Law Commons^™

Rhetoric And Reality In The Law Of Federal Courts: Professor Fallon's Faulty Premise, Michael L. Wells

Scholarly Works

Richard Fallon's recent article, "The Ideologies of Federal Courts Law," [74 Va. L. Rev. 1141 (1988)] offers valuable insights into a bewildering body of Supreme Court doctrine. He effectively demonstrates the "substantial doctrinal instability" of this body of law, and also discerns a pattern amid the chaos. Fallon's treatment of the case law and the scholarship is fair-minded, meticulous, and incisive.

I disagree, however, with one aspect of Fallon's thesis. In my view, he falters when identifying sources of the discontinuity in the doctrine. In Part I of his article he argues that the decisions reflect "two sets of incompatible …

Rule 11 Sanctions: The Special Problem Of Local Counsel, Steve Leben

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

A New Litany Of Personal Jurisdiction, Margaret G. Stewart

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Consolidating The Preliminary Injunction Hearing And Trial: Changing The Rules In The Middle Of The Game, Arthur D. Wolf

Faculty Scholarship

In this Article the Author addresses the issues surrounding consolidation, the situation that arises when a court decides the merits of a dispute based solely on the record produced at a hearing on motion for a preliminary injunction. The Author identifies some of the more flagrant abuses that trial and appellate courts have committed in reaching the merits after only a hearing on a motion for preliminary relief. The proposed amendments discussed in the Article would serve both courts and parties. They would prevent the kind of abuses discussed in this article by requiring that the parties be informed of …

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law - Civil Procedure And Practice, William Hamilton Bryson

Law Faculty Publications

Rules 2:41 and 3:3(c) of the Rules of Virginia Supreme Court ("Rules of Court") require the dismissal of an action if service of process is not accomplished within one year after the filing thereof unless the plaintiff can show "due diligence" or good cause for the delay. 3 Since the plaintiff can get personal service on a defendant who has absconded by means of the general long arm statute,4 it will be a heavy burden in practice to show due diligence or good cause or it will be a highly unusual situation. Recently, two issues have arisen regarding these rules.

Rule 11 And Civil Rights Litigation, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The recent amendment of rule 11 may well have engendered more controversy than any other revision since the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were first promulgated one-half century ago. The new version essentially requires that judges impose sanctions on lawyers and parties who fail to conduct reasonable inquiries before filing court papers. The amendment's adoption was prompted by increasing concern about abuse of the litigation process and about the "litigation explosion" -the perception that unprecedented numbers of civil cases were being filed and that too many lacked merit. Proponents have hailed the revised rule as the savior of the civil …

Note: Insuring Rule 11 Sanctions, Cary Coglianese

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Mistakes Lawyers Make In Discovery, William W. Schwarzer

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Federal Rules, The Adversary Process, And Discovery Reform, William W. Schwarzer

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Transnational Discovery In The Extraterritorial Application Of U.S. Antitrust Laws, Maria Eugenia Gimenez

LLM Theses and Essays

After World War II, there was a push for economic integration to promote growth and prevent conflict. Multinational corporations became key players, but their mobility and links to different countries created legal challenges, with nations seeking to assert their laws and policies over foreign entities. U.S. courts’ efforts to compel compliance with antitrust laws abroad can lead to conflicts with foreign jurisdictions, especially concerning the disclosure of evidence held by foreign entities. The “effects doctrine” allows U.S. antitrust laws to be applied to foreign conduct if they have intended economic effects in the U.S. Subsequent cases refined this doctrine, considering …

Judges Against Juries—Appellate Review Of Federal Civil Jury Verdicts, Eric Schnapper

Articles

This Article seeks to assess the treatment of civil jury verdicts by the federal courts of appeals during the two decades in which the Supreme Court has refused to scrutinize the actions of the circuit courts. Part I summarizes the manner in which the Supreme Court, prior to 1968, aggressively enforced the seventh amendment. Part II, focusing on a one-year period between the fall of 1984 and the fall of 1985, describes the actions of the courts of appeals in resolving the 208 reported cases in which a party challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury verdict. …

Sexual Harassment Cases And The Law Of Evidence: A Proposed Rule, Catherine O'Neill

Faculty Articles

Federal Rule of Evidence 412 eliminates from the jury's consideration during a criminal rape trial evidence of the victim's past sexual experiences in all but a few narrowly drawn circumstances. In enacting Rule 412, Congress' primary purpose was to spare victims of rape the degrading and unwarranted intrusions into intimate details of their private lives that had formerly been common practice in the federal courts. Part I of this comment discusses the background, structure and rationale of Federal Rule of Evidence 412. Part II argues that the justifications for the enactment of Rule 412 in the context of rape also …

The Myth Of The Disposable Opinion: Unpublished Opinions And Government Litigants In The United States Courts Of Appeals, Lauren K. Robel

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Public Law Litigation And The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The public interest litigant is no longer a nascent phenomenon in American jurisprudence. Born of the need of large numbers of people who individually lack the economic wherewithal or the logistical capacity to vindicate important social values or their own specific interests through the courts, these litigants now participate actively in much federal civil litigation: public law litigation. Despite the pervasive presence of public interest litigants, the federal judiciary has accorded them a mixed reception, particularly when applying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Many federal courts have applied numerous Rules in ways that disadvantage public interest litigants, especially in …

Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction In All Federal Question Cases: A New Rule 4 Note, Howard M. Erichson

Faculty Scholarship

Every litigator who remembers first year civil procedure knows that the personal jurisdiction1 of federal courts is limited by state territorial boundaries. That limitation, however, may soon disappear in federal question cases. A new rule of civil procedure, currently under consideration by the federal rulemakers, would provide for nationwide service of process in all federal question cases. The proposed rule would profoundly affect forum selection in the federal courts. This Note argues in favor of the adoption of the new Rule 4's nationwide personal jurisdiction provision. Not only would the new Rule 4 be a legitimate exercise of authority, but …

Completing Equity's Conquest? Reflections On The Future Of Trial Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Richard L. Marcus

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Discovery Vices And Trans-Substantive Virtues In The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr.

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Report Of The Third Circuit Task Force On Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 11: An Update, Stephen B. Burbank

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Hold The Corks: A Comment On Paul Carrington's "Substance" And "Procedure" In The Rules Enabling Act, Stephen B. Burbank

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Civil Practice, Jay C. Carlisle

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

During the 1988 Survey year, new sanction rules, effective January 1, 1989, were approved by the Court of Appeals, several Uniform Rules were amended: and existing rules applied by our courts. New legislation was also passed relating to a comprehensive Interest On Lawyers Account (IOLA). The Court of Appeals abolished the fiduciary shield doctrine: limited the reach of our long-arm statute (CPLR 302(a)(1)) in defamation actions: and ruled that motions to dismiss cannot be converted into summary judgments without notice to all parties. The Court of Appeals also refined the doctrine of issue preclusion, which has recently been expanded, and …

The Trojan Horse: How The Declaratory Judgment Act Created A Cause Of Action And Expanded Federal Jurisdiction While The Supreme Court Wasn't Looking, Donald L. Doernberg, Michael B. Mushlin

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This Article examines the Court's treatment of declaratory judgment actions. It demonstrates that the Court's ‘procedural only’ view of the Act frustrates congressional intent and is neither analytically sound nor practical. Part I discusses the general rules governing federal question jurisdiction and the Court's method for dealing with declaratory judgment cases. Part II explores the history and purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act and its relationship to federal question jurisdiction. This study demonstrates that the Supreme Court's assumptions about the jurisdictional import of the Declaratory Judgment Act find no support in the legislative history. Further, it shows that the Court's …

History Comes Calling: Dean Griswold Offers New Evidence About The Jurisdictional Debate Surrounding The Enactment Of The Declaratory Judgment Act, Donald L. Doernberg, Michael B. Mushlin

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

In a recent article, we proposed that the Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934 was intended, contrary to the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation, to enlarge the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts. When Congress considered the Act, jurisdictional concerns centered around whether declaratory judgments would violate the case-or-controversy clause, not whether introduction of the device would expand the federal question jurisdiction Congress already had authorized. There is, indeed, substantial evidence that Congress intended to expand federal question jurisdiction to include at least two, and possibly three, case models; there is virtually no evidence supporting the contrary position taken by the …

The Transformation Of American Civil Procedure: The Example Of Rule 11, Stephen B. Burbank

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.