Civil Procedure Commons^™

Strandell V. Jackson County And G. Heileman Brewing Co. V. Joseph Oat Corp.: The Failure Of The Seventh Circuit Court Of Appeals To Narrow The Interpretation Of Rule 16 And Limit The Inherent Power Doctrine, Farol Parco

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

Civil Practice, Jay C. Carlisle

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

During the Survey year the New York Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the state toxic tort revivor statute and adopted the market share theory in DES cases. The court also gave the bar a Christmas present in Tewari v. Tsoutsouros3 and clarified important discovery issues .Two appellate courts held that the AIDS virus falls within New York Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR") 214-c and issued important decisions in notice of claims cases.6Also, several trial courts actively applied new sanctions rules. Perhaps the most important developments during the Survey year were the bench and bar proposals relating to …

The Revolution In Preliminary Injunctions Against Patent Infringement, 24 J. Marshall L. Rev. 225 (1990), Thomas L. Creel, Donna M. Praiss

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Edmonson V. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc.: Can The "No State Action" Shibboleth Legitimize The Racist Use Of Peremptory Challenges In Civil Actions, 23 J. Marshall L. Rev. 271 (1990), David Park

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Juridical Chameleons In The "New Erie" Canal, Donald L. Doernberg

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The New Erie doctrine, however, has become a doctrine of convenience, inconsistently applied by conservative and liberal Justices alike. It is the antithesis of a “neutral principle” of constitutional adjudication. To use Justice Jackson's term, the federal laws are not the “juridical chameleons”--the Justices are. Part II of this Article discusses the old and the New Erie doctrines as articulated by the United States Supreme Court. Part III demonstrates the difficulty of limiting the New Erie doctrine to the single area of implied rights of action and shows how the broad brush with which the doctrine's proponents paint necessarily touches …

Reassessing Rule 11 And Civil Rights Cases, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The Advisory Committee on the Civil Rules amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule 11) in August 1983 because of increasing concern about attorney abuses in civil lawsuits and about the so-called litigation explosion. The revision commands courts to sanction lawyers and parties who do not undertake reasonable prefiling inquiries. Certain aspects of the new version's implementation provoked substantial controversy which continued virtually undiminished from the amendment's August 1983 effective date at least until the fifth anniversary of its adoption. Perhaps most controversial was the question whether courts' application inhibited the pursuit of legitimate litigation, especially cases involving civil rights …

The Pattern Of Racketeering Element Of Rico Liability, Committee On Federal Courts Of The New York State Bar Association

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Organizational Standing In Environmental Litigation, Jeanne A. Compitello

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

New York's Real Property Tax Law: The More Changes That Are Made, The More Things Stay The Same, Ira M. Sockowitz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Constitutional Right To Expert Assistance For Indigents In Civil Cases, David Medine

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Insuring Rule 11 Sanctions, Cary Coglianese

Michigan Law Review

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 requires courts to sanction attorneys who file frivolous papers. Since 1983, when the rule was amended, attorney sanctions have emerged as an increasingly significant aspect of civil litigation in the United States.

Can these and other attorneys find coverage for sanctions under their existing policies? Should they be allowed to obtain coverage for sanctions at all? This Note addresses these questions and attempts to sketch the landscape surrounding the looming issue of insurance coverage for rule 11 sanctions. To determine whether sanctions can and should be insurable, it is necessary first to understand the …

Blind Man's Bluff: An Analysis Of The Discovery Of Expert Witnesses Under Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 26(B)(4) And A Proposed Amendment, Mathew R. Wildermuth

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Constitutional Conundrum Of Black Lung Appeals: Two Proposed Solutions, Pete S. Michaels

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I of this Article explains the statutory requirements that a black lung benefits claimant must meet and how these claimants' failure to meet statutory prerequisites results in the dismissal of their claims. Part II argues that the current procedures are inadequate to protect the rights of black lung benefits claimants. Dismissal of their claims violates the petitioners' rights to due process of law and pro se representation. Part III proposes two solutions to the crisis. The first proposal is simply a form that would be distributed to all claimants explaining the procedures they must follow to avoid dismissal. Part …

History Comes Calling: Dean Griswold Offers New Evidence About The Jurisdictional Debate Surrounding The Enactment Of The Declaratory Judgment Act, Donald L. Doernberg, Michael B. Mushlin

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

In a recent article, we proposed that the Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934 was intended, contrary to the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation, to enlarge the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts. When Congress considered the Act, jurisdictional concerns centered around whether declaratory judgments would violate the case-or-controversy clause, not whether introduction of the device would expand the federal question jurisdiction Congress already had authorized. There is, indeed, substantial evidence that Congress intended to expand federal question jurisdiction to include at least two, and possibly three, case models; there is virtually no evidence supporting the contrary position taken by the …

Civil Practice, Jay C. Carlisle

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

During the 1988 Survey year, new sanction rules, effective January 1, 1989, were approved by the Court of Appeals, several Uniform Rules were amended: and existing rules applied by our courts. New legislation was also passed relating to a comprehensive Interest On Lawyers Account (IOLA). The Court of Appeals abolished the fiduciary shield doctrine: limited the reach of our long-arm statute (CPLR 302(a)(1)) in defamation actions: and ruled that motions to dismiss cannot be converted into summary judgments without notice to all parties. The Court of Appeals also refined the doctrine of issue preclusion, which has recently been expanded, and …

The Myth Of The Disposable Opinion: Unpublished Opinions And Government Litigants In The United States Courts Of Appeals, Lauren K. Robel

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Preclusion And Procedural Due Process In Rule 23(B)(2) Class Actions, Mark C. Weber

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article examines whether Rule 23(b)(2) violates the procedural due process rights of absent class members by binding them to the judgment in a class case without notice of the suit. It concludes that the Rule almost certainly violates due process and proposes a reform that would permit nonbinding class actions similar to the old "spurious" class suits.

Civil Practice, Jay C. Carlisle

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

While 1986 was a watershed year for the CPLR practitioner, 1987 passed with what one prominent commentator has referred "a yawn." Nonetheless, there were several important amendments to the CPLR in 1987 and our courts produced more than a few ''drab” opinions worthy of discussion. Furthermore, the bar and bench should rejoice because this year's Survey marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the CPLR and the fiftieth anniversary of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is also the sixty-fifth year since a commentator first reviewed significant developments in New York civil practice.

Voluntary Dismissals - From Shield To Sword By The Convergence Of Improvident Actions, 21 J. Marshall L. Rev. 549 (1988), James T. Ferrini, Richard R. Winter

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Illinois Courts Struggle To Evaluate Race-Neutral Explanations For Peremptory Challenges Under Batson V. Kentucky, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 235 (1988), Kevin E. Bry

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Carnegie-Mellon University V. Cohill: The United States Supreme Court Upholds The Authority Of Federal Courts To Remand Properly Removed Pendent Jurisdiction Claims, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 389 (1988), William Barrett

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Voluntary Dismissal In Illinois - A Sword Or A Shield, 21 J. Marshall L. Rev. 537 (1988), Robert G. Johnston

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Distorted Mirror: The Supreme Court's Shimmering View Of Summary Judgment, Directed Verdict, And The Value Of Adjudication, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

As almost anyone alive during the past decade knows, this is the era of the ‘litigation explosion,’ or there is at least the perception that a litigation explosion exists. Although all agree that the absolute number of lawsuits has increased in virtually every corner of the state and federal court systems, there exists vigorous debate about whether the increase is unusual in relative or historical terms and even more vigorous debate about whether the absolute increase in cases symbolizes the American concern for fairness and justice or represents a surge in frivolous or trivial disputes needlessly clogging the courts. As …

The Collision Between New Discovery Amendments And Expert Testimony Rules, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The young litigator's nightmare was always the same. He was in medieval Europe, ready to engage in a sword fight with the expert swordsman representing his arch rival. After countless hours of preparation, he felt confident that he would be able to hold his own against the swordsman. But when the swordsman drew his lengthy rapier from its sheath, the young attorney pulled only a short dagger from his scabbard. Realizing that he was doomed to defeat, he tossed his dagger into the air and ran from the scene with the laughter of the onlookers ringing in his ears.

The …

Procedural And Substantive Problems In Complex Litigation Arising From Disasters, Jack B. Weinstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Report On Survey Of The Bar, Committee On Federal Courts Of The New York State Bar Association

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Studying Civil Litigation Through The Class Action, Bryant G. Garth

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Class Actions And Duplicative Litigation, Edward F. Sherman

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Costs Of Complexity, Stephen B. Burbank

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Complex Litigation: Cases and Materials on Advanced Civil Procedure by Richard L. Marcus and Edward F. Sherman

The American Advantage: The Value Of Inefficient Litigation, Samuel R. Gross

Articles

In a recent article, The German Advantage in Civil Procedure,1 Professor John Langbein claims that the German system of civil litigation is superior to the American; in an earlier article he makes a parallel claim about German criminal procedure.2 Roughly, Professor Langbein argues that by comparison to the German process, American litigation is overly complex, expensive, slow, and unpredictable - in short, inefficient.3 Professor Langbein is not the first and will not be the last to criticize American legal institutions in these terms, but he expresses this criticism particularly well: he is concise and concrete, he describes American practice by …