Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Trial Practice And Procedure, John O'Shea Sullivan, Tala Amirfazli, Adelyn B. Boleman
Trial Practice And Procedure, John O'Shea Sullivan, Tala Amirfazli, Adelyn B. Boleman
Mercer Law Review
The 2017 survey period yielded noteworthy decisions relating to federal trial practice and procedure in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, several of which involved issues of first impression. This Article analyzes recent developments in the Eleventh Circuit, including significant rulings in the areas of civil procedure, statutory interpretation, and federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Getting Schooled: The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eleventh Circuit Holds That The Federal Government Need Not Show "Good Cause" Before Settling And Dismissing A Pending Qui Tam Action Against College, Laura Leigh Fox
Mercer Law Review
In United States v. Everglades College, Inc., a case of first impression in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the court interpreted the good cause intervention requirement of § 3730(c)(3) of Title 31 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). The court was asked to determine whether the United States needed to show "good cause" for intervening in a qui tam action brought by two private individuals under the False Claims Act (FCA). The government, after originally declining to proceed with the FCA action itself, eventually decided to "intervene" while the action was pending on the …
Georgia's Unconstitutional Business Venue Provision: A Kingdom With Impermissible Borders, Lucas Bradley
Georgia's Unconstitutional Business Venue Provision: A Kingdom With Impermissible Borders, Lucas Bradley
Mercer Law Review
A sub-clause of Georgia's business venue statute, as construed in October 2016, violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. That statute, section 14-2-510(b) of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.), provides four venues (counties) in which a company can be sued for an act or omission, depending on the kind of act or omission at issue. The first three venue options apply equally to in-state and out-of-state companies. The fourth venue option does not. This fourth option grants in-state companies an unwarranted advantage compared to out-of-state companies and as a result, runs afoul of the Constitution's Dormant …