Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Civil Procedure (2)
- Federal Courts (2)
- Arbitration (1)
- Article length (1)
- Courts (1)
-
- Customization (1)
- Forum selection (1)
- Inherent authority (1)
- Inherent power (1)
- Iqbal (1)
- Legal Education (1)
- Legal scholarship (1)
- Mapping (1)
- Matrixx (1)
- Papasan (1)
- Personal jurisdiction (1)
- Pleading (1)
- Plus piece (1)
- Practice and Procedure (1)
- Private ordering (1)
- Rule 8 (1)
- Scholarship (1)
- Short essay (1)
- Short paper (1)
- Swierkiewicz (1)
- Twiqbal (1)
- Twombly (1)
- Video article (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Short Paper, Scott Dodson
The Short Paper, Scott Dodson
Scott Dodson
Short papers have been relegated to secondary status primarily because of their length. But many scholarly papers of under 10,000 words have had monumental impact in legal thought. I argue for a reassessment of the short paper's value and offer some prescriptions for assimilating more openness to the short paper going forward.
Mapping Supreme Court Doctrine: Civil Pleading, Scott Dodson, Colin Starger
Mapping Supreme Court Doctrine: Civil Pleading, Scott Dodson, Colin Starger
Scott Dodson
This essay, adapted from the video presentation available at http://vimeo.com/89845875, graphically depicts the genealogy and evolution of federal civil pleading standards in U.S. Supreme Court opinions over time. We show that the standard narrative—of a decline in pleading liberality from Conley to Twombly to Iqbal—is complicated by both progenitors and progeny. We therefore offer a fuller picture of the doctrine of Rule 8 pleading that ought to be of use to judges and practitioners in federal court. We also hope to introduce a new visual format for academic scholarship that capitalizes on the virtues of narration, graphics, mapping, online accessibility, …
Party Subordinance In Federal Litigation, Scott Dodson
Party Subordinance In Federal Litigation, Scott Dodson
Scott Dodson
American civil litigation in federal courts operates under a presumption of party dominance. Parties choose the lawsuit structure, factual predicates, and legal arguments, and the court accepts these choices. Further, parties enter ubiquitous ex ante agreements that purport to alter the law governing their dispute, along with a chorus of calls for even more party-driven customization of litigation. The assumption behind this model of party dominance is that parties substantially control both the law that will govern their dispute and the judges that oversee it. This Article challenges that assumption by offering a reoriented model of party subordinance. Under my …