Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (1)
- Abode service (1)
- Access to justice (1)
- Challenges (1)
- Civil procedure -- United States -- Cases (1)
-
- Class actions (Civil procedure) -- United States -- States (1)
- Class-action (1)
- Commonality (1)
- Commonality and the Constitution (1)
- Constitutional law -- United States -- Cases (1)
- Constructive notice (1)
- Delivery (1)
- Due Process (1)
- Due Process Clause (1)
- Dwelling service (1)
- Electronic service (1)
- Email (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Federal courts of law (1)
- Foreign countries (1)
- Foreign law (1)
- Foreign service (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Framework for Federal and State Court Class Actions (1)
- In-hand personal service (1)
- Internet (1)
- Mail service (1)
- Methods (1)
- Notice (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure
Access To Justice Is More Than The Right To Counsel: The Role Of The Judge In Assisting Unrepresented Litigants, Paris R. Baldacci
Access To Justice Is More Than The Right To Counsel: The Role Of The Judge In Assisting Unrepresented Litigants, Paris R. Baldacci
Wilf Impact Center for Public Interest Law
No abstract provided.
"Hacking" Service Of Process: Using Social Media To Provide Constitutionally Sufficient Notice Of Process, Angela Upchurch
"Hacking" Service Of Process: Using Social Media To Provide Constitutionally Sufficient Notice Of Process, Angela Upchurch
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review
No abstract provided.
Commonality And The Constitution: A Framework For Federal And State Court Class Actions, Joseph A. Seiner
Commonality And The Constitution: A Framework For Federal And State Court Class Actions, Joseph A. Seiner
Indiana Law Journal
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), the Supreme Court concluded that the allegations of pay discrimination in a case brought by over one million female employees lacked sufficient commonality to warrant class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). Though the case was expressly decided under the Federal Rules, some well-known employer groups have begun to advance the argument that Wal-Mart was decided on constitutional grounds. These advocates maintain that the Supreme Court’s decision creates a commonality standard for all class-action plaintiffs—regardless of whether those litigants bring their claims in federal or state court. …