Civil Procedure Commons^™

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

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Some Thoughts On The Pilot Program For Simultaneous Disclosure Of Expert Witnesses In Cook County, 46 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1181 (2013), Margaret Connery

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The History Of Texas Civil Procedure, William V. Dorsaneo Iii

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The promulgation of rules of court by the Texas Supreme Court has been the principal mechanism for the regulation of proceedings in Texas courts. This article provides a historical overview of the development of these rules, the rule-making process, the impact of procedural rule-making on the administration of justice in Texas courts, and the continuing need for revision and reorganization of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. This article also acknowledges the enormous debt that is owed to the Texas judges, lawyers, and professors who have participated in the rule-making process, mostly without plaudits or even public recognition. In a …

The New Uniform Statute Of Limitations For Federal Securities Fraud Actions: Its Evolution, Its Impact, And A Call For Reform, Anthony Michael Sabino

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

California Practicum: A Guide To Coordination Of Civil Actions In California, Darren L. Brooks

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cooperative Agreements: Government-To-Government Relations To Foster Reservation Business Development, Joel H. Mack, Gwyn Goodson Timms

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Toward A Balanced Approach To "Frivolous" Litigation: A Critical Review Of Federal Rule 11 And State Sanctions Provisions , Byron C. Keeling

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Populism, Politics, And Procedure: The Saga Of Summary Judgment And The Rulemaking Process In California, Glenn S. Koppel

Pepperdine Law Review

The California Constitution gives the primary power to promulgate rules of civil procedure for the state courts to the legislature and the people, leaving the state’s Judicial Council with residual, or secondary, authority to adopt rules of procedure and court administration “when and where the higher authority of the Legislature and the people has not been exercised.” This Article demonstrates how this legislative rulemaking process, referred to herein as “legislative primacy,” does not work because, as of the writing of this article in 1997, it produced ineffective statutory summary judgment law.

14th Annual Open Government Summit: Access To Public Records Act & Open Meetings Act, 2012, Department Of Attorney General, State Of Rhode Island

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Standing Of Intervenor-Defendants In Public Law Litigation, Matthew I. Hall

Scholarly Works

Unless the plaintiff has a personal stake in the outcome, Article III of the United States Constitution requires federal courts to dismiss a plaintiff’s claim for lack of standing. That much is clearly established by decades of precedent. Less understood, however, is the degree to which Article III also requires defendants to possess a personal stake. The significance of defendant standing often goes unnoticed in case law and scholarship, because the standing of the defendant in most lawsuits is readily apparent:any defendant against whom the plaintiff seeks a remedy has a personal interest in defending against the plaintiff’s claim.

But …

Rejecting Sovereign Immunity In Public Law Litigation, Howard M. Wasserman

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

13th Annual Open Government Summit: Access To Public Records Act & Open Meetings Act, 2011, Department Of Attorney General, State Of Rhode Island

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Our Class Action Federalism: Erie And The Rules Enabling Act After Shady Grove, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

The intersection of federalism and class-action litigation has been an area of significant controversy in recent years. With the 2005 Class Action Fairness Act placing more high-stakes class actions into federal court, an especially crucial question is the extent to which the Erie doctrine and the Rules Enabling Act (REA) require federal courts to follow state class-action law. The Supreme Court’s decision in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co. begins to confront this issue, but many unanswered questions remain. Under several lines of argument that were neither made nor considered in Shady Grove, the Erie doctrine and the …

Protect Me From Myself: Determining Competency To Waive The Right To Counsel During Civil-Commitment Proceedings In Washington State, Jacob J. Stender

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment argues that an unarticulated, heightened standard of competency to waive counsel, under which Washington currently operates, is the ideal standard to address the unique concerns that exist in civil- commitment proceedings. This Comment clarifies the existing law governing the determination of a party’s right to waive counsel, as well as the determination of the validity of such a waiver. This Comment also articulates a comprehensive inquiry standard for trial courts, both within and outside of Washington, to apply when determining the competency of a party and the validity of a waiver. The goal of this express determination standard …

Rid Of Habeas Corpus - How Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Has Endangered Access To The Writ Of Habeas Corpus And What The Supreme Court Can Do In Maples And Martinez To Restore It, 45 Creighton L. Rev. 185 (2011), Hugh Mundy

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Survey Of Illinois Law: At Long Last, A Long Look At Respondents In Discovery, 35 S. Ill. U. L.J. 703 (2011), Marc Ginsberg

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

In Defense Of The Substance-Procedure Dichotomy, Jennifer S. Hendricks

Publications

John Hart Ely famously observed, "We were all brought up on sophisticated talk about the fluidity of the line between substance and procedure," but for most of Erie's history, the Supreme Court has answered the question "Does this state law govern in federal court? " with a "yes" or a "no." Beginning, however, with Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, and continuing with Semtek v. Lockheed Martin and the dissenting opinion in Shady Grove v. Allstate, a shifting coalition of justices has pursued a third path. Instead of declaring state law applicable or inapplicable, they have claimed for …

Horizontal Erie And The Presumption Of Forum Law, Michael Steven Green

Michigan Law Review

According to Erie Railroad v. Tompkins and its progeny, a federal court interpreting state law must decide as the state's supreme court would. In this Article, I argue that a state court interpreting the law of a sister state is subject to the same obligation. It must decide as the sister state's supreme court would. Horizontal Erie is such a plausible idea that one might think it is already established law. But the Supreme Court has in fact given state courts significant freedom to misinterpret sister-state law. And state courts have taken advantage of this freedom, by routinely presuming that …

Recent Statute Of Limitations Developments In The New York Court Of Appeals, Jay C. Carlisle Ii

Pace Law Review

No abstract provided.

Clear As Mud: How The Uncertain Precedential Status Of Unpublished Opinions Muddles Qualified Immunity Determinations, David R. Cleveland

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Irrepressible Influence Of Byrd, Richard D. Freer, Thomas Arthur

Faculty Articles

We set forth four interrelated theses in this article. First, Byrd is the only Supreme Court case since Erie itself to discuss all three of the core interests balanced, expressly or not, in every vertical choice of law case. Second, because Hanna's "twin aims" test ignores two of these three core interests, it cannot adequately serve as the standard for cases under the Rules of Decision Act ("RDA"). This fact is evidenced by the Court's eschewing the twin aims test in cases, like Gasperini, where state and federal interests must be accommodated. Third, as all three opinions in …

Estate Of Pew V. Cardarelli, Natallia Krauchuk

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

12th Annual Open Government Summit: Access To Public Records Act & Open Meetings Act, 2010, Department Of Attorney General, State Of Rhode Island

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Does Cercla Preempt New York State Law Claims For Cost Recovery And Contribution?, Kristi Weiner

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

State-Created Property And Due Process Of Law: Filling The Void Left By Engquist V. Oregon Department Of Agriculture, Michael L. Wells, Alice E. Snedeker

Georgia Law Review

Several years ago, in Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, the Supreme Court recognized a "class-of-one"equal protection theory, under which individuals charging that they were singled out for arbitrary treatment by officials may sue for vindication. Last term, in Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, the Court barred recourse to this type of claim on the part of government employees. The reasoning of Engquist, which emphasizes the discretionary nature of employment decisions, threatens to eliminate a wide range of class-of-one claims outside the employment area as well. There is a pressing need for an alternative. This Article proposes another basis on …

Ascertaining The Burden Of Proof For An Award For Punitive Damages In New York? Consult Your Local Appellate Division, Leon D. Lazer, John R. Higgitt

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

10th Annual Open Government Summit: The Access To Public Records Act & The Open Meetings Act, 2008, Department Of Attorney General, State Of Rhode Island

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

The Enigma Of Standing Doctrine In Texas Courts, William V. Dorsaneo Iii

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This Article examines federal and Texas standing doctrine and makes recommendations for the principled application of the traditional non-jurisdictional approach of the procedural defense of standing under Texas law for common law claims and statutory rights of action and for the concomitant restriction of the jurisdictional aspects of standing to litigation brought by private persons and governmental units to enforce public rights or compel the performance of public duties. This Article also explains how the concepts of standing and capacity can be reconciled and harmonized.

9th Annual Open Government Summit: The Access To Public Records Act & The Open Meetings Act, 2007, Department Of Attorney General, State Of Rhode Island

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

A Proposal To Clarify Rule 68 Of The Nevada Rules Of Civil Procedure Regarding Offers Of Judgment, Craig Roecks

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.