Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Summary Judgment In The Shadow Of Erie, Jeffrey O. Cooper
Summary Judgment In The Shadow Of Erie, Jeffrey O. Cooper
Akron Law Review
This essay addresses one particular challenge to federal summary judgment practice: the possibility of a successful challenge to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, pursuant to Erie Railroad v. Tompkins and its progeny. Part II of this essay addresses differences between summary judgment as practiced in federal courts pursuant to Federal Rule 56 and summary judgment as practiced in state courts, focusing in particular on differences in the ways the federal courts and some state courts allocate the burdens on moving and non-moving parties.Part III suggests that these differences are problematic under Erie and its progeny, and …
Summary Judgment, Pleading, And The Future Of Transsubstantive Procedure, Stephen B. Burbank
Summary Judgment, Pleading, And The Future Of Transsubstantive Procedure, Stephen B. Burbank
Akron Law Review
David Berger Professor for the Administration of Justice, University of Pennsylvania Law School. This article is based on remarks made at the 2010 meeting of the AALS Section on Litigation.
Six Summary Judgment Safeguards, Edward Brunet
Six Summary Judgment Safeguards, Edward Brunet
Akron Law Review
This article sets forth a more optimistic assessment of the current status of summary judgment. Numerous potential safeguards deter improper grants of summary judgment motions and serve to temper trial judges who are prone to rule favorably on summary judgment requests. While some of the safeguards act more as ineffectual clichés or slogans, others provide a set of significant deterrents to overly adventuresome treatment of Rule 56 motions. The goal of this article is to critique six possible summary judgment safeguards and, in so doing, to determine whether the state of contemporary summary judgment is as bleak as leading critics …
Must, Should, Shall, Steven S. Gensler
Must, Should, Shall, Steven S. Gensler
Akron Law Review
This Essay has three parts. Parts I and II look backward. Part I tells the story of the switch from ―shall‖ to ―should‖ in 2007. Part II then explains the events that led the Advisory Committee to propose the amendment that, if it takes effect as scheduled on December 1, 2010, will restore ―shall‖ to the text of Rule 56. Part III looks forward. It addresses a single, critical question: how much discretion to deny summary judgment will trial judges have once ―shall‖ is restored? The answer is this: with the restoration of ―shall,‖ trial courts will return to whatever …