Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Courts (3)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (2)
- Conley v. Gibson 355 U.S. 41 (1957) (2)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (2)
- Legal Evidence (2)
-
- Pleadings (2)
- Technology & Law (2)
- Trial Practice (2)
- Actions and Defenses (1)
- Adrian Zuckerman (1)
- Civil Procedure (1)
- Civil Rights (1)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- Dissent (1)
- Federal Courts (1)
- Helen Hershkoff (1)
- Jeffrey Brandon Morris (1)
- Judicial Process (1)
- Linda J. Silberman (1)
- Oscar G. Chase (1)
- Precedents (1)
- Solo Law Practice (1)
- Stare Decisis (1)
- United States 8th Circuit Court of Appeals (1)
- Vincenzo Varano (1)
- Yasuhei Taniguchi (1)
- Publication
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Circumventing Congress: How The Federal Courts Opened The Door To Impeaching Criminal Defendants With Prior Convictions, Jeffrey Bellin
Circumventing Congress: How The Federal Courts Opened The Door To Impeaching Criminal Defendants With Prior Convictions, Jeffrey Bellin
Faculty Publications
This Article spotlights the flawed analytical framework at the heart of the federal courts’ approach to one of the most controversial trial practices in American criminal jurisprudence — the admission of prior convictions to impeach the credibility of defendants who testify. As the Article explains, the flawed approach is a byproduct of the courts’ reliance on a five-factor analytical framework to implement the governing legal standard enacted by Congress in Federal Rule of Evidence 609. Tracing the evolution of the fivefactor framework from its roots in pre-Rule 609 case law, the Article demonstrates that the courts’ reinterpretation of the framework …
Pleading Civil Rights Claims In The Post-Conley Era, A. Benjamin Spencer
Pleading Civil Rights Claims In The Post-Conley Era, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Much has been made of the Supreme Court's recent pronouncements on federal civil pleading standards during the latter half of the 2006-2007 Term. Specifically, what will be the fallout from the Court's decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, a case that abrogated Conley v. Gibson's famous "no set of facts" formulation and supplanted it with a new plausibility pleading standard? This Article attempts to examine and distill the impact of Twombly on the pleading standards that lower federal courts are applying when scrutinizing civil rights claims. Two main approaches emerge: that of courts choosing to continue to apply a …
Enhancing Courtroom Presentation Through Technology, Fredric I. Lederer
Enhancing Courtroom Presentation Through Technology, Fredric I. Lederer
Popular Media
No abstract provided.
Courtroom Technology, Fredric I. Lederer, Tom O'Connor, Timothy A. Piganelli
Courtroom Technology, Fredric I. Lederer, Tom O'Connor, Timothy A. Piganelli
Popular Media
No abstract provided.
Plausibility Pleading, A. Benjamin Spencer
Plausibility Pleading, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Last Term, in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically reinterpreted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) (2), which requires a "short and plain" statement of a plaintiffs claim. The Court was unabashed about this change of course: it explicitly abrogated a core element of its 1957 decision in Conley v. Gibson, which until recently was the bedrock case undergirding the idea that ours is a system of notice pleading in which detailed facts need not be pleaded. Departing from this principle, the Court in Twombly required the pleading of facts that demonstrate the plausibility of the …
Ideological Cohesion And Precedent (Or Why The Court Only Cares About Precedent When Most Justices Agree With Each Other), Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
This Article examines the profound role that ideological cohesion plays in explaining the Supreme Court's willingness to advance a coherent vision of the law - either by overruling precedents inconsistent with that vision or by establishing rule-like precedents intended to bind the Supreme Court and lower courts in subsequent cases. Through case studies of the New Deal, Warren, and Rehnquist Courts, this Article calls attention to key differences between Courts in which five or more Justices pursue the same substantive objectives and Courts which lack a dominant voting block. In particular, when five or more Justices pursue the same substantive …
The Challenge Of Comparative Civil Procedure, Scott Dodson
The Challenge Of Comparative Civil Procedure, Scott Dodson
Faculty Publications
This Essay reviews Civil Litigation in Comparative Context (West 2007), by Oscar G. Chase, Helen Hershkoff, Linda Silberman, Yasuhei Taniguchi, Vincenzo Varano, and Adrian Zuckerman. It also identifies some areas of exceptionalist American civil procedure that recently have been converging towards global norms and argues that those convergences, if they continue, could render comparative studies particularly meaningful.
Perpetual Dissents, Allison Orr Larsen
Book Review Of Establishing Justice In Middle America: A History Of The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit, Scott Dodson
Book Review Of Establishing Justice In Middle America: A History Of The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit, Scott Dodson
Faculty Publications
This book review of Jeffrey Morris’s Establishing Justice in Middle America argues that although Morris makes an important contribution to the understudied Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, he fails to engage the reader in the personalities that populated the court, eschews the development of coherent themes running through the court’s membership changes and temporal scope, and omits important cases that helped define the court as an independent judicial body.