Judges Commons^™

Mooting Unilateral Mootness, Scott T. Macguidwin

Michigan Law Review

Several situations cause a case to be moot. These include settlement agreements, party collusion, changes in litigant status, and extrinsic circumstances thwarting the court from granting any relief. The final reason is unilateral mootness—when a defendant ends a lawsuit against a plaintiff’s wishes by giving them everything for which they ask. In practice, this allows defendants to strategically stop lawsuits when it is clear they are not going to win. By doing so, they prevent the court from handing down adverse precedent and preserve the opportunity to engage in similar behavior with impunity. Courts have established a series of mootness …

Non-Lawyer Judges In Devalued Courts, Maureen Carroll

Reviews

Recent legal scholarship has shed needed light on the vast universe of litigation that occurs without lawyers. Large majorities of civil litigants lack representation, even in weighty matters such as eviction and termination of parental rights, raising a host of issues worthy of scholarly attention. For example, one recent article has examined racial and gendered effects of the lack of constitutionally guaranteed counsel in civil matters, and another has shown that judges tend not to reduce the complexity of the proceedings for the benefit of unrepresented parties. In Judging Without a J.D., Sara Greene and Kristen Renberg add an important …

Politics, Identity, And Class Certification On The U.S. Courts Of Appeals, Stephen B. Burbank, Sean Farhang

Michigan Law Review

This Article draws on novel data and presents the results of the first empirical analysis of how potentially salient characteristics of Court of Appeals judges influence class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We find that the ideological composition of the panel (measured by the party of the appointing president) has a very strong association with certification outcomes, with all-Democratic panels having dramatically higher rates of procertification outcomes than all-Republican panels—nearly triple in about the past twenty years. We also find that the presence of one African American on a panel, and the presence of …

Rethinking Criminal Contempt In The Bankruptcy Courts, John A. E. Pottow, Jason S. Levin

Law & Economics Working Papers

A surprising number of courts believe that bankruptcy judges lack authority to impose criminal contempt sanctions. We attempt to rectify this misunderstanding with a march through the historical treatment of contempt-like powers in bankruptcy, the painful statutory history of the 1978 Bankruptcy Code (including the exciting history of likely repealed 28 U.S.C. § 1481), and the various apposite rules of procedure. (Fans of the All Writs Act will delight in its inclusion.) But the principal service we offer to the bankruptcy community is dismantling the ubiquitous and persistent belief that there is some form of constitutional infirmity with "mere" bankruptcy …

Revising Civil Rule 56: Judge Mark R. Kravitz And The Rules Enabling Act, Edward H. Cooper

Articles

This contribution uses the history of amending Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, “Summary Judgment,” to pay tribute to Mark R. Kravitz and to the Rules Enabling Act process itself. The three central examples involve discretion to deny summary judgment despite the lack of a genuine dispute as to any material fact, the choice whether to prescribe a detailed “point–counterpoint” procedure for presenting and opposing the motion, and the effect of failure to respond to a motion in one of the modes prescribed by the rule. These topics are intrinsically important. The ways in which the Civil Rules Advisory Committee …

Judges! Stop Deferring To Class-Action Lawyers, Brian Wolfman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat

I represent a national non-profit consumer rights organization, as an amicus, in a federal appeal challenging a district court’s approval of a class-action settlement of claims under the federal Credit Repair Organization Act (CROA). My client maintains that the district court erred in finding that the settlement was “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” which is the standard for class-action settlement approval under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In particular, we argue that the district court committed a reversible legal error when it deferred to the class-action lawyers’ recommendation to approve the settlement because, in those lawyers’ view, it was fair, …

Beyond Common Sense: A Social Psychological Study Of Iqbal's Effect On Claims Of Race Discrimination, Victor D. Quintanilla

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) once operated as a notice pleading rule, requiring plaintiffs to set forth only a "short and plain" statement of their claim. In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, and then Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the United States Supreme Court recast Rule 8(a) into a plausibility pleading standard. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Iqbal requires federal courts, when deciding whether a complaint is plausible, to draw on their "judicial experience and common sense." Courts apply this standard …

The Internationalization Of Lay Legal Decision-Making: Jury Resurgence And Jury Research, Richard O. Lempert

Articles

When I first began to study the jury more than thirty years ago, the topic of this Journal issue, jury systems around the world, was unthinkable. The use of juries, especially in civil litigation, had long been in decline, to the point of near extinction in England, the land of their birth, and the live question was whether the jury system would endure in the United States. It seemed clear that juries would not continue in their classic form, as many U.S. states, with the Supreme Court's eventual approval, mandated juries of less than twelve people and allowed verdicts to …

Settling For A Judge: A Comment On Clermont And Eisenberg, Samuel R. Gross

Articles

Trial by Jury or Judge: Transcending Empiricism,1 by Kevin Clermont and Theodore Eisenberg, is not only an important article, it is unique. To most Americans, trial means trial by jury. In fact, over half of all federal trials are conducted without juries2 (including 31% of trials in cases in which the parties have the right to choose a jury3), and the proportion of bench trials in state courts is even higher.4 And yet, while there is a large literature on the outcomes of jury trials and the factors that affect them,5 nobody else has systematically compared trials by jury to …

The All Writs Statute And The Injunctive Power Of A Single Appellate Judge, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Although section 1651 was enacted in its present form in 1948, the statutory language of subsection (a) can be traced back to the original Judiciary Act of 1789, in contrast to the terminology in subsection (b), the origins of which are obscure. It is clear, however, that both the alternative writ and the rule nisi are granted on motions ex parte and are in the nature of show-cause orders. These writs were at one time used in place of the modern summons or process and also served as a means of framing the issues to be contested before a court …

Federal Civil Procedure-Federal Rule 16-Definition Of Issues By The Pre-Trial Judge, F. Bruce Kulp Jr.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff instituted a civil antitrust suit against defendant in 1956. After numerous pre-trial conferences, the parties reached agreement as to the definition of only some of the issues. On other issues, however, the parties tendered different versions and were unable to reach an agreement. In a progress memorandum, the court issued a pre-trial order adopting defendant's version of the issues and rejecting the version proposed by plaintiff. The court reasoned that, under Federal Rule 16, it has the authority to adopt the formulation of issues proposed by one of the parties even though the other party is not in complete …

Federal Jurisdiction-Three-Judge Courts-The Recent Evolution In Jurisdiction And Appellate Review, Peter W. Williamson S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

This comment seeks to analyze each decision against its historical background. No more than a proforma attempt will be made to integrate one decision with the others, for sufficient material is not yet available to predict with any accuracy the Court's ultimate achievements in this important area of federal civil procedure.

Congressional Repair Of The Erie Derailment, Leonard V. Quigley

Michigan Law Review

It is the thesis of this article that such legislative review and repair is required today on the part of the federal legislature in regard to the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts. Such reconsideration is particularly appropriate where, as in the analogous commerce clause area, the subject matter has been committed specifically to the Congress by the Constitution.

Eminent Domain - Procedure - Relation Of Judge And Jury In Michigan Condemnation Proceedings, John H. Jackson S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The relationship of judge to jury in Michigan condemnation proceedings presents in many ways a merger of some of the problems and questions contained in the relationship of judge to jury in civil trials, and of court to tribunal in administrative law. Theorists as well as the practicing lawyer in Michigan and some other states" may well find in the development of the Michigan condemnation proceeding an interesting example of the growth of a procedure for adjudication, in a context of cross-fire between legislative ideas and judicial interpretation of a constitutional provision.

Federal Procedure - Judgments - Finality Of Judgment Required To Begin Running Of Time For Appeal, Arnold Henson S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff brought action in a federal district court to recover taxes alleged to have been illegally assessed, and for interest thereon. On April 14, 1955, after hearing plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the district judge filed an opinion stating that the motion was granted, and finding the amount of the taxes paid, but not finding the date of payment or the amount of interest due. The clerk noted: "April 14, 1955 ... Decision rendered on motion for summary judgment. Motion granted. See opinion on file." On May 24, 1955, plaintiff submitted a formal judgment which was signed and filed by …

Federal Procedure - Trial Practice - Not Reversible Error For Trial Judge To Summon Jury Sua Sponte After Waiver, Thomas A. Dieterich

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff instituted this action for breach of contract and defendant counterclaimed. Neither party demanded a jury trial during the period in which it was claimable as of right. Subsequently defendant moved for a jury trial. The motion was denied and was never renewed. Seven months later, on the eve of the trial, the court issued an order sua sponte for a jury trial. Plaintiff's objection was overruled. The jury awarded damages to plaintiff in the same amount as the conceded counterclaim. On appeal, held, affirmed, one judge dissenting. Although the trial judge's action in calling a jury on his …

Vanderbilt: Cases And Materials On Modern Procedure And Judicial Administration, Charles W. Joiner

Michigan Law Review

A Review of CASES AND MATERIALS ON MODERN PROCEDURE AND JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION by Arthur T. Vanderbilt.

Habeas Corpus-Federal Courts-May Application For Habeas Corpus Addressed To One Federal Judge Be Heard By Another Judge Of The Same Court?, G. R. Thornton

Michigan Law Review

Petitioner applied to a specific district court judge for a writ of habeas corpus. Following the practice of the court of which he was a member, this judge filed the petition with the clerk of the court, and it was assigned to a second judge, who denied the petition. From this decision petitioner appealed. Two questions were raised (1) whether a writ of habas corpus should be granted; and (2) whether it is mandatory that a petition of habeas corpus addressed to a specific judge of the district court be heard and determined by that judge to the exclusion of …

Federal Practice - Decision Of Questions Preliminary To The Convening Of A Three-Judge Court

Michigan Law Review

Before the district judge can convene a three-judge court, two preliminary questions must be decided. First, is the case within the jurisdiction of the federal courts? Second, is the case one to which the three-judge statute applies?

Sane Procedural Reform, Robert E. Bunker

Articles

In these later days much is said about reforming the procedure of our courts, about recalllng our judges, at arbitrarily appointed times, and about reversing their decisions by popular vote. Most of what is said about these matters is said by those who have least reason to say it. It is no exaggeration to assert that those who are most severe in their criticism of the courts and of their procedure and most lavish in their suggestions of reform are they who know little, beyond the most general, about the courts and nothing about their procedure from personal contact with …

A Treatise On The Powers And Duties Of The Justices Of The Peace In The State Of Michigan, Under Chapter Ninety-Three Of The Revised Statutes Of 1846, Being Chapter Thirty-Four Of The Compiled Laws Of 1897; With Practical Forms And An Appendix Containing The Justice Court Acts Of Those Cities Having Provisions Differing Materially From The General Justice Court Act., Alexander R. Tiffany, Victor H. Lane

Books

“Judge Alexander R. Tiffany, its author, put out the first edition of this work in 1849. In the years 1851, 1858 and 1866, he put out the second, third and fourth editions, respectively. The fifth edition was published in 1873 with Judge Andrew Howell as its editor and he edited the succeeding editions to the ninth inclusive ….

“The editorship of the present edition has been undertaken at the request of the family of Judge Tiffany, and while the editor is persuaded that better can be done, yet it is hoped that the present edition may share the favor so …

Some Hints On Defects In The Jury System, James V. Campbell

Articles

The occasional freaks of juries have now and then led some members of the bar to speculate on the policy of doing without them entirely, and some persons no doubt think that they have strong convictions that the jury system has become useless. It is safe to say that these extreme views are altogether speculative, and not based on any careful comparison of results. Most persons who have looked into their own experience with courts and juries are ready to agree that where there is no dispute about main facts, so that the chief dispute is one of law, there …