Law Commons^™

Amendments To The Federal Rules: The Function Of A Continuing Rules Committee, Charles A. Wright

Vanderbilt Law Review

No development in American procedural history in the last century has exceeded in importance the adoption by the United States Supreme Court in 1938 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These rules, the product of a distinguished Advisory Committee, introduced a system and a philosophy differing as markedly from the code pleading then in vogue as code pleading, in its day, had differed from common-law pleading. This new system has worked well in the federal courts, so well indeed as to stimulate a reexamination of procedure in many of the states, with nearly a dozen jurisdiction shaving already adopted …

Scope Of Discovery Against The United States, Mac Asbill, Willis B. Snell

Vanderbilt Law Review

In the interpretation and application of the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, one of the most controversial problems is the extent to which discovery is available against the United States when it is a party to an action. Undeniably, the Government is entitled to use the discovery procedures, and it has not hesitated to do so; however, it has often fought vigorously the use of the same procedures against it. At one time the Government argued unsuccessfully that it was entirely exempt from the discovery provisions of the Rules. It has apparently abandoned this argument, but …

Rule 43(A) And The Communication Privileged Understate Law: An Analysis Of Confusion, George W. Pugh

Vanderbilt Law Review

What rules govern the admissibility of evidence in federal court? Rule 43 (a) purports to provide the answer with respect to cases falling within the ambit of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.' Is the Rule working satisfactorily, or should it now be abandoned in favor of a new and different solution? The problem thus presented is broad and pervasive. A definitive answer will not be attempted in this paper. Instead, the writer proposes to give only a general discussion of the broader aspects of the Rule, and to limit analysis of the cases to a very restricted area--the meaning …

Some Bugaboos In Pre-Trial, Alfred P. Murrah

Vanderbilt Law Review

In view of all that has been written and said for pre-trial conference,' it seems rather superfluous, if not presumptuous, to undertake to add to or enlarge upon the subject. Indeed, it might be efficacious to heed Judge Clark's suggestion that the procedural cause would be better served "if something could be done to stop us judges ... from publishing what we say" about the Rules. But even at the risk of overstating the case, those who have enlisted for the duration' never forego an opportunity to strike a blow on the side of simplified procedure. Pre-trial practice has been …

The Place Of The Federal Rules In The Teaching Of Procedure, Delmar Karlen

Vanderbilt Law Review

If there is any proposition upon which teachers of procedure seem to agree it is that the Federal Rules ought to be a focal point of interest in the study of their subject. Most casebooks on general procedure published in recent years emphasize their concentration upon the Federal Rules: Vanderbilt's Cases on Modern Procedure and Judicial Administration, Field and Kaplan's Materials on Civil Procedure, Brown, Vestal and Ladd's Cases and Materials on Pleading and Procedure, to mention only a few. And when older casebooks, like Scott and Simpson's Cases and Other Materials on Civil Procedure or Clark's Cases on Modern …

Falsification As Contempt, Stephen D. Potts

Vanderbilt Law Review

The last twenty years have been witness first to an expansion and then to a retrenchment of constitutionally protected civil liberties. The exercise of the contempt power is an area in which constitutional limitations on modes of procedure are inapplicable so long as the power is used to preserve the judiciary.'

Contempts are either direct or constructive. Direct contempts are committed in the presence of the court whereas constructive contempts are committed outside the presence of the court. This distinction is significant in that direct contempts are punishable without a formulated charge, hearing or formal judgment of guilt. Constructive contempts …