Law Commons^™

The Parable Of The Forms, Samuel L. Bray

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

It might be good for each department to have its own form, or it might be better to have one form for the whole campus. That is an open question. It depends on how different the repair requests are in different departments, and on the value of specialization. It depends on whether we want some complexity about the choice of forms or if we want radical simplicity about the number of forms, with all of the complexity residing within a single form.

So, too, it might be good to have different forms of action. That way, everyone knows upfront …

If It (Ain’T) Broke, Don’T Fix It: Twombly, Iqbal, Rule 84, And The Forms, Justin Olson

Seattle University Law Review

The past decade has not been kind to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the Rules). From the growth of summary judgment as a mechanism to let judges instead of juries determine facts, to the love–hate relationship with class actions, judicial interpretations of the Rules have revealed a trend toward complicating the ability of plaintiffs to find redress for their claims. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the shifting standards of pleading requirements under Rule 8. Much has been written by academics and practitioners alike regarding the ripples caused by Twombly and Iqbal. Although the Court would like to …

Redeeming The Missed Opportunities Of Shady Grove, Stephen B. Burbank, Tobias Barrington Wolff

All Faculty Scholarship

Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co., a closely watched case decided in the 2009–10 Term, presented the Court with an opportunity to speak to two related problems under the Rules Enabling Act that have languished for decades without proper resolution. The first involves a broad interpretive question: How can the limitations on rulemaking authority contained in the Act be applied in a manner that reflects the separation-of-powers concerns that animated them while also exhibiting respect for the state regulatory arrangements that govern much of our economic and social activity? The second problem involves the intersection of the …

A Plea For Help: Pleading Problems In Section 1983 Municipal Liability Claims, Evan S. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Interjurisdictional Preclusion, Full Faith And Credit And Federal Common Law: A General Approach, Stephen B. Burbank

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Federal Rule 44.1 And The "Fact" Approach To Determining Foreign Law: Death Knell For A Die-Hard Doctrine, Arthur R. Miller

Michigan Law Review

The objective of this article is to analyze Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1, which was developed as part of the reforms of the last decade and became effective on July 1, 1966 and to assess its capacity to rationalize the process of determining foreign law in the federal courts. What follows is an excursion through the past doctrine and into the probable future treatment of foreign law in the federal courts, an exploration of the interrelationship between the new Rule and other phases of federal civil procedure, and an analysis of the prospect that the Rule's effectiveness may be …

Habeas Corpus--Custody And Release From Custody Requirements Of Habeas Corpus--Viability Of Mcnally V. Hill In The Moden Context, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Section 2241 of Title 28 of the United States Code requires that a petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus be "in custody." As a corollary of the "custody" requirement, the common law tradition required that the effect of the writ must be the petitioner's "release from custody.'' Because the United States Constitution and the federal habeas corpus statutes guarantee the availability of the writ in general terms, it is to the common law that the courts have consistently turned for the definition of these terms and for the restrictive effect of these requirements on the availability of the writ …

Required Joinder Of Claims, Dieter L. Hoegen

Michigan Law Review

In review we can say that within a comparatively broad field of the American law required joinder of claims is the rule. There are some exceptions. The German law has no rule of compulsory joinder of claims. Here, there are some exceptions, too. In this sense and within a field which is marked out by the American rule and the German exceptions, the relationship of rule and exceptions is reversed in the two systems.

Required Joinder Of Claims, Dieter L. Hoegen

Michigan Law Review

This comparative study is confined to the situation of one claimant against one claimee. The principles which will be considered seem to be rather well settled both in the American and the German law. The fact, however, that besides many a common result we shall find fundamental differences in the pertinent basic concepts of the American and German systems makes the discussion worthwhile. It may, at least, promote a reconsideration of the propriety of those concepts.

Amendments To The Federal Rules: The Function Of A Continuing Rules Committee, Charles A. Wright

Vanderbilt Law Review

No development in American procedural history in the last century has exceeded in importance the adoption by the United States Supreme Court in 1938 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These rules, the product of a distinguished Advisory Committee, introduced a system and a philosophy differing as markedly from the code pleading then in vogue as code pleading, in its day, had differed from common-law pleading. This new system has worked well in the federal courts, so well indeed as to stimulate a reexamination of procedure in many of the states, with nearly a dozen jurisdiction shaving already adopted …