Law Commons^™

Bringing "Civil"Ity Into Immigration Law: Using The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure To Fix Immigration Adjudication, Richard Frankel -- Professor Of Law

Vanderbilt Law Review

Government lawyers frequently argue, and courts have frequently held, that noncitizens in removal proceedings do not have the same rights as defendants in criminal proceedings. A common argument made to support this position is that removal proceedings are civil matters. Accordingly, a noncitizen facing deportation has fewer due process protections than a criminal defendant, and deportation proceedings similarly provide fewer protections than criminal proceedings.

In many ways, however, the rules governing immigration proceedings differ markedly from those governing civil actions in court. Immigration proceedings suffer from arcane and hypertechnical procedures that impede immigrants from having their claims reviewed on the …

Insurers, Illusions Of Judgment & Litigation, Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski

Vanderbilt Law Review

Insurers play a critical role in the civil justice system. By providing liability insurance to parties who would otherwise be untenable as defendants, insurers make litigation possible. Once litigation materializes, insurers provide representation, pay legal fees, and often play a central role in resolving disputes through settlement or adjudication. In this paper, we explore empirically how these key litigation players make important decisions in the litigation process, like evaluating a case, deciding whether to settle, and if so, on what terms. We find that insurers, though not entirely immune to the effects of cognitive illusions that have been shown to …

Toward A New Federalism In State Civil Justice: Developing A Uniform Code Of State Civil Procedure Through A Collaborative Rule-Making Process, Glenn S. Koppel

Vanderbilt Law Review

There is a sense of "deja vu" to the vision of a uniform body of state procedural law applicable in every state court throughout the nation. "Swift v. Tysons'" dream of a nationally uniform body of state substantive common law that mirrored an evolving body of uniform federal common law never materialized because state courts refused to defer to federal common law, which was applied only in federal court. Swift itself was overturned in 1938 by the Supreme Court's ruling in "Erie Railroad v. Tompkins" that federal courts must defer to the substantive lawmaking authority of state courts. But almost …

Common Sense And Other Legal Reforms, Carl Tobias

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Contract with America (the "Contract") was the centerpiece of the Republican Party's strategy in the 1994 congressional campaigns. The Common Sense Legal Reforms Act (CSLRA") was the ninth tenet and a critical constituent of the Contract, which the Republican Party promised that the new Congress would vote upon within one hundred days. Once the Grand Old Party swept into office, capturing the House of Representatives for the first time in four decades, many members of Congress were expressly committed to honoring the Contract with America. Accordingly, nearly one hundred Republican sponsors introduced the Common Sense Legal Reforms Act during …