Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (5)
- Criminal Procedure (4)
- Jurisdiction (4)
- Torts (4)
- Administrative Law (3)
-
- Civil Law (3)
- Courts (3)
- Legal Remedies (3)
- Litigation (3)
- Common Law (2)
- Criminal Law (2)
- Family Law (2)
- Judges (2)
- Banking and Finance Law (1)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (1)
- Conflict of Laws (1)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (1)
- Environmental Law (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Immigration Law (1)
- Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law (1)
- Insurance Law (1)
- International Law (1)
- Labor and Employment Law (1)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (1)
- Law and Society (1)
- Legal Profession (1)
- Keyword
-
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (5)
- Choice of law (4)
- Wage garnishment (4)
- Liens (3)
- Privileged communications (3)
-
- Class actions (2)
- Administrative (1)
- Administrative state (1)
- Affirmative defenses (1)
- Apportionment (1)
- Arbitration (1)
- Arbitration case study (1)
- Arbitrator pools (1)
- Arbitrators (1)
- Article III (1)
- Asset (1)
- CIVIL CASES (1)
- CIVIL LAW (1)
- CIVIL PROCEDURE (1)
- CLASS ACTION (1)
- COMMON LAW (1)
- COVID-19 (1)
- Civil (1)
- Conley (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Constitutional (1)
- Criminal (1)
- Diverse arbitrators (1)
- Diversity Jurisdiction (1)
- Diversity of arbitrators (1)
Articles 1 - 30 of 138
Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure
The Administrative State's Jury Problem, Richard Lorren Jolly
The Administrative State's Jury Problem, Richard Lorren Jolly
Washington Law Review
This Article argues that the administrative state’s most acute constitutional fault is its routine failure to comply with the Seventh Amendment. Properly understood, that Amendment establishes an independent limitation on congressional authority to designate jurisdiction to juryless tribunals, and its dictate as to “Suits at common law” refers to all federal legal rights regardless of forum. Agencies’ use of binding, juryless adjudication fails these requirements and must be reformed. But this does not mean dismantling the administrative state; it is possible (indeed, necessary) to solve the jury problem while maintaining modern government. To that end, this Article advances a structural …
Theseus In The Labyrinth: How State Constitutions Can Slay The Procedural Minotaur, Marcus A. Gadson
Theseus In The Labyrinth: How State Constitutions Can Slay The Procedural Minotaur, Marcus A. Gadson
Washington Law Review
Civil procedure is one of the biggest hurdles to access to justice. An array of rules and interpretations of those rules have turned lawsuits into meandering mazes with a procedural minotaur waiting to gobble up meritorious claims. The problem is especially acute for the many Americans without abundant resources or access to a lawyer. Fortunately, there is a ready remedy, albeit one access to justice advocates have ignored: state constitutions. Forty state constitutions, which protect hundreds of millions of Americans, generally guarantee “[t]hat all courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his person, property …
Individual Home-Work Assignments For State Taxes, Hayes R. Holderness
Individual Home-Work Assignments For State Taxes, Hayes R. Holderness
Washington Law Review
The surge in work-from-home arrangements brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic threatens serious disruptions to state tax systems. Billions of dollars are at stake at this pivotal moment as states grapple with where to assign income earned through these remote work arrangements for tax purposes: the worker’s home or the employer’s location? Some states—intent on modernizing their income tax laws—have assigned such income to the employer’s location, but have faced persistent challenges on both constitutional and policy grounds in response.
This Article provides a vigorous defense against such challenges. The Supreme Court has long interpreted the Constitution to be deferential …
Structural Barriers To Inclusion In Arbitrator Pools, Nicole G. Iannarone
Structural Barriers To Inclusion In Arbitrator Pools, Nicole G. Iannarone
Washington Law Review
Critics increasingly challenge mandatory arbitration because the pools from which decisionmakers are selected are neither diverse nor inclusive. Evaluating diversity and inclusion in arbitrator pools is difficult due to the black box nature of mandatory arbitration. This Article evaluates inclusion in arbitrator pools through a case study on securities arbitration. The Article relies upon the relatively greater transparency of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) forum. It begins by describing the unique role that small claims securities arbitration plays in maintaining investor trust and confidence in the securities markets before describing why ensuring that the FINRA arbitrator pool is both …
The Implausibility Standard For Environmental Plaintiffs: The Twiqbal Plausibility Pleading Standard And Affirmative Defenses, Celeste Anquonette Ajayi
The Implausibility Standard For Environmental Plaintiffs: The Twiqbal Plausibility Pleading Standard And Affirmative Defenses, Celeste Anquonette Ajayi
Washington Law Review
Environmental plaintiffs often face challenges when pleading their claims. This is due to difficulty in obtaining the particular facts needed to establish causation, and thus liability. In turn, this difficulty inhibits their ability to vindicate their rights. Prior to the shift in pleading standards created by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, often informally referred to as “Twiqbal,” plaintiffs could assert their claims through the simplified notice pleading standard articulated in Conley v. Gibson. This allowed plaintiffs to gain access to discovery, which aided in proving their claims.
The current heightened pleading standard …
Police Or Pirates? Reforming Washington's Civil Asset Forfeiture System, Jasmin Chigbrow
Police Or Pirates? Reforming Washington's Civil Asset Forfeiture System, Jasmin Chigbrow
Washington Law Review
Civil asset forfeiture laws permit police officers to seize property they suspect is connected to criminal activity and sell or retain the property for the police department’s use. In many states, including Washington, civil forfeiture occurs independent of any criminal case—many property owners are never charged with the offense police allege occurred. Because the government is not required to file criminal charges, property owners facing civil forfeiture lack the constitutional safeguards normally guaranteed to defendants in the criminal justice system: the right to an attorney, the presumption of innocence, the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, …
Erie Slapp Back, Jack B. Harrison
Erie Slapp Back, Jack B. Harrison
Washington Law Review
Dozens of states have enacted anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) laws to counter SLAPP suits, or lawsuits filed to silence a defendant who has spoken out against a plaintiff. The primary goal of a SLAPP suit is not to win on the merits, but rather to discourage the defendant from exercising their right to free speech by threatening excessively expensive litigation. State anti-SLAPP laws provide for special motions to dismiss, discovery limitations, and fee shifting, all designed to allow a defendant to expeditiously dispose of the SLAPP suit before engaging in costly discovery.
This Article discusses the development of …
The Story Of A Class: Uses Of Narrative In Public Interest Class Actions Before Certification, Anne E. Ralph
The Story Of A Class: Uses Of Narrative In Public Interest Class Actions Before Certification, Anne E. Ralph
Washington Law Review
When litigants in public interest class actions tell their stories, the narratives can advance the law and influence public debate. But before class members’ stories can vindicate civil rights on the merits, plaintiffs must overcome the hurdle of class certification.
For decades, obtaining class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 was not a significant challenge for plaintiffs seeking to litigate as a class. But recent restrictive procedural developments—including heightened standards for class certification—threaten the powerful stories that can be told through public interest class actions.
Missing in the critical analysis of class action jurisprudence is any discussion of …
A Proposal To Improve Washington's Rules On Ex Parte Contact, Connor Rowinski
A Proposal To Improve Washington's Rules On Ex Parte Contact, Connor Rowinski
Washington Law Review
Privilege doctrines play an important role in allowing clients to confide in their trusted attorneys and doctors. The intersection of two privilege doctrines in medical malpractice litigation—physician-patient privilege and attorney-client privilege—places physicians working at corporate hospitals in a catch-22 of allegiances. On one hand, physicians cannot disclose patient information, whereas on the other, they must assist their employer in defending the case. These concerns are heightened when attorneys seek to communicate with non-party physicians ex parte—that is, unsupervised. In Youngs v. Peacehealth, the Washington State Supreme Court allowed corporate defendants to communicate ex parte with the plaintiff’s treating physician under …
Why Settle For Less? Improving Settlement Conferences In Federal Court, William P. Lynch
Why Settle For Less? Improving Settlement Conferences In Federal Court, William P. Lynch
Washington Law Review
Most cases settle before trial. Recent studies show that approximately 1% of cases filed in federal court go to trial. Alternative dispute resolution processes have been fully incorporated into federal court, and settlement conferences have long been used by federal court judges to control their dockets. Do they provide litigants with both substantive and procedural justice in the vast majority of cases that do not proceed to trial? Lawyers have raised concerns about judicial coercion to settle cases at settlement conferences, the loss of confidentiality that occurs when parties raise claims of bad faith participation at the conference, and that …
What Do You Know? Discovering Document Compilations In 39(B)(6) Depositions, Sara Leonetti
What Do You Know? Discovering Document Compilations In 39(B)(6) Depositions, Sara Leonetti
Washington Law Review
The work product doctrine emerged as a judicially created, practical solution to resolve problems inherent in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). While the FRCP famously sought to broaden discovery and increase parties’ access to information, the rules infamously failed to prevent attorneys from discovering each other’s work product. For policy reasons—primarily to keep some semblance of the adversarial system—the U.S. Supreme Court created work product qualified immunity to prevent attorneys from discovering their opponents’ work, mental impressions, and legal strategies. At the end of the twentieth century, courts significantly extended the work product doctrine when they began to …
The Helicopter State: Misuse Of Parens Patriae Unconstitutionally Precludes Individual And Class Claims, Gabrielle J. Hanna
The Helicopter State: Misuse Of Parens Patriae Unconstitutionally Precludes Individual And Class Claims, Gabrielle J. Hanna
Washington Law Review
The doctrine of parens patriae allows state attorneys general to represent state citizens in aggregate litigation suits that are, in many ways, similar to class actions and mass-tort actions. Its origins, however, reflect a more modest scope. Parens patriae began as a doctrine allowing the British king to protect those without the ability to protect themselves, including wards and mentally disabled individuals. The rapid expansion of parens patriae standing in the United States may be partly to blame for the relative absence of limiting requirements or even well-developed case law governing parens patriae suits. On the one hand, class actions …
Class Conflicts, Morris A. Ratner
Class Conflicts, Morris A. Ratner
Washington Law Review
The approach of the twentieth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor provides the opportunity to reflect on the collapse of the framework it announced for managing intra-class conflicts. That framework, reinforced two years later in Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., was bold, in that it broadly defined actionable conflicts to include divergent interests with regard to settlement allocation; market-based, in that it sought to regulate such conflicts by harnessing competing subclass counsel’s financial incentives; and committed to intrinsic process values, insofar as, to assure structural fairness, the Court was willing to upend a …
One Percent Procedure, Brooke D. Coleman
One Percent Procedure, Brooke D. Coleman
Washington Law Review
Political rhetoric about the one percent is pervasive, as those with the greatest concentrated wealth prosper and the remaining population stagnates. Because of their affluence, the one percent exercise disproportionate control over political and economic systems. This Article argues that federal civil procedure is similarly a one percent regime. The crème de la crème of the bench and bar, along with equally exclusive litigants, often engage in high-stakes, complex civil litigation. It is this type of litigation that dominates both the elite experience and the public perception of what civil litigation is. This litigation is not particularly common, however; while …
One Percent Procedure, Brooke D. Coleman
One Percent Procedure, Brooke D. Coleman
Washington Law Review
Political rhetoric about the one percent is pervasive, as those with the greatest concentrated wealth prosper and the remaining population stagnates. Because of their affluence, the one percent exercise disproportionate control over political and economic systems. This Article argues that federal civil procedure is similarly a one percent regime. The crème de la crème of the bench and bar, along with equally exclusive litigants, often engage in high-stakes, complex civil litigation. It is this type of litigation that dominates both the elite experience and the public perception of what civil litigation is. This litigation is not particularly common, however; while …
A New Generation Of Class Action Cy Pres Remedies: Lessons From Washington State, Cecily C. Shiel
A New Generation Of Class Action Cy Pres Remedies: Lessons From Washington State, Cecily C. Shiel
Washington Law Review
The use of cy pres as a mechanism to distribute residual funds in class actions has become increasingly common and the subject of much controversy. In the class action context, cy pres is an equitable remedy used by courts to appropriate class action settlement funds remaining after all identified class parties have been compensated to the funds’ “next best use,” usually to a charity. The controversy has stemmed primarily from a lack of clear judicially enforced standards on how and when to use cy pres. In light of recent controversy, both the Federal Rules Committee, and potentially the Supreme Court, …
Revisiting Claim And Issue Preclusion In Washington, Kathleen M. Mcginnis
Revisiting Claim And Issue Preclusion In Washington, Kathleen M. Mcginnis
Washington Law Review
When it comes to the law of claim and issue preclusion, Washington courts and practitioners encounter rules and precedent that tend to be unnecessarily complicated, overly broad, and even—in some instances—simply wrong. Three decades ago, Professor Philip Trautman urged Washington courts to clarify and modernize the doctrine. A fresh look at the topic suggests that while courts have been receptive to the professor’s advice, the goal of a clear and usable body of preclusion law will require more work. Specifically, Washington courts should address three problems. First, they should simplify the test for claim preclusion, eliminating redundant and confusing elements …
Removal Jurisdiction Over Mass Actions, Mallory A. Gitt
Removal Jurisdiction Over Mass Actions, Mallory A. Gitt
Washington Law Review
The mass action provision in the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 provides a federal forum for certain state court litigation that resembles class actions but otherwise could not be removed. The provision is triggered when state court plaintiffs propose a joint trial of common legal or factual issues. But defining what constitutes that triggering event has proved difficult for federal courts. They have not used a uniform framework to determine when they have subject matter jurisdiction over the purported mass action, and have lacked a common interpretation of the statutory language to begin the inquiry. That lack of coherence …
Amended Complaints Post-Twiqbal: Why Litigants Should Still Get A Second Bite At The Pleading Apple, Dane Westermeyer
Amended Complaints Post-Twiqbal: Why Litigants Should Still Get A Second Bite At The Pleading Apple, Dane Westermeyer
Washington Law Review
The Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal have had a serious effect on the way that Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss are handled in federal courts across the country. In the five years since Iqbal was handed down, scholars and practitioners alike have discussed the merits and effects of this decision at length. However, there has been very little—if any—discussion on the relationship between amended complaints and original complaints when it comes to this newly-minted plausibility standard. This Comment aims to examine and critique a post-Twiqbal practice regarding amended complaints that …
"Carving At The Joints": Using Issue Classes To Reframe Consumer Class Actions, Jenna C. Smith
"Carving At The Joints": Using Issue Classes To Reframe Consumer Class Actions, Jenna C. Smith
Washington Law Review
Achieving class certification in consumer litigation is a highly controversial and greatly debated area of civil procedure. Historically, certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) has been difficult to achieve due to the tension between the presence of individual issues and Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance, superiority, and management considerations. The future of certification for Rule 23(b)(3) classes was further put in question with the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes in 2011, which enhanced the level of scrutiny courts apply at the Rule 23(a) level of analysis. The Court’s 2013 decisions in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend …
Discernable Differences: A Survey Of Civil Jury Demands, M. Michelle Dunning
Discernable Differences: A Survey Of Civil Jury Demands, M. Michelle Dunning
Washington Law Review
Under Washington State’s historic default rules, the civil jury consisted of twelve persons unless both parties expressly consented to a “less number.” The Washington Legislature reversed this presumption in 1972. Washington’s civil jury now consists of six persons, unless one of the parties files a specific demand for twelve. It appears, however, that litigants have refused to embrace this change; a survey of 2883 civil jury demands filed in King County Superior Court in 2009 to 2010 demonstrates that litigants overwhelmingly prefer twelve-member juries. This paper presents this survey’s results and explores what they might mean, positing seven considerations that …
What's Past Is Prologue? Why The Prison Litigation Reform Act Does Not—And Should Not—Classify Punitive Damages As Prospective Relief, Lisa Benedetti
What's Past Is Prologue? Why The Prison Litigation Reform Act Does Not—And Should Not—Classify Punitive Damages As Prospective Relief, Lisa Benedetti
Washington Law Review
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) arose from Congress’s intent to curb frivolous and institutionally invasive prisoner civil rights litigation. In furtherance of its goals, the PLRA limits the prospective relief prisoners can receive to such relief that is narrowly tailored to the federal rights violation at issue and the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation, otherwise known as the need-narrownessintrusiveness standard. Under the PLRA, prospective relief includes all relief other than compensatory monetary damages. However, while the courts have frequently applied and interpreted the PLRA over the past decade, only one circuit has addressed whether …
Appellate Review Of Discovery Orders In Federal Court: A Suggested Approach For Handling Privilege Claims, Cassandra Burke Robertson
Appellate Review Of Discovery Orders In Federal Court: A Suggested Approach For Handling Privilege Claims, Cassandra Burke Robertson
Washington Law Review
The federal circuit courts of appeals have generally recognized that a party suffers real hardship when the district court erroneously orders it to disclose privileged information. Review of the disclosure order after final judgment is usually an insufficient remedy; once the information has been disclosed, it can never again be fully confidential. Consequently, the courts have struggled to provide a mechanism by which such orders can be immediately appealed. However, privilege orders presenting novel questions of law or issues of first impression do not clearly fit within the doctrinal requirements of the most common methods of interlocutory review. Appellate courts …
Sausage-Making, Pigs' Ears, And Congressional Expansion Of Federal Jurisdiction: Exxon Mobil V. Allapattah And Its Lessons For The Class Action Fairness Act, Adam N. Steinman
Sausage-Making, Pigs' Ears, And Congressional Expansion Of Federal Jurisdiction: Exxon Mobil V. Allapattah And Its Lessons For The Class Action Fairness Act, Adam N. Steinman
Washington Law Review
The year 2005 witnessed two watershed developments in federal jurisdiction: the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. and the enactment of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Allapantah and CAFA raise the same fundamental question: how should courts interpret a statute whose text would expand federal jurisdiction far beyond what Congress apparently intended? In Allapattah, the Court confronted this question in resolving an aspect of the supplemental jurisdiction statute that had deeply divided both the judiciary and academia. CAFA's expansion of federal jurisdiction over class actions will require courts to struggle with this …
Jurisdiction And Merits, Howard M. Wasserman
Jurisdiction And Merits, Howard M. Wasserman
Washington Law Review
Federal courts frequently err by treating factual elements of substantive federal causes of action as going to the jurisdiction of the federal court. This arises most frequently as to elements in three federal causes of action: the quantum-of-employees element in employment discrimination claims, the "affecting commerce" element under the Sherman Act, and the state action requirement in constitutional actions. Courts treat the failure of one of these elements as a basis for dismissing an action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, rather than for failure to state a claim on the merits. The error in this characterization affects the time and …
First Things First: Federal Courts Should Determine The Legal Status Of Lloyd's Of London Syndicate Before Deciding The Syndicate's Citizenship For Diversity Purposes, John M. Brust
Washington Law Review
Lloyd's of London provides a marketplace where groups of underwriters form syndicates to insure risk. The United States Circuit Courts of Appeals have split on the question of how to determine whether a federal court has diversity jurisdiction over a controversy involving Lloyd's syndicates. In a diversity action, each party must have diverse citizenship from all opposing parties. Circuit courts disagree about which diversity of citizenship test applies to suits involving Lloyd's syndicates. The Second, Third, and Sixth Circuits have applied the real party in interest test. This test looks only to the citizenship of the parties that have a …
Foster V. Carson: The Ninth Circuit Misapplies The Capable-Of-Retention-Yet-Evading-Review Exception To The Mootness Doctrine And Lends A Free Hand To Budget-Cutting State Officials, Joshua C. Gaul
Washington Law Review
In Foster v. Carson, public defender organizations and indigent defendants sued the chief justice of the Oregon Supreme Court for suspending appointments of indigent defense counsel. Before the parties could fully litigate the case, the chief justice reinstated appointments. Subsequently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the case as moot and held that the exception to the mootness doctrine for cases capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review did not apply. A case falls under that exception when the party resisting mootness demonstrates that it was not possible to fully litigate the action before it ceased and there is a …
Who Can Defend A Federal Regulation? The Ninth Circuit Misapplied Rule 24 By Denying Intervention Of Right In Kootenai Tribe Of Idaho V. Veneman, Stephanie D. Matheny
Who Can Defend A Federal Regulation? The Ninth Circuit Misapplied Rule 24 By Denying Intervention Of Right In Kootenai Tribe Of Idaho V. Veneman, Stephanie D. Matheny
Washington Law Review
In Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit misapplied Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by denying intervention of right to organizations that had protectable interests in the adoption and implementation of the Roadless Rule. The court based its decision to deny intervention of right on its federal defendant rule, which bars intervention of right by parties other than the federal government to defend a challenge brought under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Kootenai decision extended the reach of the federal defendant rule to include …
Traditional Equity And Contemporary Procedure, Thomas O. Main
Traditional Equity And Contemporary Procedure, Thomas O. Main
Washington Law Review
This Article offers extensive background on the development and eventual merger of the regimes of law and equity, and suggests that the procedural infrastructure of a unified system must be sufficiently elastic to accommodate the traditional jurisdiction of equity. As the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure become increasingly more elaborate and technical, strict application of those procedural rules can generate mischievous results and hardship. This Article suggests that equity remains a source of authority for district judges to avoid the application of a procedural rule when technical compliance would produce an inequitable result. A separate system of equity provided a …
Action Is An Action Is An Action Is An Action, Bradley Scott Shannon
Action Is An Action Is An Action Is An Action, Bradley Scott Shannon
Washington Law Review
The misuse of legal language is both rampant and problematic. This is particularly true with respect to the terminology employed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Article begins with a general discussion of the importance of using proper legal terminology (with an emphasis on Rules terminology), followed by a discussion as to why, in spite of the problems caused by the misuse of legal terminology, such misuse persists. The Article then considers six Rules terms that should be familiar to every attorney—action, claim, averment, paper, dismissal, and judgment—and discusses the various ways in which these terms are being …