Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure. Rule 55 – Default Judgement, Robert Bloom
Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure. Rule 55 – Default Judgement, Robert Bloom
Robert Bloom
No abstract provided.
Jurisdictionality And Bowles V. Russell, Scott Dodson
Jurisdictionality And Bowles V. Russell, Scott Dodson
Scott Dodson
When is a limitation “jurisdictional,” and when is it not? Litigators encounter these questions all the time in statutory coverage issues, in time limitations, and in a host of other preconditions. They are critical, for jurisdictional limitations are not subject to waiver or equitable exceptions, may be raised at any time, and obligate courts to monitor and raise them sua sponte. In Bowles v. Russell, the Court held that the statutory time limitation for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. This essay critiques Bowles, predicts some of the difficulties that it might cause, and offers a better approach.
Pleading Standards After Bell Atlantic V. Twombly, Scott Dodson
Pleading Standards After Bell Atlantic V. Twombly, Scott Dodson
Scott Dodson
On May 21, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and gutted the venerable language from Conley v. Gibson that every civil procedure professor and student can recite almost by heart: that “a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitled him to relief.” This Essay explains how Bell Atlantic did so and discusses some of its implications for pleading claims in the future.
Punitive Damages And Valuing Harm, Alexandra B. Klass
Punitive Damages And Valuing Harm, Alexandra B. Klass
Alexandra B. Klass
In 2003, the Supreme Court created a presumption that only single-digit ratios of punitive damages to compensatory damages would satisfy substantive due process limits. The exception to this presumption is when the defendant’s misconduct results in only a small amount of compensatory damages or when harm is difficult to value. This Article proposes that while lower courts have properly departed from single-digit ratios where the compensatory damage are small, they have had more difficulty doing so when harm is difficult to value. As a result, lower courts are mechanically applying a single-digit ratio in cases where the Court’s current framework …
How Well Do U.S. Judgments Fare In Europe?, Samuel P. Baumgartner
How Well Do U.S. Judgments Fare In Europe?, Samuel P. Baumgartner
Samuel P. Baumgartner
Transnational cases have become a prominent part of the litigation landscape in the United States. Class actions against foreign defendants are widespread, the Alien Tort Claims Act has emerged as a mainstay of proceedings to enforce international human rights law in U.S. courts, and the globalization of the economy has led to an increase in transnational regulatory litigation. In all these cases, however, the parties need to ask themselves whether an ensuing judgment or settlement can be recognized or enforced abroad. For quite some time, the perception in the United States has been that U.S. judgments do not fare very …
In Defense Of Complete Preemption, Paul E. Mcgreal
In Defense Of Complete Preemption, Paul E. Mcgreal
Paul E. McGreal
Recent writings by Professors Gil Seinfeld and Trevor Morrison criticize the Supreme Court's complete preemption doctrine as misguided and unconstitutional, respectively. Professor Seinfeld suggests reforming the doctrine around field preemption, and Professor Morrison rejects complete preemption as inconsistent with separation of powers. This response defends the Supreme Court's doctrine as it currently stands: A state law claim arises under federal law (and so may be removed to federal court) when a federal statute both preempts the claim and supplies an exclusive federal remedy. This doctrine is a sensible application of the well-pleaded complaint rule that prevents improper circumvention of federal …
Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure. Rule 55 – Default Judgement, Robert Bloom
Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure. Rule 55 – Default Judgement, Robert Bloom
Robert M. Bloom
No abstract provided.
Nonjurisdictionality Or Inequity, Elizabeth C. Burch
Nonjurisdictionality Or Inequity, Elizabeth C. Burch
Elizabeth Chamblee Burch
This short piece, written for the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, responds to Professor Scott Dodson's comment on Bowles v. Russell, titled Jurisdictionality and Bowles v. Russell. Dodson proposes to navigate a path between Justice Thomas's majority opinion and Justice Souter's dissent by embracing Thomas's use of "mandatory" and Souter's argument for deeming appellate deadlines "nonjurisdictional." Considering the systemic, equitable policies underlying Rule 4(a)(6) and the prototypical examples distinguishing jurisdictional rules (those delineating classes of cases) from nonjurisdictional claim-processing rules, this nonjurisdictional alternative makes sense. It is the "mandatory" aspect of Professor Dodson's proposal that concerns me; it leaves no …
The Forum Defendant Rule In Arkansas, Scott Dodson
The Forum Defendant Rule In Arkansas, Scott Dodson
Scott Dodson
This article analyzes the circuit split (between the Eighth Circuit and the other circuits) on the jurisdictionality of the forum defendant rule, the rule that prevents a resident defendant from removing a state case to federal court on diversity grounds.