Law Commons^™

Taking Substantive Rights (In The Rules Enabling Act) More Seriously, Leslie M. Kelleher

Notre Dame Law Review

No abstract provided.

Did The Civil Justice Reform Act Of 1990 Actually Expire?, Carl Tobias

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (CJRA) was intended to reduce the expense and delay associated with federal district court litigation by requiring courts to study and adopt new procedures. The CJRA's gains, however, may be erased by the uncertainty surrounding its sunset provision. Professor Tobias argues that Congress or the Judicial Conference should resolve the uncertainty by proclaiming that the CJRA has expired, thus forcing districts to abrogate procedures inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Toward The Proper Role For Mass Tort Class Actions, Mary J. Davis

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article seeks to advance the use of mass tort class actions and proposes that they are not only appropriate, but desirable, when evaluated against the backdrop of substantive tort law policies. Moreover, the substantive goals of tort law as applied in the mass tort context support the conclusion that the individualized case-by-case adjudication standard, as applied through our adversary system as it is presently constituted, fails to further the search for fairness as well as truth in the mass tort context, and therefore, does not achieve the fairness or justice that we seek through our judicial process.

The guiding …

Did The Civil Justice Reform Act Of 1990 Actually Expire?, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (CJRA) was intended to reduce the expense and delay associated with federal district court litigation by requiring courts to study and adopt new procedures. The CJR.lrs gains, however, may be erased by the uncertainty surrounding its sunset provision. Professor Tobias argues that Congress or the Judicial Conference should resolve the uncertainty by proclaiming that the CJRA has expired, thus forcing districts to abrogate procedures inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Waiting For Divine Intervention: The Fifth Circuit Tries To Give Meaning To Intervention Rules In Sierra Club V. City Of San Antonio, Brian Hutchings

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Yer Outa Here!" A Framework For Analyzing The Potential Exclusion Of Expert Testimony Under The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Stephen D. Easton

University of Richmond Law Review

It does not take long for even a casual observer of criminal and civil trials to make two observations about expert witnesses. The first of these observations comes almost immediately: experts are vitally important to the judicial process. In many trials, the outcome largely depends upon which set of impressively credentialed experts the jurors (and the judge) believe. The second observation generally comes later than the first: a significant amount of shoddy "science," phony logic, faulty analysis, sleight of hand, and other assorted junk enters the courtroom dressed up in the emperor's clothes of expert testimony.

Interview: The Federal Courts: Observations From Thirty Years On The Bench, Robert R. Merhige Jr., J. Christopher Lemons

University of Richmond Law Review

This is an interview of Judge Robert R. Merhige, Jr of the Eastern District of Virginia.

Rule 11 And The Profession, Georgene Vairo

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

The (Cloudy) Future Of Class Actions, Edward H. Cooper

Articles

The past, both proximate and remote, is often consulted in attempts to predict the future. Of course extrapolation from past to future is at best an uncertain art. Extrapolation, however, is not the only problem. Lessons from the recent past are distorted by lack of perspective. Lessons from the distant past are distorted by distance. The first step is to choose which of the competing pasts to consult. Selfishly, I choose to consult the recent past, as it continues through the present and on into the near-term future, from the perspective of the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of …

Civil Rule 53: An Enabling Act Challenge (Federal Practice And Procedure Symposiusm Honoring Charles Alan Wright), Edward H. Cooper

Articles

The Judicial Conference of the United States is charged by statute to "carry on a continuous study of the operation and effect of the general rules of practice and procedure," recommending desirable changes to the Supreme Court.' The Rules Enabling Act,2 which describes the Supreme Court's role, further provides that the Judicial Conference is to be assisted in this task by a "standing committee on rules of practice, procedure, and evidence" ;3 the standing committee in turn reviews "each recommendation of any other committees" appointed to advise it.4

Law In The Backwaters: A Comment Of Mirjan Damaška's Evidence Law Adrift, Samuel R. Gross

Reviews

The most problematic part of Professor Mirjan Damaška's fine book is the title.' Professor Damaška does an excellent job of situating American evidence law in the procedural context in which American trials occur. He identifies three major procedural elements. First, juries are traditionally cited as the primary or sole explanation for our extensive set of exclusionary rules, which are said to express mistrust of lay adjudicators. Professor Damaška points out as well that lay juries permit a divided court, with a professional judge who has exclusive control over "questions of law," and that this division is necessary for the operation …