Law Commons^™

Has Shoe Run Its Course?, David W. Ichel

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Guidelines And Best Practices For Large And Mass-Tort Mdls (Second Edition), Bolch Judicial Institute

Bolch Judicial Institute Publications

Mass-tort MDLs dominate the federal civil docket, yet they present enormous challenges to transferee judges assigned to manage them. There is little official guidance and no rules specific to the management of mass-tort MDLs, often requiring the transferee judge to develop procedures out of whole cloth.

Beginning in 2013, the Bolch Judicial Institute (then the Center for Judicial Studies) sought to address this issue through a series of annual bench-bar conferences. From these conferences came the Guidelines and Best Practices for Large and Mass-Tort MDLs document — now in its Second Edition — which is designed to help judges and …

A New Guard At The Courthouse Door: Corporate Personal Jurisdiction In Complex Litigation After The Supreme Court’S Decision Quartet, David W. Ichel

Faculty Scholarship

In a quartet of recent decisions, the Supreme Court substantially reshaped the analysis of due process limits for a state's exercise of personal jurisdiction over corporations for the first time since its groundbreaking 1945 decision in International Shoe Co. v. Washington. The Court's decision quartet recasts the International Shoe continuum of corporate contacts for which it would be "reasonable" for the state to exercise jurisdiction based on "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" into a more rigid bright-line dichotomy between "general" and "specific" jurisdiction: for a state to exercise general (or all-purpose) jurisdiction over any suit, regardless of …

Are We Insane? The Quest For Proportionality In The Discovery Rules Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Paul W. Grimm

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Professor Stephen E. Sachs As Amicus Curiae, Bnsf Railway Co. V. Tyrrell, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

[This brief was filed in support of the petitioner in No. 16-405 (U.S., cert. granted Jan. 13, 2017).]

BNSF Railway Co. should win this case, but on statutory grounds alone. BNSF makes three arguments:

1) That Daimler AG v. Bauman forbids Montana’s exercise of general personal jurisdiction here;

2) That Congress has not sought to license the state’s exercise of jurisdiction; and

3) That such a license would be void under the Fourteenth Amendment.

BNSF’s first two arguments are fully persuasive and decide the case. As a result, the Court should decline to reach the third argument. Not only is …

Beware Of Judging A Book Just By Its Cover: Are The German Rules Of Civil Procedure, In Their Practical Application, Really As Capable To Facilitate A Speedy And Fair Trial As One Might Think?, Julia Prahl

Duke Law Master of Judicial Studies Theses

No abstract provided.

Are We Insane? The Quest For Proportionality In The Discovery Rules Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Paul W. Grimm

Duke Law Master of Judicial Studies Theses

No abstract provided.

Neutralizing The Stratagem Of “Snap Removal”: A Proposed Amendment To The Judicial Code, Arthur Hellman, Lonny Hoffman, Thomas D. Rowe Jr., Joan Steinman, Georgene Vairo

Faculty Scholarship

The “Removal Jurisdiction Clarification Act” is a narrowly tailored legislative proposal designed to resolve a widespread conflict in the federal district courts over the proper interpretation of the statutory “forum-defendant” rule.

The forum-defendant rule prohibits removal of a diversity case “if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the [forum state].” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) (emphasis added). Some courts, following the “plain language” of the statute, hold that defendants can avoid the constraints of the rule by removing diversity cases to federal court when a citizen of the forum state has …

Race, Class, And Access To Civil Justice, Sara Sternberg Greene

Faculty Scholarship

After many years of inattention, policymakers are now focused on troubling statistics indicating that members of poor and minority groups are less likely than their higher-income counterparts to seek help when they experience a civil justice problem. Indeed, roughly three-quarters of the poor do not seek legal help when they experience a civil justice problem, and inaction is even more pronounced among poor blacks. Past work on access to civil justice largely relies on unconfirmed assumptions about the behavior patterns and needs of those experiencing civil justice problems. At a time when increased attention and resources are being devoted to …

Five Questions After Atlantic Marine, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s Atlantic Marine ruling did a lot to clear up the law of forum selection. But it also left a number of live questions in place. This essay briefly discusses five of them. When a party wants to move a case to the selected forum, what procedures can it use, other than venue transfer or forum non conveniens? When is a forum selection clause valid and enforceable, as a matter of state or federal law? If the clause isn’t valid, should a federal court still give it any weight? What if there are multiple parties or claims, and …

The Teaching Of Procedure Across Common Law Systems, Erik S. Knusten, Thomas D. Rowe Jr., David Bamford, Shirley Shipman

Faculty Scholarship

What difference does the teaching of procedure make to legal education, legal scholarship, the legal profession, and civil justice reform? This first of four articles on the teaching of procedure canvasses the landscape of current approaches to the teaching of procedure in four legal systems—the United States, Canada, Australia, and England and Wales—surveying the place of procedure in the law school curriculum and in professional training, the kinds of subjects that “procedure” encompasses, and the various ways in which procedure is learned. Little sustained reflection has been carried out as to the import and impact of this longstanding law school …

Brief Of Professor Stephen E. Sachs As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

The parties in this case defend two sides of a many-sided circuit split. This brief argues that a third view is correct.

If a contract requires suit in a particular forum, and the plaintiff sues somewhere else, how may the defendant raise the issue? Petitioner Atlantic Marine Construction Company suggests a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) or 28 U.S.C. § 1406, on the theory that the contract renders venue improper. Respondent J-Crew Management, Inc. contends that venue remains proper, and that the defendant¹s only remedy is a transfer motion under § 1404.

Both sides are wrong. Forum-selection …

Evaluating And Improving The Mdl Process, Francis Mcgovern, John G. Heyburn

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Defining The Problem Of Cost In Federal Civil Litigation, Emery G. Lee Iii, Thomas E. Willging

Duke Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Discovering A Better Way: The Need For Effective Civil Litigation Reform, John H. Beisner

Duke Law Journal

This Article addresses the myriad problems posed by unfettered discovery in the United States Rather than promoting fairness and efficiency in the American legal system, plaintiffs today often use discovery in an abusive and vexatious manner to coerce defendants into accepting quick settlements Over the past several decades, discovery has expanded in both scope and magnitude such that discovery costs now account for at least half of the total litigation costs in any given case The advent of electronic discovery has only exacerbated the problem, given the sheer number of electronic documents generated in the course of business and the …

Sonia, What’S A Nice Person Like You Doing In Company Like That, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Politics And Civil Procedure Rulemaking: Reflections On Experience, Paul D. Carrington

Duke Law Journal

This Article is a reflection on personal experience as well as an account of what has happened to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the most recent quarter century It observes that the Supreme Court of the United States has assigned to itself a role in making procedural law inconsistent with the Rules Enabling Act of 1934 or any more-recent utterance of Congress This procedural law made by the Court is responsive to the desire of business interests to weaken the ability of citizens to enforce laws enacted to protect them from business misconduct The Article concludes with the …

If We Don’T Get Civil Gideon: Trying To Make The Best Of The Civil-Justice Market, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

This article considers what market-oriented or market-regulation approaches might be most practical and helpful in trying to satisfy unmet civil legal-service needs and how much it appears that such approaches may be able to succeed in doing so.

Merton And The Hot Tub: Scientific Conventions And Expert Evidence In Australian Civil Procedure, Gary Edmond

Law and Contemporary Problems

Recently in Australia, common-law judges began to modify the way expert evidence is prepared and presented. Judges from a range of civil jurisdictions have conscientiously sought to reduce expert partisanship and the extent of expert disagreement in an attempt to enhance procedural efficiency and improve access to justice. One of these reforms, concurrent evidence, enables expert witnesses to participate in a joint session with considerable testimonial latitude. This represents a shift away from an adversarial approach and a conscientious attempt to foster scientific values and norms. Here, Edmond describes how changes to Australian civil procedure, motivated by judicial concerns about …

Civil Procedure To Enforce Transnational Rights?, Paul D. Carrington

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Constitutional Battle Over The Public Interest Litigant Exception To Rule 82, Abizer Zanzi

Alaska Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Revocability Of Contract Provisions Controlling Resolution Of Future Disputes Between The Parties, Paul D. Carrington, Paul Y. Castle

Law and Contemporary Problems

The Supreme Court has vastly expanded the applicability of arbitration legislation, making it applicable to many types of contracts to which the application of the revocability doctrine would make better sense. This article corrects the misunderstanding of the policies served by the common law rule and suggests the rule's revival for application to many of the contracts to which the Supreme Court has expanded the application of the Federal Arbitration Act.

Correcting Federalism Mistakes In Statutory Interpretation: The Supreme Court And The Federal Arbitration Act, David S. Schwartz

Law and Contemporary Problems

The current judicial treatment of the Federal Arbitration Act is an embarrassment to a Supreme Court whose majority is supposed to be leading a federalism revival, if not a federalism revolution. In 1984, in Southland Corp. v. Keating, the Court held that the FAA is substantive federal law that preempts state laws regulating arbitration agreements. The Court thereby transformed a quaint, 60-year-old procedural statute into "a permanent, unauthorized eviction of state-court power to adjudicate a potentially large class of disputes," as well as an eviction of state lawmaking power over the traditional state domain of contract law. Even worse, Southland …

The High Cost Of Mandatory Consumer Arbitration, Mark E. Budnitz

Law and Contemporary Problems

This article critically examines a sampling of arbitration agreements and the rules of the major arbitration service providers and concludes that the cost of arbitration is often prohibitively high, either because consumers simply cannot afford the fees attendant to filing and prosecuting a claim or because the costs of bringing a claim outweigh the benefits of any potential remedies.

Control Over Dispute-System Design And Mandatory Commercial Arbitration, Lisa B. Bingham

Law and Contemporary Problems

This article argues that mandatory arbitration is not itself the problem. The problem is instead that in some instances, one party to the dispute has exclusive control of the design of the dispute-resolution system. Consequently, research on mandatory arbitration should concentrate on who is structuring it, how they structure it, why this is so and how these choices affect dispute outcomes.

Contracting With Tortfeasors: Mandatory Arbitration Clauses And Personal Injury Claims, Elizabeth G. Thornburg

Law and Contemporary Problems

This article examines some of the cases in which courts have enforced arbitration clauses in personal injury litigation and considers why courts have reached the outcomes they have. It evaluates the ways that arbitration can disturb the traditional values of procedural justice, contractual fairness and the enforcement of tort-based duties. It suggests changes in the law regarding mandatory arbitration of personal injury claims and explores the extent to which change is possible.

A Reflection On Rulemaking: The Rule 11 Experience, Paul D. Carrington, Andrew Wasson

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Civil Justice Systems In Europe And The United States, Hein Kötz

Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law

No abstract provided.

The Civil Jury And American Democracy, Paul D. Carrington

Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law

No abstract provided.

Keeping The “Civil” In Civil Litigation: The Need For A Punitive Damage-Actual Damage Link In Title Vii Cases , David C. Searle

Duke Law Journal

No abstract provided.