Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Revising Civil Rule 56: Judge Mark R. Kravitz And The Rules Enabling Act, Edward H. Cooper
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
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, …
Federal Procedure - Trial Practice - Not Reversible Error For Trial Judge To Summon Jury Sua Sponte After Waiver, Thomas A. Dieterich
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 …