Civil Procedure Commons^™

Embedded Experts On Real Juries: A Delicate Balance, Shari Seidman Diamond, Mary R. Rose, Beth Murphy

William & Mary Law Review

“Experts” appear in the modern American courtroom on the jury as well as in the witness box, posing a dilemma for the legal system by offering a potentially valuable resource and an uncontrolled source of influence. Courts give ambiguous guidance to jurors on how they should handle their expertise in the deliberation room. On the one hand, jurors are told that they should “decide what the facts are from the evidence presented here in court.” By direct implication, then, jurors should not use outside information to evaluate the evidence. Jurors are also told, however, that they should “consider all of …

Opening Remarks, Akhil Reed Amar

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jury Ignorance And Political Ignorance, Ilya Somin

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Second-Order Diversity Revisited, Jeffrey Abramson

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Restoring The Civil Jury's Role In The Structure Of Our Government, Sheldon Whitehouse

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Political Decision Making By Informed Juries, William E. Nelson

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Introduction: The Civil Jury As A Political Institution, Jason M. Solomon, Paula Hannaford-Agor

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Diversity And The Civil Jury, Christina S. Carbone, Victoria C. Plaut

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fiduciary Principles And The Jury, Ethan J. Leib, Michael Serota, David L. Ponet

William & Mary Law Review

This Essay argues that because jurors exercise state authority with wide discretion over the legal and practical interests of other citizens, and because citizens repose trust and remain vulnerable to jury and juror decisions, juries and jurors share important similarities with traditional fiduciary actors such as doctors, lawyers, and corporate directors and boards. The paradigmatic fiduciary duties—those of loyalty and care—therefore provide useful benchmarks for evaluating and guiding jurors in their decisionmaking role. A sui generis public fiduciary duty of deliberative engagement also has applications in considering the obligations of jurors. This framework confirms much of what we know about …

Chapter 623: Giving The Wrongfully Convicted A Better Chance At Review, Natasha Machado

McGeorge Law Review

No abstract provided.

In Our Own Backyard: Why California Should Care About Habeas Corpus, Theresa Hsu Schriever

McGeorge Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Jury And Participatory Democracy, Alexandra Lahav

Faculty Articles and Papers

Citizens directly participate in the civil justice system in three ways. They can be sued, they can sue another, and they can serve on a jury. Beyond that involvement, the court system is peopled by professionals: judges, lawyers, clerks, and administrators. This Essay considers the reasons our society might want citizens to directly participate as adjudicators in the third branch.

The Story Of Prudential Standing, S. Todd Brown

Journal Articles

Prudential standing, it seems, is the latest target in the Roberts Court’s effort to “bring some discipline” to jurisdictional and pseudo-jurisdictional concepts. During the Court’s last two terms, it issued a unanimous opinion that excised the zone of interests test from prudential standing doctrine (Lexmark), two unanimous opinions that questioned federal courts’ prudential discretion to decline jurisdiction (Lexmark and Driehaus), and a bitterly divided opinion in which the classification of a standing principle as prudential or constitutional was decisive (Windsor). Moreover, in Lexmark, the Court suggested that the third party standing principle may not be properly classified as prudential standing …

The Prudential Third Party Standing Of Family-Owned Corporations, Matthew I. Hall, Benjamin Means

Scholarly Works

On November 26, 2013, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether for-profit corporations or their shareholders have standing to challenge federal regulations that implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). At issue in the two cases consolidated for appeal, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, are regulations mandating that employers with fifty or more employees offer health insurance that includes coverage for all contraceptives approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The plaintiffs assert that providing certain types of contraceptive care would be contrary to their religious beliefs and allege, therefore, that the mandate violates the Religious …

Access To Counsel In Removal Proceedings: A Case Study For Exploring The Legal And Societal Imperative To Expand The Civil Right To Counsel, Carla L. Reyes

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Although empirical evidence shows that a foreign national's chances of receiving a favorable ruling doubles when an attorney represents him or her in removal proceedings, a unique confluence of history, legal tradition and policy climate have restricted immigrants' access to counsel to a ten-day window in which the immigrant may seek representation of his or her own choosing at no expense to the government. Although removal proceedings are, by definition, civil proceedings, they nevertheless involve physical detention and the possibility of permanent removal from the United States. These circumstances make the immigration system a unique case study for exploration of …

The Limits Of Custom In Constitutional And International Law, Michael D. Ramsey

San Diego Law Review

This Article does not contend that arguments for extension of custom are illegitimate. Instead, it makes two more limited claims. First, there is an important difference between arguments from pure custom and arguments for the extension of custom, with the latter being more properly called common law arguments. Second, the legitimacy of common law arguments in some fields, especially constitutional law and international law, is substantially more problematic than the legitimacy of arguments from pure custom. The Article develops as follows. Part II sets out in greater detail the proposed distinction between arguments from pure custom and arguments for extension …

Jurisdiction And The Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments, Tanya Monestier

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Is The Antidiscrimination Project Being Ended?, Michael J. Zimmer

Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality

No abstract provided.

Buying A Judicial Seat For Appeal: Caperton V. A.T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., Is Right Out Of A John Grisham Novel, Richard Gillespie

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

The California Constitutional Right Of Privacy And Exclusion Of Evidence In Civil Proceedings, Jerry D. Mackey

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The End Of An Era: The Supreme Court (Finally) Butts Out Of Punitive Damages For Good, Jim Gash

Florida Law Review

Part I of this Article chronicles and summarizes the development of the Supreme Court’s punitive damages jurisprudence. Over the past two decades, the Court has increasingly constitutionalized various aspects of punitive damages jurisprudence, using both procedural and substantive due process rationales. A set of three “guideposts” has emerged that courts are to use in determining whether a punitive damages award runs afoul of constitutional guarantees.

Part II outlines the multiple punishments problem that is currently facing courts throughout the country and provides a brief overview of the various failed attempts and current proposals to remedy this problem.

Part III provides …

Has The Right To A Jury Trial As Guaranteed Under The Seventh Amendment Become Outdated In Complex Civil Litigation?, Georgiana G. Rodiger

Pepperdine Law Review

Recognizing the continually increasing burden placed on the jury in complex litigation cases, the author undertakes an extensive study of the origins of jury trials in the United States and England. Various arguments in favor of eliminating jury trials in complex litigation are discussed, along with a possible constitutional method of limiting the scope of the seventh amendment guarantee. The author also studies the case of Ross v. Bernhardt where the Supreme Court outlined a seldom used three- pronged test to determine whether or not a jury trial is constitutionally appropriate. The comment concludes that the factors in favor of …

Nixon V. Fitzgerald: Recognition Of Absolute Immunity From Personal Damage Liability For Presidential Acts, Craig B. Forry

Pepperdine Law Review

Although traditionally it has been recognized that the President is absolutely immune from personal damage liability for his official acts, there is no precedent for this rule in constitutional text or case law. However, in the case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court overruled lower federal courts in establishing a clear precedent for the President's absolute immunity from personal liability for civil damages. The author examines this decision in light of traditional principles of official immunity and analyzes the Court's holding from the standpoint of whether the President is indeed placed "above the law."

The Supreme Court Continues Its Journey Down The Ever Narrowing Paths Of Section 1983 And The Due Process Clause: An Analysis Of Parratt V. Taylor, Robert E. Palmer

Pepperdine Law Review

After nearly a century of quiet slumber, the Supreme Court awoke the sleeping giant. In the past two decades, 42 U.S.C. §1983 has evolved into a judicial Frankenstein monster. Unable to control the beast, the Court has attempted to restrict the creature's movements by unnecessarily limiting its constitutional source. If followed to its logical conclusion, the Court's narrow reading of the Constitution may ultimately demote all due process violations to state tort remedies. This note traces the legislative and judicial evolution of section 1983 as well as the statute's present interaction with the due process clause. The vehicle for this …

Analysis Of A First Amendment Challenge To Rent-A-Judge Proceedings , Perry L. Glantz

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

States Escape Liability For Copyright Infringement?, Michelle V. Francis

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Restraints On The Doctrine Of Punitive Damages, Theodore B. Olson, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr.

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process And The Future Of Class Actions, Alexandra Lahav

Faculty Articles and Papers

No abstract provided.

Summary Judgment In Employment Discrimination Cases: A Judge’S Perspective, Hon. Denny Chin

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Exhuming The “Diversity Explanation” Of The Eleventh Amendment, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

This essay, in a symposium honoring the scholarship of Ninth Circuit Judge William A. Fletcher, explores the “diversity explanation” of the Eleventh Amendment that he had advanced in articles while he was a UC-Berkeley law professor. That explanation, contrary to existing Supreme Court doctrine that heavily constitutionalizes state sovereign immunity from suits by private parties and foreign countries, would view the Eleventh Amendment as having solely to do with federal courts’ constitutional jurisdiction and nothing to do with states’ sovereign immunity. The essay notes the cleanness of interpretation provided by the diversity explanation, in contrast with the convoluted nature of …