Civil Procedure Commons^™

Brief Of Amici Curiae Employment Law Professors In Support Of Respondents, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

This Court should not interpret section 1981 to require proof of but-for causation, given that statute’s text, history, and purpose. Although Comcast invokes the canon of statutory construction that Congress intends statutory terms to have their settled common-law meaning, that canon does not apply here. Section 1981 has no statutory text that reflects a common-law understanding of causation. Indeed, in 1866, when Congress enacted the predecessor to section 1981, there was no well-settled common law of tort at all. Rather, just as courts have read 42 U.S.C. § 1982, which shares common text, history and purpose, this Court should read …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Establishing Climate Change Standing: A New Approach, Ian R. Curry

Pace Environmental Law Review

Climate change is one of the thorniest political, legal, and economic issues of our time. Therefore, a new legal approach to the issue is required. This Note proposes a streamlined approach for climate change standing, one that assumes injury in fact and causation for a class of discernible climate change harms. A streamlined approach will enable litigants harmed by climate change to seek redress in court, providing an outlet for redress where there has previously been none. Part II of this Note discusses the constitutional doctrine of standing. It begins with a summary of Article III and the logic behind …

Inadvertent Waiver Of The Attorney-Client Privilege By Disclosure Of Documents: An Economic Analysis, Alan J. Meese

Alan J. Meese

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court's Backwards Proportionaility Jurisprudence: Conparing Judicial Review Of Excessive Criminal Punishments And Excessive Punitive Damages Award, Adam M. Gershowitz

Adam M. Gershowitz

No abstract provided.

The Twin Aims Of Erie, Michael S. Green

Michael S. Green

We all remember the twin aims of the Erie rule from first-year civil procedure. A federal court sitting in diversity must use forum state law if it is necessary to avoid 'forum shopping" and the "inequitable administration of the laws." This Article offers a reading of the twin aims and a systematic analysis of their proper role in federal and state court. I argue that the twin aims apply in diversity cases not because they protect state interests, but because they serve the federal purposes standing behind the diversity statute. So understood, they are about separation of powers, not federalism. …

Waiting For Davis V. United States -- Or Not Waiting, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Trivia From The Supreme Court Order List, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Responding To The Loss Of An En Banc Quorum (Update: Prawfsblawg Gets Results!?), Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

One Good Plaintiff Is Not Enough, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

This Article concerns an aspect of Article III standing that has played a role in many of the highest-profile controversies of recent years, including litigation over the Affordable Care Act, immigration policy, and climate change. Although the federal courts constantly emphasize the importance of ensuring that only proper plaintiffs invoke the federal judicial power, the Supreme Court and other federal courts have developed a significant exception to the usual requirement of standing. This exception holds that a court entertaining a multiple-plaintiff case may dispense with inquiring into the standing of each plaintiff as long as the court finds that one …

Did The Supreme Court Recently Exercise A Power That Had Lain Dormant For Decades?, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Deciding When To Decide - Appellate Procedure And Legal Change, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Deferring To Agency Amicus Briefs That Present New Guidance, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

At&T'S Long Game On Unconscionability, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

At&T V. Concepcion And Adherence To Minority Views, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Pfizer Loses Jurisdictional Argument In Overpayment Case, Andrew Velarde

Robert Probasco

Allison Orr Larsen On Intensely Empirical Amicus Briefs And Amicus Opportunism At The Supreme Court, Allison Orr Larsen

Allison Orr Larsen

No abstract provided.

Tricarichi V. Coöperatieve Rabobank, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 73175 (May 2, 2019), John Bays

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) Walden v. Fiore did not overrule Davis v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, meaning that Nevada, under its long-arm statute, recognizes conspiracy-based theory personal jurisdiction and utilizes the conspiracy jurisdiction test as laid out in Gibbs v. Prime Lending and (2) Tricarichi failed to establish personal jurisdiction under either specific or conspiracy theory personal jurisdiction due to an inability to provide sufficient evidence connecting the respondents actions to Nevada.

Saticoy Bay Llc V. Nev. Ass’N Servs., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (Jul. 3, 2019), Katrina Fadda

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that (1) under Nevada's HOA foreclosure redemption statute NRS 116.31166(3) a homeowner may use proceeds from the foreclosure sale to go towards redemption of the property; and (2) that sufficient compliance with the statute is enough to satisfy the statute's requirements.

Kim V. Dickinson Wright, Pllc, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 20, 442 P.3d 1070 (Jun. 13, 2019), Elizabeth Davenport

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court reversed the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss and determined 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), the statute of limitations for a state-law claim filed in federal court, stops running only while the claim is pending in federal court and for 30 days after the state-law claim’s dismissal. Further, Nevada’s litigation malpractice rule, which does not apply to non-adversarial or transactional representation, or before the attorney files a complaint, tolls a litigation malpractice claim’s statute of limitations until the underlying litigation is resolved and damages are certain, preserving the statute of limitations under NRS 11.207(1) which requires a …