Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Supreme Court of the United States Commons™

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Civil Procedure

Institution
Keyword
Publication Year
Publication
Publication Type

Articles 451 - 466 of 466

Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States

Congressional Repair Of The Erie Derailment, Leonard V. Quigley Jun 1962

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.

Go to article

Attachment And Garnishment In The Federal Courts, Brainerd Currie Jan 1961

Attachment And Garnishment In The Federal Courts, Brainerd Currie

Michigan Law Review

Personal injuries allegedly caused by the negligent manufacture of safety fuses used in blasting operations in a coal mine were suffered by Raymond Davis, apparently a citizen of Arkansas. The manufacturer, Ensign-Bickford Company, was a Connecticut corporation that could not be personally served with process within Arkansas. But it happened that two foreign corporations, amenable to process in the state, were indebted in substantial amounts to Ensign-Bickford Company. Accordingly, counsel for Davis, invoking the diversity jurisdiction, filed an action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Without issue of summons, the plaintiff, in conformity with Arkansas statutes, …

Go to article

Compulsory Joinder Of Parties In Civil Actions, John W. Reed Feb 1957

Compulsory Joinder Of Parties In Civil Actions, John W. Reed

Michigan Law Review

Compulsory joinder cases involving interests in land display one peculiar and important characteristic: there is almost never any need in the state courts to wrestle with the question of whether a person is indispensable as distinguished from necessary. One hastens to add that this attribute of land cases appears to have gone largely unnoticed, but it exists none the less. It arises out of the fact that in a suit involving real property it is never impossible for the court to obtain jurisdiction over all persons interested therein to an extent which will enable the court to adjudicate controversies over …

Go to article

Compulsory Joinder Of Parties In Civil Actions, John W. Reed Jan 1957

Compulsory Joinder Of Parties In Civil Actions, John W. Reed

Articles

The plaintiff in a civil cause ordinarily is permitted to select the persons with whom he will litigate. The initial designation of parties to an action is made by the plaintiff, and if he chooses to sue B and not A,' that is ordinarily of no concern to B or to A or to the court. So also where the plaintiff without A as co-plaintiff sues B. Not always, however, is the plaintiff permitted unfettered choice in naming the parties to his lawsuit. On the one hand there are persons whose relationship to the situation in litigation is outside the …

Go to article

Suits Against Unincorporated Associations Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, John Kaplan May 1955

Suits Against Unincorporated Associations Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, John Kaplan

Michigan Law Review

Concepts, Benjamin Cardozo has said, "are useful, indeed indispensable, if kept within their place. We will press them quite a distance. . . . A time comes, however, when the concepts carry us too far, or farther than we are ready to go with them, and behold, some other concept, with capacity to serve our needs is waiting at the gate. 'It is a peculiar virtue of our system of law that the process of inclusion and exclusion, so often employed in developing a rule, is not allowed to end with its enunciation, and that an expression in an opinion …

Go to article

Constitutional Law-Due Process-Punishment For Direct Contempt Of Court, William R. Worth Jun 1949

Constitutional Law-Due Process-Punishment For Direct Contempt Of Court, William R. Worth

Michigan Law Review

Opposing counsel's objection to material in petitioner's opening statement to the jury was sustained. When petitioner rephrased his statement, the trial court, feeling that he was still trying to get inadmissible material before the jury, threatened to "declare a mistrial if you mess with me two minutes and a half, and fine you besides.'' Petitioner took an exception to the conduct of the court, and was immediately fined $25. His protests led to successive increases in penalty, culminating in a $100 fine and three days in jail. The Supreme Court of Texas denied habeas corpus on the ground that the …

Go to article

The Grant Of Rule-Making Power To The Supreme Court Of The United States, Edson R. Sunderland Jun 1934

The Grant Of Rule-Making Power To The Supreme Court Of The United States, Edson R. Sunderland

Michigan Law Review

The determined effort on the part of the American Bar Association, which continued without relaxation for almost a quarter of a century, to place the regulation of federal trial court procedure in law actions under the control of the Supreme Court of the United States, has at last been successful. Senate Bill No. 3040, granting full rulemaking power to the Supreme Court, became a law on June 19, 1934.

Go to article

Federal Practice - Mandamus -Power Of Supreme Court To Issue May 1933

Federal Practice - Mandamus -Power Of Supreme Court To Issue

Michigan Law Review

An indictment having been returned against one Wingert, the district court refused to issue a bench warrant for his arrest. The United States petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus. Held that without considering the right of the government to a direct review in certain cases adverse to it, and though the immediate appellate power is in the circuit court of appeals, the Supreme Court has power to issue the writ of mandamus on the ground that ultimate power to review by certiorari to the circuit court of appeals exists. Ex Parte United States, 53 …

Go to article

Federal Practice - Power Of United States Supreme Court To Entertain Writ Of Certiorari Where Appeal Has Been Erroneously Taken May 1932

Federal Practice - Power Of United States Supreme Court To Entertain Writ Of Certiorari Where Appeal Has Been Erroneously Taken

Michigan Law Review

Judgment for the plaintiff in a law action was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals, first circuit, and defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States and at the same time petitioned for a writ of certiorari. The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and appellee contended that the petition for certiorari could not be entertained under par. (b) of sec. 240, Judicial Code, as amended by Act of February 13, 1925 (c. 229, 43 Stat. 936, 938, 939; U.S. C. A. tit. 28, sec. 347). Held, that the writ of certiorari could be granted, …

Go to article

Federal Practise-Review Of Facts-Instance Of When Verdict Must Be Directed May 1932

Federal Practise-Review Of Facts-Instance Of When Verdict Must Be Directed

Michigan Law Review

This was a case in which a motion for a directed verdict was denied by the trial court on the ground that there was sufficient evidence to justify a submission of the case to the jury. The circuit court of appeals affirmed this, but on appeal to the Supreme Court it was held error. Southern Ry. Co. v. Walters (U.S. 1931) 52 Sup. Ct. 58.

Go to article

Appellate Practice And Procedure In The Supreme Court Of The United States, T. W. Arnold Feb 1929

Appellate Practice And Procedure In The Supreme Court Of The United States, T. W. Arnold

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Due Process Of Law In Procedure, Edson R. Sunderland Jan 1921

Due Process Of Law In Procedure, Edson R. Sunderland

Articles

There are two classes of cases which may arise under the "due process" provisions of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution, so far as rules of procedure are concerned. One embraces cases of new remedial processes which may be criticized as too radical. The other consists of cases of old processes which may be criticized as obsolete and out of harmony with prevailing conceptions of justice. Due process may thus be said to fill the wide space between those innovations which carry us so far away from established methods as to remove the safeguards which are …

Go to article

Verdicts, General And Special, Edson R. Sunderland Jan 1919

Verdicts, General And Special, Edson R. Sunderland

Articles

The most remarkable thing about this case of Georgia v. Brailsford is that a matter of such elementary importance in the daily administration of the law, after being announced in so dramatic a way by the Supreme Court of the United States at the very threshold of its career, could have dropped into oblivion for a hundred years only to be repudiated in a way hardly less dramatic by a sharply divided court. The controversy here disclosed goes to the very heart of the jury system as it has been developed by the common law and is still almost universally …

Go to article

Procedural Law Reform, Willis B. Perkins May 1912

Procedural Law Reform, Willis B. Perkins

Michigan Law Review

It is said that under our present practice, no matter how just the verdict and judgment of the court below may be, no lawyer can guarantee that his case may not be reversed by the Supreme Court. Is this criticism well-founded in fact; and, if so, is it a reflection upon our present methods of legal procedure? The statisticians tell us that no less than twenty per cent of all the cases taken to our appellate courts relate to questions of practice, and that throughout the country in forty per cent of these cases new trials are granted. In our …

Go to article

Is A Judgment Open To Collateral Attack If Rendered Without Written Pleadings As Required By Statute, Or If The Writings Do Not Comply With The Statutory Requirements?, John R. Rood Jan 1912

Is A Judgment Open To Collateral Attack If Rendered Without Written Pleadings As Required By Statute, Or If The Writings Do Not Comply With The Statutory Requirements?, John R. Rood

Articles

It is believed that no good reason can be assigned for answering the above question in the affirmative. Certainly none has yet been discovered in a careful search of the cases involving the point. And yet the assurance and unanimity with which lawyers and judges give the affirmative answer to it on first thought is indeed remarkable. For instance, Mr. Justice FIELD in speaking for the Supreme Court of the United States, on the question as to whether a judgment is subject to collateral attack if one served with process is not permitted to make any defense when he appears …

Go to article

Note And Comment, Michigan Law Review Apr 1904

Note And Comment, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

A National Incorporation Law; The Northern Securities Case; Controversies Between States; Liability of Members of Congress for Bribery; Exempting of Lawyers from Service of Civil Process While Attending Court; Law Governing the Validity of a Note Executed and Delivered in One State, But Payable in Another

Go to article

First Prev