Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Civil Procedure (24)
- Litigation (13)
- Courts (9)
- Jurisdiction (9)
- Evidence (4)
-
- Physical Sciences and Mathematics (4)
- Statistics and Probability (4)
- Applied Statistics (3)
- Judges (3)
- Legal Education (3)
- Civil Law (2)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (2)
- Criminal Procedure (2)
- International Law (2)
- Legal Profession (2)
- Legal Writing and Research (2)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1)
- Common Law (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- European Law (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Labor and Employment Law (1)
- Law and Psychology (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Military, War, and Peace (1)
- Statistical Models (1)
- Keyword
-
- Federal courts (7)
- Appeals (4)
- Appellate courts (4)
- Jurisdiction (3)
- Jury trials (3)
-
- Standards of proof (3)
- Analysis (2)
- Class actions (2)
- Foreign judgments (2)
- Japan (2)
- Plaintiffs (2)
- Preclusion (2)
- Territorial jurisdiction (2)
- Treatymaking (2)
- Alienage jurisdiction (1)
- Baycol (1)
- Bayer (1)
- Brussels Convention (1)
- Burns v. Wilson (1)
- CAFA (1)
- Certification (1)
- Choice of law (1)
- Civil Law (1)
- Civil cases (1)
- Civil procedure (1)
- Class Action Fairness Act (1)
- Code civile (1)
- Cognitive psychology (1)
- Commentators (1)
- Common law (1)
Articles 31 - 40 of 40
Full-Text Articles in Law
Restating Territorial Jurisdiction And Venue For State And Federal Courts, Kevin M. Clermont
Restating Territorial Jurisdiction And Venue For State And Federal Courts, Kevin M. Clermont
Kevin M. Clermont
"Jurisdiction must become venue," concluded Professor Albert A. Ehrenzweig. Perhaps it should. More certain is the proposition that comprehending jurisdiction requires mastering its relationship with venue. Such conclusions lie at some distance, however, bringing to mind that every journey must begin with a single step. A solid first step takes me to the subject of this Symposium, the Restatement (Second) of Judgments. This, put simply, is a masterful work. Even while still in tentative drafts, it proved an invaluable aid to judge, practitioner, teacher, and student. Yet in a work of such scope, anyone could find grounds for differing. At …
Procedure’S Magical Number Three Psychological Bases For Standards Of Decision, Kevin M. Clermont
Procedure’S Magical Number Three Psychological Bases For Standards Of Decision, Kevin M. Clermont
Kevin M. Clermont
No abstract provided.
Decisional Sequencing: Limitations From Jurisdictional Primacy And Intrasuit Preclusion, Kevin M. Clermont
Decisional Sequencing: Limitations From Jurisdictional Primacy And Intrasuit Preclusion, Kevin M. Clermont
Kevin M. Clermont
This Article treats the order of decision on multiple issues in a single case. That order can be very important, with a lot at stake for the court, society, and parties. Generally speaking, by weighing those various interests, the judge gets to choose the decisional sequence, although the parties can control which issues they put before the judge. The law sees fit to put few limits on the judge’s power, and properly so. The few limits are in fact quite narrow in application, and even narrower if properly understood. The Steel Co.-Ruhrgas rule generally requires a federal court to decide …
Class Certification's Preclusive Effects, Kevin M. Clermont
Class Certification's Preclusive Effects, Kevin M. Clermont
Kevin M. Clermont
No abstract provided.
Employment Discrimination Plaintiffs In Federal Court: From Bad To Worse?, Kevin M. Clermont, Stewart J. Schwab
Employment Discrimination Plaintiffs In Federal Court: From Bad To Worse?, Kevin M. Clermont, Stewart J. Schwab
Kevin M. Clermont
This Article utilizes the Administrative Office's data to convey the realities of federal employment discrimination litigation. Litigants in these "jobs" cases appeal more often than other litigants, with the defendants doing far better on those appeals than the plaintiffs. These troublesome facts help explain why today fewer plaintiffs are undertaking the frustrating route into federal district court, where plaintiffs must pursue their claims relatively often all the way through trial and where at both pretrial and trial these plaintiffs lose unusually often.
Federal Habeas Corpus, Kevin M. Clermont
Standards Of Proof In Japan And The United States, Kevin M. Clermont
Standards Of Proof In Japan And The United States, Kevin M. Clermont
Kevin M. Clermont
This article treats the striking divergence between Japanese and U.S. civil cases as to standards of proof. The civil-law Japan requires proof to a high probability similar to the criminal standard, while the common-law United States requires only that the burdened party prove the fact to be more likely than not. This divergence not only entails great practical consequences, but also suggests a basic difference in attitudes toward the process of trial. As to the historical causation of the difference in standards of proof, civil-law and common-law standards diverged in the late eighteenth century, probably because of one system’s French …
Jurisdictional Salvation And The Hague Treaty , Kevin M. Clermont
Jurisdictional Salvation And The Hague Treaty , Kevin M. Clermont
Kevin M. Clermont
No abstract provided.
Procedure's Magical Number Three: Psychological Bases For Standards Of Decision, Kevin M. Clermont
Procedure's Magical Number Three: Psychological Bases For Standards Of Decision, Kevin M. Clermont
Kevin M. Clermont
So many procedural doctrines appear, after research and teaching, to trifurcate. An obvious example is that kind of standard of decision known as the standard of proof: what in theory might have been a continuum of standards divides in practice into the three distinct standards of preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Other examples suggest both that I am not imagining the prominence of three and that more than coincidence is at work. Part I of this essay describes the role of the number three in procedure, with particular regard to standards …
Trial By Jury Or Judge: Transcending Empiricism, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg
Trial By Jury Or Judge: Transcending Empiricism, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg
Kevin M. Clermont
Pity the civil jury, seen by some as the sickest organ of a sick system. Yet the jury has always been controversial. One might suppose that, with so much at stake for so long, we would all know a lot about the ways juries differ from judges in their behavior. In fact, we know remarkably little. This Article provides the first large-scale comparison of plaintiff win rates and recoveries in civil cases tried before juries and judges. In two of the most controversial areas of modern tort law--product liability and medical malpractice--the win rates substantially differ from other cases' win …