Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Civil Procedure (2)
- Civil procedure (2)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (2)
- Federal courts (2)
- Justice (2)
-
- 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (1)
- Access to justice (1)
- Anglo-American common law (1)
- Arbitration proceedings (1)
- Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center Inc (1)
- Article III (1)
- Beschwerde (1)
- Bundesbeamtengesetz (1)
- Bundesgerichtshof (1)
- Bundesrechtsanwaltsordnung (1)
- Bundesverfassungsgericht (1)
- Cases and controversies (1)
- Civil procedure -- United States -- Cases (1)
- Class actions (Civil procedure) -- United States -- States (1)
- Class-action (1)
- Clerks of courts (1)
- Collateral affinity (1)
- Commonality (1)
- Commonality and the Constitution (1)
- Consanguinity (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Constitutional law -- United States -- Cases (1)
- Disqualification of judges (1)
- Disqualification petitions (1)
- Domestic Violence (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
If It (Ain’T) Broke, Don’T Fix It: Twombly, Iqbal, Rule 84, And The Forms, Justin Olson
If It (Ain’T) Broke, Don’T Fix It: Twombly, Iqbal, Rule 84, And The Forms, Justin Olson
Seattle University Law Review
The past decade has not been kind to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the Rules). From the growth of summary judgment as a mechanism to let judges instead of juries determine facts, to the love–hate relationship with class actions, judicial interpretations of the Rules have revealed a trend toward complicating the ability of plaintiffs to find redress for their claims. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the shifting standards of pleading requirements under Rule 8. Much has been written by academics and practitioners alike regarding the ripples caused by Twombly and Iqbal. Although the Court would like to …
“Please Stop Telling Her To Leave.” Where Is The Money: Reclaiming Economic Power To Address Domestic Violence, Margo Lindauer
“Please Stop Telling Her To Leave.” Where Is The Money: Reclaiming Economic Power To Address Domestic Violence, Margo Lindauer
Seattle University Law Review
In this Article, I argue that economic dependence is a critical factor in violence prevention. For many victims of domestic violence, the economic entanglement with an abusive partner is too strong to sever contact without another source of economic support. This Article is a thought experiment in economic justice; it asks the question: is there a way to provide outside economic support for a victim of violence fleeing a battering partner? In this Article, I examine existing systems such as Social Security, unemployment assistance, work-readiness programs, crowd sourcing, and others to evaluate how these sources could provide emergency economic support …
Judicial Recusation In The Federal Republic Of Germany, Sigmund A. Cohn
Judicial Recusation In The Federal Republic Of Germany, Sigmund A. Cohn
Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law
No abstract provided.
Who Is Responsible For The Stealth Assault On Civil Rights?, Samuel R. Bagenstos
Who Is Responsible For The Stealth Assault On Civil Rights?, Samuel R. Bagenstos
Michigan Law Review
Staszak’s book does a great service in demonstrating the extent of the stealth assault on civil-rights litigation. As Staszak shows, procedural and remedial decisions fly under the public’s radar, but they have exceptionally important consequences. Indeed, one can draw a clear line between judicial decisions on such obscure topics as standing and qualified immunity and the persistent acts of police misconduct that have aroused great public concern in recent months. Any effort to ensure that civil-rights protections make a concrete difference in people’s lives must attend to the procedural and remedial issues Staszak discusses.
“Spooky Action At A Distance”: Intangible Injury In Fact In The Information Age, Seth F. Kreimer
“Spooky Action At A Distance”: Intangible Injury In Fact In The Information Age, Seth F. Kreimer
All Faculty Scholarship
Two decades after Justice Douglas coined “injury in fact” as the token of admission to federal court under Article III, Justice Scalia sealed it into the constitutional canon in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. In the two decades since Lujan, Justice Scalia has thrown increasingly pointed barbs at the permissive standing doctrine of the Warren Court, maintaining it is founded on impermissible recognition of “Psychic Injury.” Justice Scalia and his acolytes take the position that Article III requires a tough minded, common sense and practical approach. Injuries in fact must be "tangible" "direct" "concrete" "de facto" realities in time and …
Spencer: Chief Justice John Roberts And The Loss Of Access To Justice, A. Benjamin Spencer
Spencer: Chief Justice John Roberts And The Loss Of Access To Justice, A. Benjamin Spencer
Popular Media
No abstract provided.
Who Has Standing? Why The Supreme Court's Holding In Hollingsworth V. Perry Empowers Politicians At The Expense Of Citizens, Omar Subat
Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development
No abstract provided.
Fortifying The Rights Of Unauthorized Immigrant Workers: Why Employee-Focused Incentives Under The Nlra Would Help End The Cycle Of Labor Rights Abuse, Caitlin E. Delaney
Fortifying The Rights Of Unauthorized Immigrant Workers: Why Employee-Focused Incentives Under The Nlra Would Help End The Cycle Of Labor Rights Abuse, Caitlin E. Delaney
Journal of Law and Policy
Over the past several decades, there has been an unmistakable tension between labor law and immigration law in the United States. That tension, addressed by the Supreme Court most recently in 2001, still exists for unauthorized immigrant workers who wish to assert their labor rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). While the Obama Administration has made significant strides in easing the concerns that unauthorized immigrant workers may have before filing an NLRA claim, the unavailability of the back pay remedy and the uncertainty of protection from immigration authorities leave little incentive for such workers to assert their labor …
Commonality And The Constitution: A Framework For Federal And State Court Class Actions, Joseph A. Seiner
Commonality And The Constitution: A Framework For Federal And State Court Class Actions, Joseph A. Seiner
Indiana Law Journal
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), the Supreme Court concluded that the allegations of pay discrimination in a case brought by over one million female employees lacked sufficient commonality to warrant class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). Though the case was expressly decided under the Federal Rules, some well-known employer groups have begun to advance the argument that Wal-Mart was decided on constitutional grounds. These advocates maintain that the Supreme Court’s decision creates a commonality standard for all class-action plaintiffs—regardless of whether those litigants bring their claims in federal or state court. …
Dynamism In U.S. Pleading Standards: Rules, Interpretation, And Implementation, Jeffrey E. Thomas
Dynamism In U.S. Pleading Standards: Rules, Interpretation, And Implementation, Jeffrey E. Thomas
Book Chapters
No abstract provided.
Institutional Competence And Civil Rules Interpretation, Lumen N. Mulligan, Glen Staszewski
Institutional Competence And Civil Rules Interpretation, Lumen N. Mulligan, Glen Staszewski
Faculty Works
No abstract provided.