Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Comparative and Foreign Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

University of Michigan Law School

Common Law

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Comparative and Foreign Law

Federal Rule 44.1 And The "Fact" Approach To Determining Foreign Law: Death Knell For A Die-Hard Doctrine, Arthur R. Miller Feb 1967

Federal Rule 44.1 And The "Fact" Approach To Determining Foreign Law: Death Knell For A Die-Hard Doctrine, Arthur R. Miller

Michigan Law Review

The objective of this article is to analyze Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1, which was developed as part of the reforms of the last decade and became effective on July 1, 1966 and to assess its capacity to rationalize the process of determining foreign law in the federal courts. What follows is an excursion through the past doctrine and into the probable future treatment of foreign law in the federal courts, an exploration of the interrelationship between the new Rule and other phases of federal civil procedure, and an analysis of the prospect that the Rule's effectiveness may be …


Required Joinder Of Claims, Dieter L. Hoegen May 1957

Required Joinder Of Claims, Dieter L. Hoegen

Michigan Law Review

In review we can say that within a comparatively broad field of the American law required joinder of claims is the rule. There are some exceptions. The German law has no rule of compulsory joinder of claims. Here, there are some exceptions, too. In this sense and within a field which is marked out by the American rule and the German exceptions, the relationship of rule and exceptions is reversed in the two systems.


Required Joinder Of Claims, Dieter L. Hoegen Apr 1957

Required Joinder Of Claims, Dieter L. Hoegen

Michigan Law Review

This comparative study is confined to the situation of one claimant against one claimee. The principles which will be considered seem to be rather well settled both in the American and the German law. The fact, however, that besides many a common result we shall find fundamental differences in the pertinent basic concepts of the American and German systems makes the discussion worthwhile. It may, at least, promote a reconsideration of the propriety of those concepts.