Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Deconstructing Juryless Fact-Finding In Civil Cases, Shaakirrah R. Sanders
Deconstructing Juryless Fact-Finding In Civil Cases, Shaakirrah R. Sanders
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
In many states, legislatures have mandated juryless fact-finding in common law–based civil cases by imposing compensatory damage caps that effectively lessen the jury’s traditional and historic role as injury valuator. The primary purpose of most caps was to reign in “excessive” civil jury verdicts, which allegedly caused “skyrocketing” medical malpractice insurance premiums and litigation costs. But no legislatively imposed cap is triggered by a preliminary finding of excessiveness. Trial judges have no authority to determine whether application of a cap is just or fair to the (often) severely injured plaintiff. Despite a shared interpretive methodology with regards to the nature …
Disruptions' Function: A Defense Of (Some) Form Objections Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Amir Shachmurove
Disruptions' Function: A Defense Of (Some) Form Objections Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Amir Shachmurove
Seton Hall Circuit Review
No abstract provided.
If It (Ain’T) Broke, Don’T Fix It: Twombly, Iqbal, Rule 84, And The Forms, Justin Olson
If It (Ain’T) Broke, Don’T Fix It: Twombly, Iqbal, Rule 84, And The Forms, Justin Olson
Seattle University Law Review
The past decade has not been kind to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the Rules). From the growth of summary judgment as a mechanism to let judges instead of juries determine facts, to the love–hate relationship with class actions, judicial interpretations of the Rules have revealed a trend toward complicating the ability of plaintiffs to find redress for their claims. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the shifting standards of pleading requirements under Rule 8. Much has been written by academics and practitioners alike regarding the ripples caused by Twombly and Iqbal. Although the Court would like to …
The Necessary Narrowing Of General Personal Jurisdiction, William Grayson Lambert
The Necessary Narrowing Of General Personal Jurisdiction, William Grayson Lambert
Marquette Law Review
General personal jurisdiction allows a court to issue a binding judgment against a defendant in any case, even if the facts giving rise to the case are unrelated to that forum. In the six decades after International Shoe v. Washington, courts held that general jurisdiction existed whenever a defendant had substantial continuous and systemic contacts with the forum. This rule was narrowed significantly in 2011, however, when the Supreme Court in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown held that general jurisdiction was properly exercised only when a defendant had sufficient contacts to be “at home” in the forum.
Salvaging General Jurisdiction: Satisfying Daimler And Proposing A New Framework, B. Travis Brown
Salvaging General Jurisdiction: Satisfying Daimler And Proposing A New Framework, B. Travis Brown
Belmont Law Review
General jurisdiction is slowly being eroded. What was once a well-trodden path used to hale corporate defendants into the courthouse is now increasingly barred or shut. In its most recent general jurisdiction opinion, Daimler AG v. Bauman, the U.S. Supreme Court continued its trend towards divesting general jurisdiction of its utility. This is a mistake. The 21st century’s economy is increasingly complex, and general jurisdiction must evolve with this complexity. Failing to do so allows intricate corporate structures to insulate corporate defendants from the jurisdiction of U.S courts. Although the theory of personal jurisdiction has come a long way since …