Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- 1936- (1)
- Anthony M. (1)
- Appellate courts (1)
- Brazil (1)
- Civil procedure (1)
-
- Equitable remedial rights doctrine (1)
- Equity (1)
- Erie doctrine (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Judicial federalism (1)
- Judicial process & ethics (1)
- Judicial process -- United States (1)
- Kennedy (1)
- Philosophy of law (1)
- Practice of law -- United States (1)
- Preliminary injunction (1)
- Standards of review (1)
- State law (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Our Equity: Federalism And Chancery, Jeffrey Steven Gordon
Our Equity: Federalism And Chancery, Jeffrey Steven Gordon
University of Miami Law Review
Federal courts sitting in diversity cannot agree on whether state or federal law governs the award of a preliminary injunction. The conditions for the exercise of a federal diversity court’s extraordinary remedial power are anybody’s guess. The immediate cause of the confusion is Justice Frankfurter’s cryptic opinion in Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, which aggressively enforced Erie and, at the same time, preserved the so-called “equitable remedial rights” doctrine. There are, however, much broader and deeper causes that explain why the equitable remedial rights doctrine is almost incomprehensible today.
This Article argues that the early history of equity in …
The Brazilian Appellate Procedure Through Common Law Lenses: How American Standards Of Review May Help Improve Brazilian Civil Procedure, Cesar Zucatti Pritsch
The Brazilian Appellate Procedure Through Common Law Lenses: How American Standards Of Review May Help Improve Brazilian Civil Procedure, Cesar Zucatti Pritsch
University of Miami Inter-American Law Review
In this article, I discuss a flaw in Brazilian civil procedure observed in my practice as a Federal Labor Judge in Brazil, an issue that may be addressed by limiting appellate review in a similar fashion as the American courts do, using standards of appellate review. In Brazil, appellate courts tend to ignore the lower court’s decisions, replacing them for the ruling they would have made had they been the original decision makers. A simple disagreement with the lower court’s findings of fact or discretionary rulings, no matter how reasonable, is sufficient grounds for reversal. The lack of standards of …
Changing Course, Sergio J. Campos