Law Commons^™

The Haves Of Procedure, Ion Meyn

William & Mary Law Review

In litigation, “haves” and “have-nots” battle over what procedures should govern. Yet, much greater hostilities have been avoided—a war between the “haves” themselves. “Criminal haves” (prosecutors) and “civil haves” (institutional players) litigate in separate territories and under different sets of rules. This is good, for them, because they have incompatible objectives. This Article contends that protecting the “haves” from each other has profoundly influenced the development of procedure in the United States.

The “haves” reap significant benefits in being insulated from each other as they seek rules responsive to their unique preferences. A “criminal have” seeks easy access to the …

Removal Without Approval? Corporate Litigative Authority To Consent To Federal Removal Where Adverse Parties Are Co-Equal Shareholder Co-Directors, James M. Mcclure

William & Mary Business Law Review

The Case of Swart v. Pawar involved a novel question of law: can a president of a corporation claim authority on behalf of that corporation to consent to federal removal in a suit against a co-equal shareholder co-director even though that president lacks board approval or explicit authority from the business’s bylaws or charter? To address this question, the parties in Swart analogized removal to suit initiation and defense. Since the federal courts hearing the case did not assess the validity of these analogical arguments or a president’s removal authority generally, this Note evaluates the analogies as well as several …

Social Media, Manipulation, And Violence, Allyson Haynes Stuart

South Carolina Journal of International Law and Business

No abstract provided.

Rethinking Lawyer Ethics To Allow The Rules Of Evidence, Rules Of Civil Procedure, And Private Agreements To Control Ethical Obligations Involving Inadvertent Disclosures, Tory L. Lucas

Saint Louis University Law Journal

This Article seeks to align the rules of ethics with the rules of evidence, rules of civil procedure, and private agreements in confronting the vexing issue of inadvertent disclosures. It proposes a clear-eyed modification of Model Rule of Professional Conduct 4.4(b) to require a lawyer to use an inadvertent disclosure of confidential or privileged information unless prohibited by the rules of evidence, rules of civil procedure, or private agreement. This inadvertent-disclosure proposal fairly balances the interests of the justice system, civility in the legal profession, and protection of clients.