Civil Procedure Commons^™

The Verdict On Juries, Valerie P. Hans, Neil Vidmar

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In reviewing debates and research evidence about jury trials for our book, American Juries: The Verdict (Prometheus Books, 2007), we have had the chance to reflect on the status of the jury system in the United States. High profile jury trials put the spotlight on the American practice of using its citizens as decision makers. When jury verdicts are at odds with public opinion, criticisms of the institution are common. The civil jury has been a lightning rod for those who want tort reform. This article draws together some of our reflections about the health of the jury system …

Jung V. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Zachary Kerner

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sandisk Corp. V. Stmicroelectronics, Inc., Patrick R. Colsher

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Internationalization Of Lay Legal Decision-Making: Jury Resurgence And Jury Research, Richard O. Lempert

Articles

When I first began to study the jury more than thirty years ago, the topic of this Journal issue, jury systems around the world, was unthinkable. The use of juries, especially in civil litigation, had long been in decline, to the point of near extinction in England, the land of their birth, and the live question was whether the jury system would endure in the United States. It seemed clear that juries would not continue in their classic form, as many U.S. states, with the Supreme Court's eventual approval, mandated juries of less than twelve people and allowed verdicts to …

Lawyer Professional Responsibility In Litigation, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

A perennially-vexing litigation issue concerns the limits of permissible attorney argument. More than a few lawyers have been tripped up by the occasional fuzziness of the line between aggressive advocacy and improper appeals to passion or prejudice. See Craig Lee Montz, Why Lawyers Continue to Cross the Line in Closing Argument: An Examination of Federal and State Cases, 28 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 67 (2001-2002)(problem of violations results from lack of uniformity and clarity of ground rules as well as errors of counsel). In Cohen v. Lioce, 149 P.3d 916 (Nev. 2006) the Nevada Supreme Court both provided significant guidance …

Reassessing Charitable Immunity In Virginia, Carl Tobias

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Hybrid Class Action As Judicial Spork: Managing Individual Rights In A Stew Of Common Wrong, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 231 (2006), Jon Romberg

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Law, Ideology, And Strategy In Judicial Decision Making: Evidence From Securities Fraud Actions, Michael A. Perino

Faculty Publications

Legal academics and political scientists continue to debate whether the legal, attitudinal, or strategic model best explains judicial decision making. One limitation in this debate is the high-court bias found in most studies. This article, by contrast, examines federal district court decisions, specifically interpretations of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Initial interpretations of the Act articulated distinct liberal and conservative positions. The data compiled here support the hypothesis that the later emergence of an intermediate interpretation was the result of strategic statutory interpretation rather than simply judges acting consistently with their ideological preferences, although there is some …

Induced Litigation, Tracey E. George, Chris Guthrie

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

If "justice delayed" is "justice denied,"justice is often denied in American courts. Delay in the courts is a "ceaseless and unremitting problem of modem civil justice" that "has an irreparable effect on both plaintiffs and defendants." To combat this seemingly intractable problem, judges and court administrators routinely clamor for additional judicial resources to enable them to manage their dockets more "effectively and efficiently." By building new courthouses and adding new judgeships, a court should be able to manage its caseload more efficiently. Trial judges should be able to hold motion hearings, host settlement conferences, and conduct trials in a timely …

Establishing The Truth On Facts: Has The Chinese Civil Process Achieved This Goal?, Zhong Jianhua, Yu Guanghua

Florida State University Journal of Transnational Law & Policy

No abstract provided.

Lawrence V. Texas: When "Profound And Deep Convictions" Collide With Liberty Interests, Nancy J. Knauer

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The article examines the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned Bowers v. Hardwick and invalidated a Texas sodomy law criminalizing same-sex intimacy. The author argues that Lawrence not only advanced individual liberty interests but also marked a significant shift in the legal and cultural recognition of homosexuality, moving beyond earlier frameworks that criminalized or marginalized gay individuals. The decision reflects broader societal changes in understanding same-sex relationships and challenges the use of moral disapproval as a basis for legal restrictions on consensual adult conduct.

Child Custody Disputes: Bridging The Gap Between Psychologists And Family Court, Kate Pratsides

Theses : Honours

The number of divorce cases that come before judges and registrars within the Family Court system is steadily increasing, and so is the use of psychologists as expert witnesses. However, little is known about what the judges and registrars think of the psychologist's use of psychometric test results when writing their forensic report, this study attempts to answer that. This thesis is presented in two sections. The first is a literature review of guidelines that are available to psychologists when writing a forensic report. These guidelines include (1) broad guidelines provided by professional associations, such as the American Psychological Association; …

Introduction To The Online Colorado Litigator's Handbook, Robert S. Anderson

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

The Litigator's Handbook includes surveys of district court judges throughout the state with detailed questions of each judge's preferences and proscriptions for practice and procedure; answers to some questions that attorneys want to know but may be afraid to ask; and commentary that indicates the court's general level of receptiveness to particular types of requests.

Why Judges Don't Like Petitions For Rehearing, Richard S. Arnold

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

Petitions for en banc rehearings are rarely granted. A Senior Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit provides a history and reasoning of the rehearing process and his personal observations on those petitions and processes in today's court.

Judicial Lobbying At The Wto: The Debate Over The Use Of Amicus Curiae Briefs And The U.S. Experience, Padideh Ala'i

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The continuing debate over the use of amicus curiae briefs at the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) raises interesting questions about the influence of the U.S. legal system on the WTO dispute settlement process. Specifically, it brings to the surface differences between legal cultures and the fact that the U.S. legal culture with its emphasis on procedure is not readily transferable to the WTO. Comparing the controversy regarding the use of amicus curiae briefs before WTO Panels and the Appellate Body with the history and evolution of the institution of amicus curiae before the U.S. Supreme Court may help explain the …

Judges, Juries, And Reviewing Courts, William V. Dorsaneo Iii

SMU Law Review

The purposes of this paper are to evaluate the standard and scope of appellate evidentiary review of fact findings made by juries and trial judges under Texas law, and to describe and to criticize the recent treatment of the duty and causation issues in tort litigation by the Texas Supreme Court. The court has not acknowledged that the standards of evidentiary review applied to jury findings have been changed and one prominent scholar has concluded otherwise, but an examination of the court's recent jurisprudence reveals that significant changes have been made in the application of the no-evidence standard of review …

The Arizona Jury Reform Permitting Civil Jury Trial Discussions: The View Of Trial Participants, Judges, And Jurors, Valerie P. Hans, Paula Hannaford-Agor, G. Thomas Munsterman

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In 1995, the Arizona Supreme Court reformed the jury trial process by allowing civil jurors to discuss the evidence presented during trial prior to their formal deliberations. This Article examines the theoretical, legal, and policy issues raised by this reform and presents the early results of a field experiment that tested the impact of trial discussions. Jurors, judges, attorneys, and litigants in civil jury trials in Arizona were questioned regarding their observations, experiences, and reactions during trial as well as what they perceived to be the benefits and drawback of juror discussions. The data revealed that the majority of judges …

Contracting Access To The Courts: Myth Or Reality? Bane Or Boon?, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Many scholars of the dispute resolution system perceive a sea change in attitudes toward adjudication that took place in the mid-1970s. Among the events of the time included the Pound Conference, which put the Chief Justice of the United States and the national judicial establishment on record in favor of at least some refinement, if not restriction, on access to courts. In addition, Chief Justice Burger, the driving force behind the Pound Conference, also used his bully pulpit as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to promote ADR, particularly court-annexed arbitration. The availability of judicial adjuncts such as court-annexed arbitration …

The Compromise Of '38 And The Federal Courts Today, John H. Robinson

Journal Articles

In 1998 the legal community of the United States should stop and take stock of two epochal events in the history of the federal judicial system. One of those events, as readers of a procedure symposium do not need to be told, is the sixtieth anniversary of the introduction of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I shall have more to say about that event presently, but I want first to devote a few paragraphs to a second event, one which proceduralists ignore at their peril. The event I have in mind is the initiation of a new era of …

Extending The Due Process Clause To Prevent A Previously Recused Judge From Later Attempting To Affect The Case From Which He Was Recused, S. Matthew Cook

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Magistrate Judges In The Montana Federal District, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Over the last three decades, growing caseloads and finite resources have fostered expansion of the jurisdiction, responsibilities, prestige and compensation of United States Magistrate Judges. Passage of the Civil Justice Reform Act (CJRA) of 1990, which required local experimentation with procedures for reducing expense and delay in civil litigation, propelled this development in many of the ninety-four federal districts across the country. The United States District Court for the District of Montana has quite strongly evidenced these phenomena. Perhaps most important, the CJRA expense and delay reduction plan that the district prescribed in 1991 included an opt-out procedure which it …

Xenophilia In American Courts, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Foreigner! The word says it all. Verging on the politically incorrect, the expression is full of connotation and implication. A foreigner will face bias. By such a thought process, many people believe that litigants have much to fear in courts foreign to them. In particular, non-Americans fare badly in American courts. Foreigners believe this. Even Americans believe this.

Such views about American courts are understandable. After all, the grant of alienage jurisdiction to the federal courts, both original and removal, constitutes an official assumption that xenophobic bias is present in state courts. As James Madison said of state courts: “We …

Courts In Cyberspace, Theodore Eisenberg, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Trial By Jury Or Judge: Which Is Speedier?, Theodore Eisenberg, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Many take as a given that jury-tried cases consume more time than judge-tried cases. Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit, for example, opines: “Court queues are almost always greatest for parties seeking civil jury trials. This makes economic sense. Such trials are more costly than bench trials both because of jury fees (which … understate the true social costs of the jury) and because a case normally takes longer to try to a jury than to a judge …. Parties are therefore “charged” more for jury trials by being made to wait in line longer.”

A close reading reveals …

Studying Deck Chairs On The Titanic, William L. Reynolds, William M. Richman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Reflections Of Judicial Adr And The Multi-Door Courthouse At Twenty: Fait Accompli, Failed Overture, Or Fledgling Adulthood, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Like any trend, ADR has its skeptics and even some opponents. Considerable debate exists regarding the degree to which the increasing ADRization of traditionally judicial activity amounts to triumph or tragedy, a point well-illustrated by the past Schwartz Lectures. In the 1993 Schwartz Lecture, Professor Laura Nader described the ADR movement as a byproduct of society's attempt to suppress or conceal uncomfortable conflicts. In the 1994 Lecture, Professor Judith Resnik essentially concluded that the modern ADR movement has brought a regrettable de facto closing of the court house (or at least raised barriers to entry) and replaced reflective decision-making about …

Exorcising The Evil Of Forum-Shopping, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Most of the business of litigation comprises pretrial disputes. A common and important dispute is over where adjudication should take place. Civil litigators deal with nearly as many change-of-venue motions as trials. The battle over venue often constitutes the critical issue in a case.

The American way is to provide plaintiffs with a wide choice of venues for suit. But the American way has its drawbacks. To counter these drawbacks, an integral part of our court systems, and in particular the federal court system, is the scheme of transfer of venue "in the interest of justice." However, the leading evaluative …

The Federal Rules Of Evidence--Past, Present, And Future: A Twenty-Year Perspective, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This Essay surveys three major transformations in state and federal rules of evidence since the introduction of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Rules have not only inspired a movement toward codification in the states, they have also liberalized the admission of expert testimony and hearsay. This partially explains thirteen states' reluctance to codify. Judges have furthered this trend by admitting far more discretionary hearsay evidence than Congress intended. Professor Rossi doubts this expansion of the hearsay exceptions would have occurred without the adoption of the FRE and suggests that the newly formed Advisory Committee will produce greater substantive changes …

Politics And The Judiciary: The Influence Of Judicial Background On Case Outcomes, Orley Ashenfelter, Theodore Eisenberg, Stewart J. Schwab

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

It is widely believed that the background and worldview of judges influence their decisions. This article uses the fact that judges are assigned their cases randomly to assess the effect of judicial background on the outcome of cases from the day-to-day docket in three federal trial courts. Unlike the political science findings of ideological influence in published opinions, we find little evidence that judges differ in their decisions with respect to the mass of case outcomes. Characteristics of the judges or the political party of the judge's appointing president are not significant predictors of judicial decisions.

Halting Devolution Or Bleak To The Future? Subrin's New-Old Procedure As A Possible Antidote To Dreyfuss's "Tolstoy Problem", Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Professors Rochelle Dreyfuss and Stephen Subrin first presented their ideas on the 1993 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Civil Rules) at the 1994 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) in a program titled, “The 1993 Discovery Amendments: Evolution, Revolution, or Devolution?” After the program, I was left with the depressing view that the answer was devolution, which is defined as a “retrograde evolution,” or “degeneration.” Dreyfuss provides a detailed but succinct review of the changes in discovery occasioned by the new rules as well as a vantage point for assessing the social and …