Civil Procedure Commons^™

Presentation On Jury Nullification And Suggestions For Implementing A Mixed Jury System In Japan, Robert Bloom

Robert Bloom

No abstract provided.

Appointment: Visiting Professor At Kwansei Gakuin University, Nishinomiya, Japan, Robert Bloom

Robert Bloom

No abstract provided.

Oral Argument In Meyer V. Holley (No. 01-1120), Robert G. Schwemm, Douglas G. Benedon, Malcolm L. Stewart

Law Faculty Advocacy

The matter of Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (2003) was argued before the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday, December 3, 2002. Professor Robert G. Schwemm argued on behalf of the Respondents. This document is a transcript of the oral argument.

The Revolution You Won’T See On Tv, Jeff Rasley

Scholarship and Professional Work - LAS

Article for Newsweek about the author’s experiences in mediation and jury trials as a civil litigator.

Litigation Realities, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

After both summarizing recent empirical work and presenting new observations on each of the six phases of a civil lawsuit (forum, pretrial, settlement, trial, judgment, and appeal), the authors draw a series of lessons for understanding and using empirical methods in the study of the legal system's operation. In so doing, they generate implications for current and projected policy debates concerning litigation, while identifying areas that demand further empirical work.

Towards Tribal Sovereignty And Judicial Efficiency: Ordering The Defenses Of Tribal Sovereign Immunity And Exhaustion Of Tribal Remedies, Kirsten Matoy Carlson

Michigan Law Review

In 1985, the Narragansett Indian Tribe ("Tribe") created the Narragansett Indian Wetuornuck Housing Authority ("Authority"). The Authority, which acts on the Tribe's behalf in its housing development and operations, entered into a contract with the Ninigret Development Corporation for the construction of a low-income housing development. After construction began, disputes developed over how to proceed with the construction. When conciliation efforts failed, the Authority cancelled the contract. The Narragansett Tribal Council, the governing body of the Tribe, followed the forum selection clause in the contract and notified the disputants that it would hold a hearing to resolve the dispute. Ninigret …

Seeing The Appellate Horizon: Civil Trial Strategy And Standards Of Review In The Eighth Circuit, R. Christopher Lawson

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

The Problem Of The Expert Juror., Paul F. Kirgis

Faculty Law Review Articles

In this article, I argue that the new focus on the risks of spurious "expertise" compels attention to the problem of juror expertise. 24 Specialized knowledge poses the same risks to the truth-seeking objectives of trial whether it enters the decision-making process through expert testimony or through the back door of juror background knowledge. In fact, the risks to accuracy may be less when expertise is offered by a witness than when it is introduced by a juror, because the witness will be subject to cross-examination and rebuttal. Flawed expertise brought to the case by a juror is not subject …

Civil Procedure, Robin Jean Davis, Louis J. Palmer Jr.

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Civil And Criminal Contempt Law, Robin Jean Davis, Louis J. Palmer Jr.

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reconciling Experimental Incoherence With Real-World Coherence In Punitive Damages, Theodore Eisenberg, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Martin T. Wells

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Experimental evidence generated in controlled laboratory studies suggests that the legal system in general, and punitive damages awards in particular, should display an incoherent pattern. According to the prediction, inexperienced decisionmakers, such as juries, should fail to convert their qualitative judgments of defendants' conduct into consistent, meaningful dollar amounts. This Article tests this prediction and finds modest support for the thesis that experience across different types of cases will lead to greater consistency in awards. Despite this support, numerous studies of damage awards in real cases detect a generally sensible pattern of damage awards. This Article tries to reconcile the …

Trial Outcomes And Demographics: Is There A Bronx Effect?, Theodore Eisenberg, Martin T. Wells

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Minorities favor injured plaintiffs and give them inflated awards. This folk wisdom in the legal community influences choice of trial locale and the screening of jurors. A Los Angeles court is said to be known by local lawyers as "the bank" because of the frequency and size of its anti-corporate awards. A newspaper article summarizing court results suggests, somewhat jokingly, that the "Bronx County Courthouse should post a warning: People who get sued here run an increased risk of suffering staggering losses." Beliefs about the influence of factors other than race, such as income and urbanization, also are common.

This …

Progressive Race Blindness: Individual Identity, Group Politics, And Reform, Darren Hutchinson

Darren L Hutchinson

Critical Race Theorists advance race consciousness as a positive instrument for political and legal reform. A growing body of works by left-identified scholars, however, challenges this traditional progressive stance toward race consciousness.

After summarizing the contours of this budding literature, this Article criticizes the "progressive race blindness" scholarship on several grounds and offers an alternative approach to race consciousness that balances skepticism towards the naturalness of race with a healthy appreciation of the realities of racial subjugation and identity.

A Practitioner's Guide To Arkansas's New Judicial Article, Larry Brady, J.D. Gingerich

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Comparative View Of Standards Of Proof, Kevin M. Clermont, Emily Sherwin

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In common-law systems, the standard of proof for ordinary civil cases requires the party who bears the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts alleged are true. In contrast, the prevailing standard of proof for civil cases in civil-law systems is indistinguishable from the standard for criminal cases: the judge must be firmly convinced that the facts alleged are true. This striking difference in common-law and civil-law procedures has received very little attention from either civilian or comparative scholars.

The preponderance standard applied in common-law systems is openly probabilistic and produces, on average, …

"Speaking Rights": Evaluating Juror Discussions During Civil Trials, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, G. Thomas Munsterman

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Permitting jurors to discuss evidence during civil trials may facilitate understanding and provide an outlet for their thoughts and questions, and does not appear to lead to prejudgment or prejudice.

The Right To Trial By Jury In Arkansas After Merger Of Law And Equity, John J. Watkins

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

On The Importance Of Institutions: Review Of Arbitral Awards For Legal Errors, Peter B. Rutledge

Scholarly Works

In my view, legislatures, rather than courts or parties, should decide whether (and to what extent) courts should review arbitral awards for errors of law. The optimal legislative mechanism should not be compulsory but should offer parties the choice whether to "opt-in" to this regime of expanded review by inserting language to that effect in their arbitration agreement. A legislative solution with an "opt-in" feature has a sounder doctrinal foundation, better respects the distribution of power between various branches of government, involves a lower risk of error and minimizes transaction costs. From this position, two additional conclusions follow: first, courts …

Juries, Judges, And Punitive Damages: An Empirical Study, Theodore Eisenberg, Neil Lafountain, Brian Ostrom, David Rottman, Martin T. Wells

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This Article, the first broad-based analysis of punitive damages in judge-tried cases, compares judge and jury performance in awarding punitive damages and in setting their levels. Data covering one year of judge and jury trial outcomes from forty-five of the nation's largest counties yield no substantial evidence that judges and juries differ in the rate at which they award punitive damages or in the central relation between the size of punitive awards and compensatory awards. The relation between punitive and compensatory awards in jury trials is strikingly similar to the relation in judge trials. For a given level of compensatory …

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

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Keeping Courts Afloat In A Rising Sea Of Litigation: An Objective Approach To Imposing Rule 38 Sanctions For Frivolous Appeals, Scott A. Martin

Michigan Law Review

As their dockets swell, federal judges' tolerance for attorney misconduct wears thin. More than ever, judges are willing to impose sanctions for abuses of federal court processes, including frivolous appeals. As one judge explained, "[w]ith courts struggling to remain afloat in a constantly rising sea of litigation, a frivolous appeal can itself be a form of obscenity." Aside from the need to reduce caseloads, other factors underlie the courts' willingness to impose sanctions for frivolous appeals. One concern is that the costs to responsible, ethical litigants increase sharply when the court system's resources are diverted to meritless claims. Another motivating …

The Communities That Make Standards Of Care Possible, Anita Bernstein

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

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, …

Semtek, Forum Shopping, And Federal Common Law, Stephen B. Burbank

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Of Arkansas Rule 4-3(J): No-Merit Briefs In Arkansas And The Need To Amend The Rule, Jeffrey A. Weber

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 68 - Should Costs Incurred After The Offer Of Judgment Be Included In Calculating The "Judgment Finally Obtained" - The So-Called Novel Issue In Roberts V. Swain, Jonathan R. Bumgarner

Campbell Law Review

This article analyzes use of force law under North Carolina and federal standards. This article emphasizes methodology and leading Supreme Court, Fourth Circuit and North Carolina cases. Statutory and common law use of force standards under North Carolina law including self defense and apparent dangers are explored. The article analyzes the prevailing federal liability standards which are employed in determining whether use of force is excessive, particularly in "mistaken belief' cases. Finally, the nature of expert testimony typically admissible in use of force litigation is reviewed.

In Praise Of Procedure: An Economic And Behavioral Defense Of Smith V. Van Gorkom And The Business Judgment Rule, Lynn A. Stout

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

International Jurisdiction And Enforcement Of Judgments In The Era Of Global Networks: Irrelevance Of, Goals For, And Comments On The Current Proposals, Jonathan A. Franklin, Roberta J. Morris

Librarians' Articles

Last fall a Symposium at Chicago-Kent College of Law entitled "Constructing International Intellectual Property Law: The Role of National Courts," held on October 18-19, 2001, brought together scholars interested in a group of problems related to the relationship between harmonized rules of international civil procedure and diverse nationally-based rules of intellectual property. Subsequently, extensive discussions between the authors developed this Article into its present form.

Plaintiphobia In The Appellate Courts: Civil Rights Really Do Differ From Negotiable Instruments, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Professors Clermont and Eisenberg conducted a systematic analysis of appellate court behavior and report that defendants have a substantial advantage over plaintiffs on appeal. Their analysis attempted to control for different variables that may affect the decision to appeal or the appellate outcome, including case complexity, case type, amount in controversy, and whether there had been a judge or a jury trial. Once they accounted for these variables and explored and discarded various alternate explanations, they came to the conclusion that a defendants' advantage exists probably because of appellate judges' misperceptions that trial level adjudicators are pro-plaintiff.

Judge Harry Edwards: A Case In Point!, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Judge Harry Edwards dislikes empirical work that is not flattering to federal appellate judges. A few years ago Dean Richard Revesz published an empirical study of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit providing further support for the rather tame proposition that judges’ political orientation has some effect on outcome in some politically charged cases. A year later Judge Edwards published a criticism phrased in extreme terms. Dean Revesz then wrote a devastating reply by which he demonstrated that Judge Edwards “is simply wrong with respect to each of the numerous criticisms that he levels.” We believe …