Law Commons^™

Appealing Compelled Disclosures In Discovery That Threaten First Amendment Rights, Richard L. Heppner Jr.

Law Faculty Publications

Last year, the Supreme Court held in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta that a California anti-fraud policy compelling charities to disclose the identities of their major donors violated the First Amendment. That holding stems from the 1958 case NAACP v. Alabama where the Court held that a discovery order compelling the NAACP to disclose the names of its members violated the First Amendment right of free association because of the members’ justifiable fear of retaliation.

In the over sixty years since NAACP v. Alabama, the Court has only decided a handful of cases about how compelled disclosures of …

The Ripple Effects Of Gideon: Recognizing The Human Right To Counsel In Civil Adversarial Proceedings, Jonathan K. Stubbs

Law Faculty Publications

Procedural fairness and equal protection were the core of Gideon’s reasoning for a right to counsel for indigent criminal defendants. Under the same constitutional values, there should be a right to legal assistance of counsel for indigent civil litigants, especially in adversarial proceedings. This Article outlines the constitutional basis for a civil right to counsel. Further, it stresses the need for legislation to address the massive shortfall in legal representation available to indigent persons in the United States. Recognition of civil Gideon as part of the Constitution’s promise of justice accommodates a moral revolution. It exemplifies a shift in …

Conceptualizing Appealability: Resisting The Supreme Court's Categorical Imperative, Richard L. Heppner Jr.

Law Faculty Publications

This paper draws on insights from cognitive psychology to understand how courts conceive of categories of orders. Cognitive psychologists have shown that people understand the world using not only "classical categories" based on logical definitions, but also "conceptual categories" based on fuzzier, intuitive concepts of similarity and typicality. This paper approaches appealability as a two-step process-first, categorizing the order and, second, applying the appropriate doctrine. Previous interventions have focused on whether different doctrines use rules or standards at the second step. This paper focuses on the initial categorization step.

This paper makes two contributions to the study of federal appealability. …

The Parity Principle, Luke P. Norris

Law Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 (FAA) in a broad way that has allowed firms to widely privatize disputes with workers and consumers. The resulting expansive growth of American arbitration law has left commentators both concerned about the structural inequalities that permeate the regime and in search of an effective limiting principle. This Article develops such a limiting principle from the text and history of the FAA itself. The Article reinterprets the text and history of section 1 of the statute, which, correctly read, excludes individual employee-employer disputes from the statute’s coverage. The Article argues …

Bespoke Discovery, Jessica Erickson

Law Faculty Publications

The U.S. legal system gives contracting parties significant freedom to customize the procedures that will govern their future disputes. With forum selection clauses, parties can decide where they will litigate future disputes. With fee-shifting provisions, they can choose who will pay for these suits. And with arbitration clauses, they can make upfront decisions to opt out of the traditional legal system altogether. Parties can also waive their right to appeal, their right to a jury trial, and their right to file a class action. Bespoke procedure, in other words, is commonplace in the United States.

Far less common, however, are …

Labor And The Origins Of Civil Procedure, Luke P. Norris

Law Faculty Publications

A series of changes within civil procedure over the past few decades—including the rise of private arbitration, the accompanying decline of public adjudication, and the erection of barriers to class actions—have diminished the economic power of workers, consumers, and diffuse economic actors. This Article demonstrates that avoiding these economic consequences was a central goal of those who crafted American federal civil procedure in the first place. Driven to action by the procedural issues involved in labor injunction cases, leading procedural reformers behind the modern regime strove to make American federal civil procedure sensitive to questions of political economy and designed …

The Dormant Commerce Clause As A Limit On Personal Jurisdiction, John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

For over 70 years, the Due Process Clause has defined the law of personal jurisdiction. This makes sense, because being forced to stand trial in a far-off state will sometimes be fundamentally unfair. What does not make sense, however, is the Dormant Commerce Clause’s apparent irrelevance to personal jurisdiction. The Dormant Commerce Clause addresses state laws affecting interstate commerce, and a plaintiff’s choice of forum is often a commercially driven choice between different state courts. So why isn’t the Dormant Commerce Clause part of personal jurisdiction doctrine?

This Article makes the case for its relevance, and demonstrates how the Dormant …

Virginia Practice Series: Jury Instructions, Ronald J. Bacigal, Margaret Ivey Bacigal

Law Faculty Publications

Virginia Practice Series-Jury Instructions is a continuation and update of previous editions, which won widespread approval among the bench and bar for almost 40 years.

As in the past, this book is primarily confined to the most common areas of jury trial work, torts and criminal law. Where possible, the language of the instructions is taken directly from reported cases or case records. Where this is not possible, we have set out instructions that should meet both the general rules regarding the form of instructions and the specific substantive legal rules. In the latter cases, close attention has been paid …

A Further Note On Federal Causes Of Action, John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

In the article, I argue that federal causes of action ought to be treated as (1) distinct from substantive rights, (2) synonymous with the availability of a remedy (but not whether a remedy will in fact issue) and (3) distinct from subject matter jurisdiction (unless Congress instructs otherwise). This thesis is built principally on a historical recounting of the cause of action from eighteenth century England to twenty-first century America. In taking an historical approach, I did not mean to argue that federal courts are bound to adhere to centuries-old conceptions of the cause of action. I merely used history …

Why Insurance Contracts Might Be The Trick To Police Reform, John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

How do lawsuits deter misconduct? That is an issue that Professor Joanna Schwartz has written about before, and her latest article on the topic, How Governments Pay: Lawsuits, Budgets and Police Reform, could not be more timely. Over the past year, our county has witnessed dramatic instances of police abuse and the public is understandably demanding reform. Schwartz’s terrific article explains why civil rights actions may fail to instigate reform, and suggests how insurance contracts, of all things, can play a role in fixing this problem.

Heightened Procedure, Jessica Erickson

Law Faculty Publications

When it comes to combating meritless litigation, how much should procedure matter? Conventional wisdom holds that procedure should be uniform, with the same rules applying in all civil cases. Yet the causes of meritless litigation are not uniform, making it difficult for identical procedures to address the problem. As a result, lawmakers frequently turn to what this Article calls “heightened procedure”—additional procedures applicable only in designated areas of the law. Across a variety of substantive areas, lawmakers have adopted heightened pleading standards, stays of discovery, agency review, and a multitude of other tools from the heightened procedural toolbox. Despite the …

What’S Sovereignty Got To Do With It?: Due Process, Personal Jurisdiction And The Supreme Court, Wendy Collins Perdue

Law Faculty Publications

In this symposium contribution I do two things. First, I explore the relationship between sovereignty and due process in personal jurisdiction in some of the more problematic aspects of the Nicastro opinions. I conclude that, although at one time the concept of sovereignty provided an important analytic component of personal jurisdiction analysis, this is largely no longer true.

Corporate Governance In The Courtroom: An Empirical Analysis, Jessica M. Erickson

Law Faculty Publications

Conventional wisdom is that shareholder derivative suits are dead. Yet this death knell is decidedly premature. The current conception of shareholder derivative suits is based on an empirical record limited to suits filed in Delaware or on behalf of Delaware corporations, leaving suits outside this sphere in the shadows of corporate law scholarship. This Article aims to fill this gap by presenting the first empirical examination of shareholder derivative suits in the federal courts. Using an original, hand-collected data set, my study reveals that shareholder derivative suits are far from dead. Shareholders file more shareholder derivative suits than securities class …

What Federal Rulemakers Can Learn From State Procedural Innovations, Seymour Moskowitz

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Clear As Mud: How The Uncertain Precedential Status Of Unpublished Opinions Muddles Qualified Immunity Determinations, David R. Cleveland

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

National Juries For National Cases: Preserving Citizen Participation In Large-Scale Litigation, Laura G. Dooley

Law Faculty Publications

Procedural evolution in complex litigation seems to have left the civil jury behind. Reliance on aggregating devices, such as multidistrict litigation and class actions, as well as settlement pressure created by “bellwether” cases, has resulted in cases of national scope being tried by local juries. Local juries thus have the potential to impose their values on the rest of the country. This trend motivates parties to forum-shop, and some commentators suggest eliminating jury trials in complex cases altogether. Yet the jury is at the heart of our uniquely American understanding of civil justice, and the Seventh Amendment mandates its use …

Discovering Discovery: Non-Party Access To Pretrial Information In The Federal Courts 1938-2006, Seymour Moskowitz

Law Faculty Publications

In the modern era, the pretrial process is critical to the disposition of almost all litigation. The vast majority of cases never go to trial. Those which are contested at trial and upon appeal are often decided upon the results of the information gather before trial. This is true in both private litigation and in public interest cases where "private attorneys general" may only function effectively with court-enforced discovery. Despite the significance of the Article III courts to our society, transparency in their processes for resolving civil disputes has been severely compromised. Threats to openness emanate from multiple sources. This …

Reassessing The Purposes Of Federal Question Jurisdiction, John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

For ages, judges and legal academics have claimed that federal question jurisdiction has three purposes: to provide litigants with a judge experienced in federal law, to protect litigants from state court hostility toward federal claims, and to preserve uniformity in federal law. Because federal claims, for the most part, have always been cognizable in state courts, these purposes imply that state courts are less experienced, more hostile, and more likely to adjudicate federal law in ways that decrease the uniformity of federal law. Despite the ongoing allegiance to this conception of federal question jurisdictionand by implication, state court adjudication of …

The Merger Of Common-Law And Equity Pleading In Virginia, William Hamilton Bryson

Law Faculty Publications

This article describes the separation of common law and equity in Virginia leading up to the 2006 merger of common law and equity pleading and the problems that remain to be solved by the courts.

Cumulative Supplement To Jurisdiction In Civil Action, Wendy Collins Perdue

Law Faculty Publications

Cumulative supplement to Jurisdiction in Civil Action Third Edition.

Rule 11 And Rule Revision, Carl W. Tobias, Margaret L. Sanner

Law Faculty Publications

Numerous observers of modem civil practice, whose views range across a comparatively broad spectrum, consider the 1983 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 the most controversial revision since the United States Supreme Court promulgated the original Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938.1 Counsel and litigants overused and abused the 1983 modification to Rule 11 by inappropriately stressing the compensatory goal of the proviso and improperly deemphasizing the stricture's deterrence objective. Many judges vigorously enforced Rule 11, often finding violations and imposing burdensome sanctions which frequently included large attorney's fees. This activity of lawyers and parties, as well …

The Story Of Shaffer: Allocating Jurisdictional Authority Among The States, Wendy Collins Perdue

Law Faculty Publications

Shaffer v. Heitner is one of a long series of Supreme Court cases addressing the scope of state-court territorial authority. Indeed, Shaffer is the first of a dozen modern cases that delineated the Court's current conception of the constitutional limits on state-court jurisdictional authority.

Determining whether a court has jurisdiction to hear a dispute is an important preliminary step in any litigation. But the constitutional doctrine the Court has developed in this area is also an interesting window on the Court's more general understanding of the allocation of power among the states.

Aliens, The Internet, And "Purposeful Availment": A Reassessment Of Fifth Amendment Limits On Personal Jurisdiction, Wendy Collins Perdue

Law Faculty Publications

The international community has been struggling with questions of who should regulate the Internet and how, but little consensus has emerged. For the United States, consideration of the pros and cons of the alternative jurisdictional approaches to e-commerce and cyberspace is complicated by an overlay of constitutional law. While the rest of the world considers the policy implications of a country of origin versus a country of destination approach, the United States is wrestling with what constitutes "purposeful availment" under the Due Process Clause.

The Supreme Court has never squarely considered what limits the Fifth Amendment imposes on assertions of …

More Proposals To Simplify Modern Federal Procedure, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Response to Edward H. Cooper, Simplified Rules of Federal Procedure1, 100 Mich. L. Rev. 1794 (2002)

The Past And Future Of The Federal Rules In State Courts, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Response to Prof. John B. Oakley's writings comparing state court procedural rules with the Federal Rules of Civil procedure.

Professor Oakley's substantial contribution to the Nevada Law Journal dispute resolution symposium neither accords much treatment to how or why the earlier uniformity between state and federal procedural regimes changed so dramatically over such a brief period nor proffers very many suggestions for the future. My response aspires primarily to scrutinize how federal-state consistency deteriorated and secondarily to consider what, if any, measures should be instituted to change the present condition of state civil procedure in the fifty jurisdictions comprising the …

Recent Developments In Federal Jurisdiction And Pleading, Wendy Collins Perdue

Law Faculty Publications

Recent developments in federal jurisdiction and pleading including subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and notice, venue, forum non conveniens, forum selection clauses, and pleading.

Local Federal Civil Procedure For The Twenty-First Century, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Federal civil procedure is now byzantine. Lawyers and parties face, and federal judges apply, a bewildering panorama of requirements. There are strictures in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as Title 28 of the United States Code and dozens of substantive statutes. A stunning array of local measures-including local rules; general, special, and scheduling orders; individual-judge practices; and mechanisms that courts adopted under the Civil Justice Reform Act (CJRA) of 1990 to reduce cost and delay-also govern cases in all ninety-four districts. Many of the provisions· are inconsistent or duplicative, while a significant percentage are difficult to discover, …

A Civil Discovery Dilemma For The Arizona Supreme Court, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The drafters of the 1938 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure hoped to establish those rules as a model that the states could adopt, thus fostering national and intrastate procedural uniformity. This objective was not realized generally or by very many specific jurisdictions. Observers of the increasingly fractured procedural regime in the federal arena have voiced concerns about the mounting numbers of strictures, the accelerating pace of procedural change and the growing inconsistency of the requirements imposed. Illustrative are the major 1983 and 1993 federal discovery amendments, which new discovery provisions further revised in December 2000. The Civil Justice Reform Act …

Erie Railroad V. Tompkins, Wendy Collins Perdue

Law Faculty Publications

Erie Railroad v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64 (1938), limited the power of federal courts to create judge-made law that would displace state law. Jurists view the Supreme Court's decision both a modern cornerstone of American judicial federalism and an example of legal realism's influence.

The Expiration Of The Civil Justice Reform Act Of 1990, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Ever since the United States Congress passed the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (CJRA), a minor mystery of federal court jurisprudence has been whether - and if so, precisely when - that significant and controversial legislation expired. The measure instituted unprecedented nationwide experimentation with procedures that lawmakers intended to decrease cost and delay in civil litigation, but the statute's implementation additionally balkanized federal practice and procedure.