Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Affirming Firm Sanctions: The Authority To Sanction Law Firms Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, Vincent J. Margiotta
Affirming Firm Sanctions: The Authority To Sanction Law Firms Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, Vincent J. Margiotta
Fordham Law Review
A circuit split exists as to whether 28 U.S.C. § 1927 allows for an award of sanctions against nonattorneys or nonrepresentatives. Five federal courts of appeals—the Second, Third, Eighth, Eleventh, and the District of Columbia Circuits—hold that, to further the purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1927, courts have the authority to sanction a law firm for the conduct of its attorneys, in addition to the authority to sanction individual officers of the court. The Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits disagree, concluding that the statute allows federal courts to sanction only individuals—“attorney[s] or other person[s] admitted to conduct cases in any …
It’S Time For An Intervention!: Resolving The Conflict Between Rule 24(A)(2) And Article Iii Standing, Gregory R. Manring
It’S Time For An Intervention!: Resolving The Conflict Between Rule 24(A)(2) And Article Iii Standing, Gregory R. Manring
Fordham Law Review
This Note argues that federal courts should employ an approach that is more related to maintaining the benefits of Rule 24 without running afoul of Article III—a task the yes-or-no approach is ill equipped to handle. Ultimately, an approach that is based on employing a standing analysis only where the Case or Controversy Clause is implicated anew allows the greatest access to the intervention device without running the risk of entertaining nonjusticiable disputes.
It’S Time For An Intervention!: Resolving The Conflict Between Rule 24(A)(2) And Article Iii Standing, Gregory R. Manring
It’S Time For An Intervention!: Resolving The Conflict Between Rule 24(A)(2) And Article Iii Standing, Gregory R. Manring
Fordham Law Review
This Note argues that federal courts should employ an approach that is more related to maintaining the benefits of Rule 24 without running afoul of Article III—a task the yes-or-no approach is ill equipped to handle. Ultimately, an approach that is based on employing a standing analysis only where the Case or Controversy Clause is implicated anew allows the greatest access to the intervention device without running the risk of entertaining nonjusticiable disputes.
The Perfect Match: Civil Law Judges And Open-Ended Fair Use Provisions, Martin Senftleben
The Perfect Match: Civil Law Judges And Open-Ended Fair Use Provisions, Martin Senftleben
American University International Law Review
No abstract provided.
Spoliating The Adverse Inference Instruction: The Impact Of The 2015 Amendment To Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 37(E), Alexandra M. Reynolds
Spoliating The Adverse Inference Instruction: The Impact Of The 2015 Amendment To Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 37(E), Alexandra M. Reynolds
Georgia Law Review
The discovery process relies heavily on the information
that we store on our electronic devices. The ease with
which we tap into the many capabilities of technology,
however, exposes litigants to a significant risk-spoliation
of evidence. Evidence may be spoliated accidentally or
intentionally, but when spoliation does occur, the party
seeking that evidence often seeks a remedy from the court.
The adverse inference instruction has functioned as one of
those remedies. Courts split on what level of culpability is
required to issue an adverse inference instruction. The
Rule 37(e) amendments attempt to address rising costs of
electronic discovery and resolve …