Courts Commons^™

Federal Pleading Standards In State Court, Marcus Gadson

Michigan Law Review

Most state courts cannot follow both their state constitutions and federal pleading standards. Even if they could, policy considerations unique to states compel state courts to reject federal pleading standards. This is because federal courts have changed pleading standards to allow judges to make factual determinations on a motion to dismiss and to require more factual detail in complaints. While scholars have vigorously debated whether these changes are wise, just, and permissible under the federal rules and the Constitution, they have ignored the even more important questions of whether state courts can and should adopt those pleading standards. The oversight …

Judges In Lawyerless Courts, Anna E. Carpenter, Colleen F. Shanahan, Jessica K. Steinberg, Alyx Mark

Faculty Scholarship

The typical American civil trial court is lawyerless. In response, access to justice reformers have embraced a key intervention: changing the judge’s traditional role. The prevailing vision for judicial role reform calls on trial judges to offer a range of accommodation, assistance, and process simplification to people without legal representation.

Until now, we have known little about whether and how judges are implementing role reform recommendations or how judges behave in lawyerless courts as a general matter. Our lack of knowledge stands in stark contrast to the responsibility civil trial judges bear – and the discretionary power they wield – …

The Institutional Mismatch Of State Civil Courts, Colleen F. Shanahan, Jessica K. Steinberg, Alyx Mark, Anna E. Carpenter

Faculty Scholarship

State civil courts are central institutions in American democracy. Though designed for dispute resolution, these courts function as emergency rooms for social needs in the face of the failure of the legislative and executive branches to disrupt or mitigate inequality. We reconsider national case data to analyze the presence of social needs in state civil cases. We then use original data from courtroom observation and interviews to theorize how state civil courts grapple with the mismatch between the social needs people bring to these courts and their institutional design. This institutional mismatch leads to two roles of state civil courts …

Mdl In The States, Zachary D. Clopton, D. Theodore Rave

Northwestern University Law Review

Multidistrict litigation (MDL) is exploding. MDL makes up a large and increasing portion of the federal civil docket. It has been used in recent years to manage and resolve some of our largest controversies: opioids, NFL concussions, Volkswagen “clean” diesel, and many more. And, given its growing importance, MDL has come to dominate the academic literature on complex litigation.

At its base, MDL is a tool to coordinate related cases across different courts in service of justice, efficiency, and fairness. These goals are not unique to the federal courts. State courts handle far more cases than federal courts, including the …

Getting Real About Procedure: Changing How We Think, Write And Teach About American Civil Procedure, Suzette M. Malveaux

Publications

No abstract provided.

Mediation Confidentiality: For California Litigants, Why Should Mediation Confidentiality Be A Function Of The Court In Which The Litigation Is Pending?, Rebecca Callahan

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

The article presents information on mediation confidentiality. Confidentiality protections are available to California litigants depending on whether the litigants are in state or federal court. It depicts that California courts provide protection only when disputants utilize mediation for resolving their differences and also focuses on the evidence exclusion provision in which the privilege held by participant acts as bar to compel discovery without everyone's consent.

Preliminary Injunction Standards In Massachusetts State And Federal Courts, Arthur D. Wolf

Faculty Scholarship

Concurrent jurisdiction frequently allows attorneys the choice of filing a complaint in state or federal court. State courts presumptively have jurisdiction over claims rooted in federal law. At times, state courts are required to entertain federal claims. Similarly, federal courts have authority over state claims because of diversity, federal question, and supplemental jurisdiction. Many claims are rooted in both state and federal law, such as antitrust, civil rights, environmental, consumer protection, and civil liberties. Confronted with the choice of state or federal court, the attorney must evaluate a variety of factors before deciding in which court to file.

In a …

Parens Patriae Run Amuck: The Child Welfare System's Disregard For The Constitutional Rights Of Non-Offending Parents, Vivek Sankaran

Articles

Over the past hundred years, a consensus has emerged recognizing a parent's ability to raise his or her child as a fundamental, sacrosanct right protected by the Constitution. Federal courts have repeatedly rejected the parens patriae summary mode of decision making that predominated juvenile courts at the turn of the twentieth century and have instead held that juvenile courts must afford basic due process to parents prior to depriving them of custodial rights to their children. This recognition has led to the strengthening of procedural protections for parents accused of child abuse or neglect in civil child protection proceedings. Yet, …

The Consumer Class Action, Arthur H. Travers Jr., Jonathan M. Landers

Publications

No abstract provided.

Nebulous Injunctions, Edgar N. Durfee

Articles

Injunctive relief is sought against alleged wrongdoing which is merely incidental to the conduct of a legitimate business. The wrong is established and the court is satisfied that an injunction should issue. Yet some nice questions remain as to the scope and terms of the decree.

The Michigan Judicature Act Of 1915, Edson R. Sunderland

Articles

IN 1848 a wave of reform in judicial procedure began to sweep over the United States. In that year the legislature of New York enacted the Code of Civil Procedure, a statute of far-reaching importance, for it became the source of and the model for similar legislation in almost two-thirds of the States in the Union.