Law Commons^™

Integrating Transnational Perspectives Into Civil Procedure: What Not To Teach, Kevin M. Clermont

Kevin M. Clermont

No abstract provided.

Anti-Plaintiff Bias In The Federal Appellate Courts, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Kevin M. Clermont

A recent study of appellate outcomes reveals that defendants succeed significantly more often than plaintiffs on appeal from civil trials-especially from jury trials.

A Comparative View Of Standards Of Proof, Kevin M. Clermont, Emily Sherwin

Kevin M. Clermont

In common-law systems, the standard of proof for ordinary civil cases requires the party who bears the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts alleged are true. In contrast, the prevailing standard of proof for civil cases in civil-law systems is indistinguishable from the standard for criminal cases: the judge must be firmly convinced that the facts alleged are true. This striking difference in common-law and civil-law procedures has received very little attention from either civilian or comparative scholars. The preponderance standard applied in common-law systems is openly probabilistic and produces, on average, …

Plaintiphobia In The Appellate Courts: Civil Rights Really Do Differ From Negotiable Instruments, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Kevin M. Clermont

Professors Clermont and Eisenberg conducted a systematic analysis of appellate court behavior and report that defendants have a substantial advantage over plaintiffs on appeal. Their analysis attempted to control for different variables that may affect the decision to appeal or the appellate outcome, including case complexity, case type, amount in controversy, and whether there had been a judge or a jury trial. Once they accounted for these variables and explored and discarded various alternate explanations, they came to the conclusion that a defendants' advantage exists probably because of appellate judges' misperceptions that trial level adjudicators are pro-plaintiff.

Standards Of Proof Revisited, Kevin M. Clermont

Kevin M. Clermont

This Essay focuses not on how fact-finders process evidence but on how they apply the specified standard of proof to their finding. The oddity that prompts speculation is that, in noncriminal cases, the common law asks only that the fact appear more likely than not, while the Civil Law seems to apply the same high standard in these cases as it does in criminal cases. As a psychological explanation of the cognitive processes involved, some theorists posit that the bulk of fact-finding is an unconscious process, powerful but dangerous, which generates a level of confidence against which the fact-finder could …

A Global Law Of Jurisdiction And Judgments: Views From The United States And Japan, Kevin M. Clermont

Kevin M. Clermont

Japanese and U.S. legal systems, despite surprisingly similar doctrine and outlook on matters of jurisdiction and judgments, often clash: jurisdictions overlap and judgments may go unrespected, while parallel proceedings persist. The current outlook for harmonization through a multilateral Hague convention of general scope is bleak. These two countries are, however, ideally situated to reach a highly feasible bilateral agreement that would provide a better tomorrow in which jurisdiction was allocated appropriately and judgments were respected accordingly.

Surveying Work Product, Kevin M. Clermont

Kevin M. Clermont

Work product is the legal doctrine that central casting would send over. First, it boasts profundities, arising as it does from the colliding thrusts of our discovery and trial processes and from conflicting currents in our modified adversary system. Second, it will surface frequently, because the protected materials are commonly created by each side but uncommonly useful to the opponent. Third, it has generated a small mountain of lower-court case law, with the foothills forming a labyrinth of rules and wrinkles. In short, work product has for a couple of generations dramatically bewitched academics, bothered practitioners, and bewildered students. Significant …

Appeal From Jury Or Judge Trial: Defendants' Advantage, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Kevin M. Clermont

The prevailing "expert" opinion is that jury verdicts are largely immune to appellate revision. Using a database that combines all federal civil trials and appeals decided since 1988, we find that jury trials, as a group, are in fact not so special on appeal. But the data do show that defendants succeed more than plaintiffs on appeal from civil trials, and especially from jury trials. Defendants appealing their losses after trial by jury obtain reversals at a 31% rate, while losing plaintiffs succeed in only 13% of their appeals from jury trials. Both descriptive analyses of the results and more …

Do Case Outcomes Really Reveal Anything About The Legal System? Win Rates And Removal Jurisdiction, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Kevin M. Clermont

General Observations on Interpreting Win-Rate Data Properly. Many empirical legal studies use data on plaintiffs' rate of success, because of those data's ready availability and apparent import. Yet these "win rates" are probably the slipperiest of all judicial data. Win rates are inherently ambiguous because of the case-selection effect. The litigants' selection of the cases brought produces a biased sample from the mass of underlying disputes. The settlement process, usually conducted by rational and knowledgeable persons who take into account and thereby neutralize the very factor that one would like to study, produces a residue of litigated cases for which …

Xenophilia In American Courts, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Kevin M. Clermont

Foreigner! The word says it all. Verging on the politically incorrect, the expression is full of connotation and implication. A foreigner will face bias. By such a thought process, many people believe that litigants have much to fear in courts foreign to them. In particular, non-Americans fare badly in American courts. Foreigners believe this. Even Americans believe this. Such views about American courts are understandable. After all, the grant of alienage jurisdiction to the federal courts, both original and removal, constitutes an official assumption that xenophobic bias is present in state courts. As James Madison said of state courts: “We …

Jurisdictional Fact, Kevin M. Clermont

Kevin M. Clermont

No abstract provided.

Sequencing The Issues For Judicial Decisionmaking: Limitations From Jurisdictional Primacy And Intrasuit Preclusion, Kevin M. Clermont

Kevin M. Clermont

This Article treats the order of decision on multiple issues in a single case. That order can be very important, with a lot at stake for the court, society, and parties. Generally speaking, although the parties can control which issues they put before a judge, the judge gets to choose the decisional sequence in light of those various interests. The law sees fit to put few limits on the judge’s power to sequence. The few limits are, in fact, quite narrow in application, and even narrower if properly understood. The Steel Co.-Ruhrgas rule generally requires a federal court to decide …

French Article 14 Jurisdiction, Viewed From The United States, Kevin M. Clermont, John R.B. Palmer

Kevin M. Clermont

French courts have broadly read their Civil Code’s oddly written Article 14 as authorizing territorial jurisdiction over virtually any action brought by a plaintiff of French nationality. This study traces the history of this provision from its genesis two hundred years ago to its extension under the current Brussels Regulation. Nevertheless, for a number of reasons, French plaintiffs do not use Article 14 all that much, other than in status suits such as matrimonial matters or in situations where the defendant has assets in France (or now, under the Brussels regime, in Europe). The actual use of Article 14 ends …

Civil Procedure’S Five Big Ideas, Kevin M. Clermont

Kevin M. Clermont

Civil procedure, more than any other of the basic law-school courses, conveys to students an understanding of the whole legal system. I propose that this purpose should become more openly the organizing theme of the course. The focus should remain, of course, on the mechanics of the judicial branch. What I am championing is giving some conscious attention, albeit mainly in the background and at an introductory level, to the big ideas of the constitutional structure within which the law formulates civil procedure. Such attention would unify the doctrinal study, while enriching it for the students and revealing its true …

Why Law Teachers Should Teach Undergraduates, Kevin Clermont, Robert Hillman

Kevin M. Clermont

For many years, members of the law school faculty at Cornell have taught an introduction to law course that is offered by the government department in the College of Arts and Sciences. The course has surveyed law in general, structured thematically around what law is and what law can and cannot do. Although its teachers have used law school pedagogic techniques in the undergraduate setting, they certainly have not intended the course to be a prelaw practice run. In short, the course--The Nature, Functions, and Limits of Law--is a general education course about law. Our experience leads us to believe …

Jurisdictional Salvation And The Hague Treaty, Kevin M. Clermont

Kevin M. Clermont

The United States' law of territorial jurisdiction in civil cases is a mess. Many commentators, here and abroad, have said so for a long time. The United States' treatment of foreign judgments, however, stands in contrast. As a well-behaved member of the international community of nations, the United States eagerly gives appropriate respect to foreign judgments, despite sometimes getting no respect in return.

Now, ongoing negotiations at the Hague have generated a prospect for an international agreement on the reciprocal treatment of foreign judgments. The envisaged treaty would ensure mutual respect of judgments among contracting countries, but it would also …

Litigation Realities, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Kevin M. Clermont

No abstract provided.

Cafa Judicata: A Tale Of Waste And Politics, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Kevin M. Clermont

The Class Action Fairness Act has taken on its real form through construction by the federal judges. That form emerges in this empirical study of judicial activity and receptivity to the Act. Our data comprise the opinions under the Act published during the two and a half years following its enactment in 2005. CAFA has produced a lot of litigation in its short life. The cases were varied, of course, but most typically the resulting published federal opinion involved a removed contract case, with the dispute turning on the statute's effective date or on federal jurisdiction. Even though the opinions …

Inventing Tests, Destabilizing Systems, Kevin M. Clermont, Stephen C. Yeazell

Kevin M. Clermont

The U.S. Supreme Court revolutionized the law on pleading by its suggestive Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and definitive Ashcroft v. Iqbal. But these decisions did more than redefine the pleading rules: by inventing a foggy test for the threshold stage of every lawsuit, they have destabilized the entire system of civil litigation. This destabilization should rekindle a wide conversation about fundamental choices made in designing our legal system. Those choices are debatable. Thus, the bone this Article picks with the Court is not that it took the wrong path for pleading, but that it blazed a new and unclear …

Exorcising The Evil Of Forum-Shopping, Kevin Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Kevin M. Clermont

Most of the business of litigation comprises pretrial disputes. A common and important dispute is over where adjudication should take place. Civil litigators deal with nearly as many change-of-venue motions as trials. The battle over venue often constitutes the critical issue in a case. The American way is to provide plaintiffs with a wide choice of venues for suit. But the American way has its drawbacks. To counter these drawbacks, an integral part of our court systems, and in particular the federal court system, is the scheme of transfer of venue "in the interest of justice." However, the leading evaluative …

The Repressible Myth Of Shady Grove, Kevin M. Clermont

Kevin M. Clermont

This Article untangles the effects of the Supreme Court's latest word on the Erie doctrine, by taking the vantage point of a lower court trying to uncover the logical implications of the Court's new pronouncement. First, Shady Grove lightly confirms the limited role of constitutional constraints. Second, it sheds only a little light on judicial choice-of-law methodology. Third, by contrast, it does considerably clarify the conflict between Federal Rules and state law: if a Rule regulates procedure, then it is valid and applicable without exception in all federal cases, to the extent of its coverage; in determining the Rule's coverage, …

Three Myths About Twombly-Iqbal, Kevin Clermont

Kevin M. Clermont

This essay tries to convey the meaning of the recent revolutionary cases on federal pleading law. To do so, it refutes the three leading myths about the Twombly and Iqbal cases and thereby establishes these three propositions: First, the Supreme Court has not revived code-based fact pleading. This first conclusion implies that the codes’ law/fact distinction plays no role in screening allegations under the new test for nonconclusoriness, and it also implies that the courts should not apply the new test for plausibility to each allegation but only to the ultimate assertion of liability. Second, we academics must beware of …

Reverse-Erie, Kevin M. Clermont

Kevin M. Clermont

Traditional Erie is like a false front on a movie set, with nobody seeing the unfinished rear side. That other side depicts the extent of federal law applicable in state courts, which is determined under a doctrine called reverse-Erie. While everyone has an Erie theory and stands ready to debate it, almost no one has a theory of reverse-Erie, and no one at all has developed a clear choice-of-law methodology for it. Reverse-Erie, often misunderstood, mischaracterized, and misapplied by judges and commentators, goes strangely ignored by most scholars. And it goes ignored even though it holds a key to understanding …

Judge Harry Edwards: A Case In Point!, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Kevin M. Clermont

Judge Harry Edwards dislikes empirical work that is not flattering to federal appellate judges. A few years ago Dean Richard Revesz published an empirical study of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit providing further support for the rather tame proposition that judges’ political orientation has some effect on outcome in some politically charged cases. A year later Judge Edwards published a criticism phrased in extreme terms. Dean Revesz then wrote a devastating reply by which he demonstrated that Judge Edwards “is simply wrong with respect to each of the numerous criticisms that he levels.” We believe …

How Employment-Discrimination Plaintiffs Fare In The Federal Courts Of Appeals, Kevin Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg, Stewart Schwab

Kevin M. Clermont

Employment-discrimination plaintiffs swim against the tide. Compared to the typical plaintiff, they win a lower proportion of cases during pretrial and after trial. Then, many of their successful cases are appealed. On appeal, they have a harder time in upholding their successes, as well in reversing adverse outcome. This tough story does not describe some tiny corner of the litigation world. Employment-discrimination cases constitute an increasing fraction of the federal civil docket, now reigning as the largest single category of cases at nearly 10 percent. In this article, we use official government data to describe the appellate phase of this …

Do Case Outcomes Really Reveal Anything About The Legal System? Win Rates And Removal Jurisdiction , Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Kevin M. Clermont

No abstract provided.

Improving On The Contingent Fee, Kevin M. Clermont, John D. Currivan

Kevin M. Clermont

Two basic fees--contingent and hourly--dominate the variety of fees that lawyers charge clients for pursuing damage claims. Each of these two types has its advantages; each is plagued with substantial disadvantages. This Article proposes a new type of fee, one that preserves the respective advantages of the two present fees while minimizing their distinct disadvantages. In essence, the proposed fee calls for the payment, on a contingent basis, of an amount computed by adding one component tied to hours worked and another component linked to amount recovered. The preferability and feasibility of this proposed fee argue for the abolishment, or …

Simplifying The Choice Of Forum: A Reply, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Kevin M. Clermont

We have three things to think about here, as the real estate agents say—“location, location, location.” Accordingly, the two of us have engaged for several years in empirical studies aimed at gauging the effect of forum on case outcome. The results to date strongly suggest that forum really matters. An early piece of the puzzle fell into place in our study of venue. In that article, we examined the benefits and costs of the federal courts scheme of transfer of civil venue “in the interest of justice.” Ours was a pretty straightforward and simple cost-benefit analysis, but we supported it …

The Role Of Private International Law In The United States: Beating The Not-Quite-Dead Horse Of Jurisdiction, Kevin Clermont

Kevin M. Clermont

Territorial authority to adjudicate is the preeminent component of private international law. Empirical research proves that forum really affects outcome, probably by multiple influences. This practical effect makes international harmonization of jurisdictional law highly desirable. Although harmonization of nonjurisdictional law remains quite unlikely, jurisdictional harmonization is increasingly feasible because, among other reasons, U.S. jurisdictional law in fact exhibits no essential differences from European law. None of the usual assertions holds up as an unbridgeable difference, including that (1) the peculiar U.S. jurisdictional law flows inevitably from a different theory of governmental authority, one that rests on power notions; (2) U.S. …

Trial By Jury Or Judge: Which Is Speedier?, Theodore Eisenberg, Kevin Clermont

Kevin M. Clermont

Many take as a given that jury-tried cases consume more time than judge-tried cases. Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit, for example, opines: “Court queues are almost always greatest for parties seeking civil jury trials. This makes economic sense. Such trials are more costly than bench trials both because of jury fees (which … understate the true social costs of the jury) and because a case normally takes longer to try to a jury than to a judge …. Parties are therefore “charged” more for jury trials by being made to wait in line longer.” A close reading reveals …