to protect litigants from state court hostility toward federal claims, and to preserve uniformity in federal law. Because federal claims, for the most part, have always been cognizable in state courts, these purposes imply that state courts are less experienced, more hostile, and more likely to adjudicate federal law in ways that decrease the uniformity of federal law. Despite the ongoing allegiance to this conception of federal question jurisdictionand by implication, state court adjudication of …

The Merger Of Common-Law And Equity Pleading In Virginia, William Hamilton Bryson

Law Faculty Publications

This article describes the separation of common law and equity in Virginia leading up to the 2006 merger of common law and equity pleading and the problems that remain to be solved by the courts.

Cumulative Supplement To Jurisdiction In Civil Action, Wendy Collins Perdue

Law Faculty Publications

Cumulative supplement to Jurisdiction in Civil Action Third Edition.

Rule 11 And Rule Revision, Carl W. Tobias, Margaret L. Sanner

Law Faculty Publications

Numerous observers of modem civil practice, whose views range across a comparatively broad spectrum, consider the 1983 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 the most controversial revision since the United States Supreme Court promulgated the original Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938.1 Counsel and litigants overused and abused the 1983 modification to Rule 11 by inappropriately stressing the compensatory goal of the proviso and improperly deemphasizing the stricture's deterrence objective. Many judges vigorously enforced Rule 11, often finding violations and imposing burdensome sanctions which frequently included large attorney's fees. This activity of lawyers and parties, as well …

The Story Of Shaffer: Allocating Jurisdictional Authority Among The States, Wendy Collins Perdue

Law Faculty Publications

Shaffer v. Heitner is one of a long series of Supreme Court cases addressing the scope of state-court territorial authority. Indeed, Shaffer is the first of a dozen modern cases that delineated the Court's current conception of the constitutional limits on state-court jurisdictional authority.

Determining whether a court has jurisdiction to hear a dispute is an important preliminary step in any litigation. But the constitutional doctrine the Court has developed in this area is also an interesting window on the Court's more general understanding of the allocation of power among the states.

Aliens, The Internet, And "Purposeful Availment": A Reassessment Of Fifth Amendment Limits On Personal Jurisdiction, Wendy Collins Perdue

Law Faculty Publications

The international community has been struggling with questions of who should regulate the Internet and how, but little consensus has emerged. For the United States, consideration of the pros and cons of the alternative jurisdictional approaches to e-commerce and cyberspace is complicated by an overlay of constitutional law. While the rest of the world considers the policy implications of a country of origin versus a country of destination approach, the United States is wrestling with what constitutes "purposeful availment" under the Due Process Clause.

The Supreme Court has never squarely considered what limits the Fifth Amendment imposes on assertions of …

More Proposals To Simplify Modern Federal Procedure, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Response to Edward H. Cooper, Simplified Rules of Federal Procedure1, 100 Mich. L. Rev. 1794 (2002)

The Past And Future Of The Federal Rules In State Courts, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Response to Prof. John B. Oakley's writings comparing state court procedural rules with the Federal Rules of Civil procedure.

Professor Oakley's substantial contribution to the Nevada Law Journal dispute resolution symposium neither accords much treatment to how or why the earlier uniformity between state and federal procedural regimes changed so dramatically over such a brief period nor proffers very many suggestions for the future. My response aspires primarily to scrutinize how federal-state consistency deteriorated and secondarily to consider what, if any, measures should be instituted to change the present condition of state civil procedure in the fifty jurisdictions comprising the …

Recent Developments In Federal Jurisdiction And Pleading, Wendy Collins Perdue

Law Faculty Publications

Recent developments in federal jurisdiction and pleading including subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and notice, venue, forum non conveniens, forum selection clauses, and pleading.

Local Federal Civil Procedure For The Twenty-First Century, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Federal civil procedure is now byzantine. Lawyers and parties face, and federal judges apply, a bewildering panorama of requirements. There are strictures in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as Title 28 of the United States Code and dozens of substantive statutes. A stunning array of local measures-including local rules; general, special, and scheduling orders; individual-judge practices; and mechanisms that courts adopted under the Civil Justice Reform Act (CJRA) of 1990 to reduce cost and delay-also govern cases in all ninety-four districts. Many of the provisions· are inconsistent or duplicative, while a significant percentage are difficult to discover, …

A Civil Discovery Dilemma For The Arizona Supreme Court, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The drafters of the 1938 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure hoped to establish those rules as a model that the states could adopt, thus fostering national and intrastate procedural uniformity. This objective was not realized generally or by very many specific jurisdictions. Observers of the increasingly fractured procedural regime in the federal arena have voiced concerns about the mounting numbers of strictures, the accelerating pace of procedural change and the growing inconsistency of the requirements imposed. Illustrative are the major 1983 and 1993 federal discovery amendments, which new discovery provisions further revised in December 2000. The Civil Justice Reform Act …

Erie Railroad V. Tompkins, Wendy Collins Perdue

Law Faculty Publications

Erie Railroad v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64 (1938), limited the power of federal courts to create judge-made law that would displace state law. Jurists view the Supreme Court's decision both a modern cornerstone of American judicial federalism and an example of legal realism's influence.

The Expiration Of The Civil Justice Reform Act Of 1990, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Ever since the United States Congress passed the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (CJRA), a minor mystery of federal court jurisprudence has been whether - and if so, precisely when - that significant and controversial legislation expired. The measure instituted unprecedented nationwide experimentation with procedures that lawmakers intended to decrease cost and delay in civil litigation, but the statute's implementation additionally balkanized federal practice and procedure.

The 2000 Federal Civil Rules Revisions, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

During April 2000, the United States Supreme Court prescribed a comparatively thorough set of amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These amendments took effect in December 2000. That development represented the culmination of a rule revision proceeding commenced in 1996 by the Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (Advisory Committee). Because certain provisos that the Supreme Court included in the 2000 amendments are rather controversial and could alter significant features of modern federal civil litigation primarily involving discovery, these revisions deserve assessment. This Essay undertakes that effort by emphasizing changes in mandatory prediscovery, …

A Modest Reform For Federal Procedural Rulemaking, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Following the adoption of the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to discovery in 2000, Prof. Tobias notes the lack of empirical research or other indication of how the new rules might work in practice preceding their enactment. He suggests that Congress should reconsider a reject 1983 amendment to F.R.C.P. 83 which would authorize courts to obtain Judicial Conference approval to test promising mechanisms for five years before adoption.

Congress And The 2000 Federal Civil Rules Amendments, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

In April 2000, the United States Supreme Court promulgated, and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist transmitted to the United States Congress, a comprehensive package of amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking arm of the federal courts, had forwarded these proposals to the Supreme Court in September 1999, and the Justices transmitted the amendments to Congress without making any modifications. The new group of federal rules amendments warrants assessment for two reasons. First, a few provisions in the package of revisions are comparatively controversial and could significantly change important aspects …

Civil Justice Delay And Empirical Data: A Response To Professor Heise, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

One decade ago, Congress undertook an ambitious, controversial effort to reduce expense and delay in the federal civil justice system. The Civil Justice Reform Act ("CJRA") of 1990 instituted unprecedented nationwide experimentation by requiring that all ninety-four federal district courts scrutinize their civil and criminal dockets and then promulgate and apply numerous procedures which district judges believed would save cost and time in civil litigation. Congress also prescribed rigorous assessment of the six principles, guidelines, and techniques of litigation management and expense and delay reduction that federal districts in fact adopted and enforced. Lawmakers provided for an expert, independent evaluator …

Fin-De-Siecle Federal Civil Procedure, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Professor Laurens Walker's The End of the New Deal and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 82 Iowa L. Rev.1269 (1997) (New Deal's End), is a thought-provoking evaluation of the relationship between the New Deal's conclusion and modem civil process. Professor Walker canvasses a series of recent, puzzling changes which "present the most serious challenge to the procedural status quo since the adoption of the original Federal Rules in 1938." The author finds that the New Deal's demise and the rejection of that regime's reliance on experts, policies of centralized federal decisionmaking, and establishment of the national government …

Discovery Reform Redux, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The recent resolve of the Advisory Committee on the Civil Rules to revisit reform of the discovery rules, which the Supreme Court revised as recently as 1993, is replete with ironies. In August, 1998, that Committee, which has primary responsibility for studying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and developing suggestions for their improvement, published proposals that would significantly revise the substantial 1993 revisions of the discovery rules. Ironies suffuse many specific aspects of the rule revision process and of the proposals to revise the 1993 revisions less than five years after their implementation. I emphasize the proposal to revise …