Law Commons^™

Perbandingan Penyelesaian Sengketa Lingkungan Hidup Melalui Mekanisme Gugatan Warga Negara (Citizen Lawsuit) Di Indonesia Dan Amerika Serikat, Listyalaras Nurmedina

"Dharmasisya” Jurnal Program Magister Hukum FHUI

A citizen lawsuit is a lawsuit filed by citizens against state officials that cause negligence and cause losses. This negligence is an act against the law (onrechtmatige overhead daad), where the state is ordered to improve its performance and issue a policy for general governing policies (regeling). It is intended to ensure that the negligence that previously occurred will not be repeated. A citizen lawsuit is almost similar to a class action lawsuit because it has the same thing, namely that the lawsuit is filed involving the interests of many people represented by one or more people. The difference is …

Constitutional Standoff: An Example Of Practical Difficulty In Mississippi Venue Rules, Hunter C. Ransom

Mississippi College Law Review

Mississippi’s legislature and judiciary have been locked in a constitutional standoff over procedural rulemaking power for decades. In an article describing the history of the conflict, author William H. Page has predicted that the situation will inevitably lead to “practical difficulties” down the road. Years later, given ongoing conflicts among various aspects of civil procedure in Mississippi, that prediction is beginning to appear prescient. A prime example has developed in Mississippi’s venue rules.

This Comment has three goals. First, it seeks to resurface Page’s discussion of the “constitutional standoff.”3 Second, it describes how Page was likely correct in predicting that …

For Whom The Sol Tolls: Examining The Role Of The Discovery Rule And Statutes Of Limitations In Ncaa Concussion Litigation, Joseph Sabin Esq., Andrew L. Goldsmith Ph.D.

UNH Sports Law Review

No abstract provided.

Acid Rain: Detoxifying Diversity Jurisdiction’S Poisonous Cycle, Baerett Nelson, Gavyn Roedel

Brigham Young University Prelaw Review

Diversity jurisdiction authorizes federal courts to act as impartial tribunals over certain matters of state law. To preserve states' judicial sovereignty, the US Supreme Court has prohibited diversity courts from directly interpreting state law, holding that federal courts must "predict" the legal outcome as if a state court had adjudicated. However, litigant abuse hinders consistency in legal outcomes. Discrepancies between courts spur forum shopping, which cyclically generates more legal incongruence. This paper identifies a "toxic cycle" plaguing diversity jurisdiction and offers five prescriptions which courts and Congress must use to reverse it.

Rethinking The Process Of Service Of Process, Mary K. Bonilla

St. Mary's Law Journal

Even as technology evolves, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Federal Rule 4, remains stagnate without a mechanism directly providing for electronic service of process in federal courts. Rule 4(e)(1) allows service through the use of state law—consequently permitting any state-approved electronic service methods—so long as the federal court where proceedings will occur, or the place where service is made, is located within the state supplying the law. Accordingly, this Comment explains that Rule 4 indirectly permits electronic service of process in some states, but not others, despite all 50 states utilizing the same federal court system. With states …

Neoliberal Civil Procedure, Luke Norris

Law Faculty Publications

This Article argues that the current era of U.S. civil procedure is defined by its neoliberalism. The Supreme Court has over the past few decades reinterpreted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in ways that have made it more difficult for citizens to bring and maintain civil claims. The major decisions of this new era—in areas as diverse as summary judgment, pleading, class actions, and arbitration—exhibit neoliberal hallmarks. They display neoliberalism’s tendency to naturalize existing market arrangements, its focus on efficiency and obscuring questions of power, its reduction of citizens to consumers, and its attempt to analyze government through the …

Rule 4(K), Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction, And The Civil Rules Advisory Committee: Lessons From Attempted Reform, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

On multiple occasions, I have advocated for a revision to Rule 4(k) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that would disconnect personal jurisdiction in federal courts from the jurisdictional limits of their respective host states—to no avail. In this Essay, I will review—one final time—my argument for nationwide personal jurisdiction in the federal courts, recount my (failed) attempt to persuade the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to embrace my view, and reflect on what lessons may be drawn from the experience regarding the civil rulemaking process. My aim is to prompt discussion around potential rulemaking reforms and to equip …

Racial Capitalism In The Civil Courts, Tonya L. Brito, Kathryn A. Sabbeth, Jessica Steinberg, Lauren Sudeall

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

This Essay explores how civil courts function as sites of racial capitalism. The racial capitalism conceptual framework posits that capitalism requires racial inequality and relies on racialized systems of expropriation to produce capital. While often associated with traditional economic systems, racial capitalism applies equally to nonmarket settings, including civil courts.

The lens of racial capitalism enriches access to justice scholarship by explaining how and why state civil courts subordinate racialized groups and individuals. Civil cases are often framed as voluntary disputes among private parties, yet many racially and economically marginalized litigants enter the civil legal system involuntarily, and the state …

Absurd Overlap: Snap Removal And The Rule Of Unanimity, Travis Temple

William & Mary Law Review

Snap removal employs “a literalist approach” to the statute governing the procedural mechanism for removing cases from state court to federal court. In a typical removal scenario, defendants sued in state court would have the option to be heard in federal court instead, given that certain conditions are satisfied. [S]nap removal essentially allows the defendants to forego a condition that would bar removal if they can file before the plaintiff formally notifies them of the lawsuit. This practice of removing a case before being served with formal process—essentially an act of gamesmanship of the civil procedure system—has gained appellate support …

The Forum-Defendant Rule, The Mischief Rule, And Snap Removal, Howard M. Wasserman

William & Mary Law Review Online

Samuel Bray’s The Mischief Rule reconceptualizes and revitalizes that venerable canon of statutory interpretation. Bray’s new approach to the mischief rule offers a textual solution to an ongoing civil procedure puzzle—forum defendants and “snap removal.” The forum-defendant rule provides that a diversity case is not removable from state to federal court when a properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the forum state. Snap removal occurs whena defendant removes before the forum defendant has been properly served, “snapping” the case into federal court. Three courts of appeals and a majority of district courts have endorsed this practice, concluding …

The Provision Of Expedited Financial Advance Before The Administrative Court: A Comparative Study Of French And Algerian Laws, Addo Abdulkadir

UAEU Law Journal

Through the Decree No. 88 -907 of 27 September 1988, amended by Decree No. 2000-1115 of 22 November 2000, the French legislator has introduced a new procedure similar to that outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure. This new procedure allows the administrative judge to grant a proviso to creditors of public persons, as soon as possible, since the existence of the obligation is not seriously disputed. Through the same judicial formula used in the legal code of the French administrative justice, the Algerian legislator introduced this procedure in the code of civil and administrative procedures in 2008, provided that …

Justice Ginsburg, Civil Procedure Professor And Champion Of Judicial Federalism, Rodger D. Citron

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Justice Ginsburg, Civil Procedure Professor And Champion Of Judicial Federalism, Rodger D. Citron

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Appellate Solution To Nationwide Injunctions, Sam Heavenrich

Indiana Law Journal

District courts have issued an unprecedented number of nationwide injunctions during the Obama and Trump administrations, provoking criticism from the Supreme Court. This Article proposes a change to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that addresses the Justices’ concerns without taking the drastic step of eliminating nationwide injunctions entirely. Specifically, this Article recommends amending Rule 65 to allow only the appellate courts to issue injunctive relief that extends beyond the plaintiffs in cases challenging a federal law or policy. In addition to the proposed Rule change, this Article offers a categorization framework for existing proposals addressing nationwide injunctions, classifying them …

The Paradox Of Exclusive State-Court Jurisdiction Over Federal Claims, Thomas B. Bennett

Faculty Publications

Standing doctrine is supposed to ensure the separation of powers and an adversary process of adjudication. But recently, it has begun serving a new and unintended purpose: transferring federal claims from federal to state court. Paradoxically, current standing doctrine assigns a growing class of federal claims - despite Congressional intent to the contrary - to the exclusive jurisdiction of state courts. Even then, only in some states, and only to the extent authorized by state law.

This paradox arises at the intersection of three distinct areas of doctrine:

(1) a newly sharpened requirement of concrete injury under Article III that …

Mcnamee V. Eighth Judicial District Court, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (Oct. 17, 2019), Alfa Alemayehu

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court overruled Barto v. Weishaar, partly granted the petitioner’s writ of mandamus, and held that if a suggestion of death is properly served, the 90-day deadline to file a motion to substitute is triggered regardless of which party files it and whether it identifies the deceased party’s successor or representative.

Inadvertent Waiver Of The Attorney-Client Privilege By Disclosure Of Documents: An Economic Analysis, Alan J. Meese

Alan J. Meese

No abstract provided.

Waiting For Davis V. United States -- Or Not Waiting, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Trivia From The Supreme Court Order List, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Responding To The Loss Of An En Banc Quorum (Update: Prawfsblawg Gets Results!?), Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Did The Supreme Court Recently Exercise A Power That Had Lain Dormant For Decades?, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Deferring To Agency Amicus Briefs That Present New Guidance, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

At&T'S Long Game On Unconscionability, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

At&T V. Concepcion And Adherence To Minority Views, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

The Venue Shuffle: Forum Selection Clauses & Erisa, Christine P. Bartholomew, James A. Wooten

Journal Articles

Forum selection clauses are ubiquitous. Historically, the judiciary was hostile to contracts limiting a plaintiff’s venue options. The tide has since turned. Today, lower courts routinely enforce such clauses. This Article challenges this reflexive response in the special context of ERISA cases. It mines ERISA’s statutory text, rich legislative history, and historical context to supply an in-depth exploration of ERISA’s unique policy goal of providing employees “ready access to the Federal courts.” The Article then explains how forum selection clauses undermine this goal and thus should be invalid under controlling Supreme Court jurisprudence.

The Haves Of Procedure, Ion Meyn

William & Mary Law Review

In litigation, “haves” and “have-nots” battle over what procedures should govern. Yet, much greater hostilities have been avoided—a war between the “haves” themselves. “Criminal haves” (prosecutors) and “civil haves” (institutional players) litigate in separate territories and under different sets of rules. This is good, for them, because they have incompatible objectives. This Article contends that protecting the “haves” from each other has profoundly influenced the development of procedure in the United States.

The “haves” reap significant benefits in being insulated from each other as they seek rules responsive to their unique preferences. A “criminal have” seeks easy access to the …

Removal Without Approval? Corporate Litigative Authority To Consent To Federal Removal Where Adverse Parties Are Co-Equal Shareholder Co-Directors, James M. Mcclure

William & Mary Business Law Review

The Case of Swart v. Pawar involved a novel question of law: can a president of a corporation claim authority on behalf of that corporation to consent to federal removal in a suit against a co-equal shareholder co-director even though that president lacks board approval or explicit authority from the business’s bylaws or charter? To address this question, the parties in Swart analogized removal to suit initiation and defense. Since the federal courts hearing the case did not assess the validity of these analogical arguments or a president’s removal authority generally, this Note evaluates the analogies as well as several …

Rethinking Lawyer Ethics To Allow The Rules Of Evidence, Rules Of Civil Procedure, And Private Agreements To Control Ethical Obligations Involving Inadvertent Disclosures, Tory L. Lucas

Saint Louis University Law Journal

This Article seeks to align the rules of ethics with the rules of evidence, rules of civil procedure, and private agreements in confronting the vexing issue of inadvertent disclosures. It proposes a clear-eyed modification of Model Rule of Professional Conduct 4.4(b) to require a lawyer to use an inadvertent disclosure of confidential or privileged information unless prohibited by the rules of evidence, rules of civil procedure, or private agreement. This inadvertent-disclosure proposal fairly balances the interests of the justice system, civility in the legal profession, and protection of clients.

Social Media, Manipulation, And Violence, Allyson Haynes Stuart

South Carolina Journal of International Law and Business

No abstract provided.

Wage Theft In Lawless Courts, Llezlie Green

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Low-wage workers experience wage theft — that is, employers’ failure to pay earned wages — at alarmingly high rates. Indeed, the number of wage and hour cases filed in federal and state courts and administrative agencies steadily increases every year. While much of the scholarly assessment of wage and hour litigation focuses on large collective and class actions involving hundreds or thousands of workers and millions of dollars in lost wages, the experiences of individual workers with small claims have received little attention. Furthermore, scholarly consideration of the justice gap in lower courts, more generally, has often focused on debt …