Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Civil Law (209)
- Constitutional Law (206)
- Courts (203)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (200)
- Contracts (200)
-
- Litigation (198)
- Administrative Law (197)
- First Amendment (197)
- Criminal Law (196)
- Criminal Procedure (196)
- Fourteenth Amendment (196)
- Land Use Law (196)
- Communications Law (195)
- Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law (195)
- Human Rights Law (195)
- Intellectual Property Law (195)
- Agency (194)
- Education Law (194)
- Environmental Law (194)
- Evidence (194)
- Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law (194)
- Judges (194)
- Energy and Utilities Law (193)
- Law and Gender (193)
- Tax Law (193)
- Transnational Law (193)
- Bankruptcy Law (192)
- Gaming Law (192)
- Keyword
-
- Law (12)
- Washington (8)
- SFFA (7)
- Affirmative Action (6)
- Constitution (6)
-
- ESG (6)
- Diversity (5)
- First Amendment (5)
- Regulation (5)
- Securities and exchange commission (5)
- Supreme Court (5)
- Addiction (4)
- Artificial intelligence (4)
- Corporate (4)
- Discovery (4)
- Public health (4)
- Reform (4)
- SEC (4)
- Technology (4)
- Antitrust (3)
- Corporate Governance (3)
- Corporate Law (3)
- Data (3)
- Discrimination (3)
- Employment (3)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (3)
- Fourth Amendment (3)
- Insurance (3)
- Jurisdiction (3)
- Privacy (3)
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 241 - 254 of 254
Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure
Precluding Government Relitigation Of Statutory Interpretations: Clark-Cowlitz Joint Operating Agency V. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Bradley Bishop Jones
Precluding Government Relitigation Of Statutory Interpretations: Clark-Cowlitz Joint Operating Agency V. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Bradley Bishop Jones
Seattle University Law Review
This Note explores the issue of the applicability of the preclusion doctrines against the government. Specific focus is placed upon the doctrines’ application in cases where the government has previously litigated a question of statutory interpretation. The exploration begins with the recent case of Clark-Cowlitz Joint Operating Agency v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Clark-Cowlitz), a classic factual setting for analyzing this issue. The Note then briefly examines the historical developments of the preclusion doctrines and the United States Supreme Court’s recent and continuing struggle with the application of the doctrines against the government. It is the position of …
Appellate Review Of Unclear State Law In The Ninth Circuit After In Re Mclinn, Daniel L. Brewster
Appellate Review Of Unclear State Law In The Ninth Circuit After In Re Mclinn, Daniel L. Brewster
Seattle University Law Review
In McLinn, the Ninth Circuit significantly departed from the practice of the other circuits, and from its own prior practice, when it rejected the deferential standard of review normally applied to a federal district court's interpretation of state law. This Note discusses the Ninth Circuit's decision in McLinn and examines the deferential standard employed in the other circuits and in the United States Supreme Court. The Note takes the position that McLinn was correct in rejecting the former practice of accepting a district court's interpretations of state law unless clearly wrong, but that McLinn went too far in holding …
Class Actions—Washington Style: A Look At Washington Superior Court Rule 23, Allen K. Easley
Class Actions—Washington Style: A Look At Washington Superior Court Rule 23, Allen K. Easley
Seattle University Law Review
This Article focuses on class actions in the Washington State courts. It compares and contrasts the Washington experience with practice under the federal class action rule, and places particular emphasis on the differences between state and federal practice.
The Myth Of Uniformity In Federal Civil Procedure: Federal Civil Rule 83 And District Court Local Rulemaking Powers, David M. Roberts
The Myth Of Uniformity In Federal Civil Procedure: Federal Civil Rule 83 And District Court Local Rulemaking Powers, David M. Roberts
Seattle University Law Review
This Article begins by demonstrating that the proliferation of local rules indeed poses a threat to the integrity and uniformity of federal procedure. The Article next examines the general policies relating to local rulemaking. Based on that analysis, the final section presents specific proposals for rethinking rule 83 to permit informed local control over truly local matters, while placing beyond the reach of district courts those matters that are national in scope.
Tightening The Reigns On Pendent And Ancillary Jurisdiction, David Lawyer
Tightening The Reigns On Pendent And Ancillary Jurisdiction, David Lawyer
Seattle University Law Review
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Article III, section 2 of the United States Constitution makes this principle clear by the statement that "judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties . . . and . . . to all controversies . . . between Citizens of different States . . ."' One might argue that "judicial power" under Article III is not the same thing as jurisdiction. But the exercise of jurisdiction in situations in which a federal court does not have judicial power would …
Clear Standards For Discovery Protective Orders: A Missed Opportunity In Rhinehart V. Seattle Times Co., Carole J. Breitenbach
Clear Standards For Discovery Protective Orders: A Missed Opportunity In Rhinehart V. Seattle Times Co., Carole J. Breitenbach
Seattle University Law Review
The Washington State Supreme Court has previously balanced the interests of privacy and effective judicial administration against those of free speech and public access in the context of judicial proceedings, and the court missed a significant opportunity to expand and apply this balancing test in Rhinehart. The United States Supreme Court similarly declined to create a balancing test to ensure the full protection of First Amendment interests during pretrial discovery. A need remains for a general standard to ensure that First Amendment interests in disseminating discovery information are identified and protected when a protective order is requested.
Everybody's Doing It—But Who Should Be? Standing To Make A Disqualification Motion Based On An Attorney's Representation Of A Client With Interests Adverse To Those Of A Former Client, Andra Barmash Greene
Everybody's Doing It—But Who Should Be? Standing To Make A Disqualification Motion Based On An Attorney's Representation Of A Client With Interests Adverse To Those Of A Former Client, Andra Barmash Greene
Seattle University Law Review
This article examines the issue of standing for disqualification motions based on an attorney’s representation of a client with interest adverse to those of a former client of the attorney. The article focuses on the appropriateness of granting standing to nonclients to make disqualification motions, particularly when the former client has not objected to the attorney’s alleged conflict of interest. First, the article examines the Model Code of Professional Responsibility provisions implicated when an attorney is charged with a conflict of interest between present and former clients to discern what rights the Code wanted to safeguard. Second, this article considers …
Walker V. Armco Steel Corporation: The Jurisprudence Of Federal Rule 3, Theresa B. Doyle
Walker V. Armco Steel Corporation: The Jurisprudence Of Federal Rule 3, Theresa B. Doyle
Seattle University Law Review
Recognizing a conflict between the goals of uniform federal procedure and of uniform outcome in state and federal forums, the Supreme Court in <em>Hanna v. Plumer</em> removed the Federal Rules from the purview of the <em>Erie</em> doctrine and announced a separate standard more solicitous of federal procedural uniformity. The <em>Hanna</em> Court, however, confounded lower courts and legal scholars by failing to overrule <em>Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse Co.</em>, decided under the <em>Erie</em> doctrine and in apparent conflict with the Court's new perspective on the Federal Rules. Legal commentators debated <em>Ragan's</em> continued vitality, lower courts split, and both groups pleaded …
Search, Seizure, And Section 7: Standing From Salvucci To Simpson, Mark H. Adams, George R. Nock
Search, Seizure, And Section 7: Standing From Salvucci To Simpson, Mark H. Adams, George R. Nock
Seattle University Law Review
This article traces the evolution of automatic standing from Jones v. United States to United States v. Salvucci and discusses the approach that has replaced the Jones rule in the Supreme Court. It then discusses the Washington Supreme Court’s continued adherence to the automatic standing rule, despite the Salvucci decision, under the Washington Constitution rather than the fourth amendment. After focusing on the failure of the United States Supreme Court to fashion a standing rule consistent with the Court’s stated purpose for the exclusionary rule, this article urges the Washington court to interpret the state’s constitution in a more consistent, …
Court Rulemaking In Washington, Hugh Spitzer
Court Rulemaking In Washington, Hugh Spitzer
Seattle University Law Review
This article suggests that Washington court rule controversies arise from the lack of a clear, constitutionally established apportionment of rulemaking powers between the legislative and judicial branches, and that there is a lack of procedures providing adequate internal safeguards and accountability. This article first reviews the classical separation of powers doctrine. The discussion then focuses on internal procedural safeguards that also serve within each power center to discourage arbitrary or ill-considered action. This article then reviews the history of court rulemaking in Washington and in other jurisdictions and suggests that from a logical view, the scope of sole judicial power …
Acquiring In Personam Jurisdiction In Federal Question Cases: Procedural Frustration Under Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 4, Marilyn Berger
Acquiring In Personam Jurisdiction In Federal Question Cases: Procedural Frustration Under Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 4, Marilyn Berger
Faculty Articles
With the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938, Congress finally attempted to provide a uniform standard for exercising personal jurisdiction in federal courts. Despite that attempt, there is currently no uniform method for acquiring personal jurisdiction in federal question cases. A contributing factor to the lack of uniformity is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. This article calls for a uniform personal jurisdiction standard in federal question cases. In so doing, it examines the three ways to acquire personal jurisdiction under Rule 4 and evaluates the adequacy of each method. Because some federal courts rely on …
Admiralty Arrest Procedures Fail The Due Process Test: Alyeska Pipeline Service Company V. Vessel Bay Ridge, Lance B. Nelson
Admiralty Arrest Procedures Fail The Due Process Test: Alyeska Pipeline Service Company V. Vessel Bay Ridge, Lance B. Nelson
Seattle University Law Review
The maritime lien plays an important role in facilitating the smooth operation of maritime commerce. Suppliers and others who do business with vessels are more likely to extend credit to even a strange or foreign ship because the remedy of a maritime lien is available. Without the lien the vessel would no longer serve as security for any contractual or tort liability she might incur and some other form of security would be required prior to dealing with the vessel. Arranging for letters of credit or similar security could prove costly and in some instances delay the vessel. Moreover, the …
Proposed Citizens Right To Standing Act-Finding The Keys To Unlock The Courthouse Doors, Harold W. Wood, Jr.
Proposed Citizens Right To Standing Act-Finding The Keys To Unlock The Courthouse Doors, Harold W. Wood, Jr.
Seattle University Law Review
Recent Supreme Court decisions severely restrict the right of citizens to litigate in federal courts. The Court's standing requirements not only limit the ability of citizens to successfully invoke federal court jurisdiction, but also confuse lower courts and litigants attempting to apply the requirements. Standing requirements have met with increasing criticism. And Congress is now considering legislative modification of standing doctrine. Unfortunately, the Court's employment of constitutional foundations in establishing current standing requirements imposes substantial roadblocks Congress must avoid to enact remedial standing legislation. This comment examines the constitutional and pragmatic difficulties of statutory modification of standing requirements and recommends …
A Practitioner's Guide To The Management And Use Of Expert Witnesses In Washington Civil Litigation, Thomas V. Harris
A Practitioner's Guide To The Management And Use Of Expert Witnesses In Washington Civil Litigation, Thomas V. Harris
Seattle University Law Review
The Washington litigation process places a premium on the skillful management of expert witnesses. Testimony presented by such witnesses is both readily admissible and virtually unlimited in scope. Washington's adoption of the new Rules of Evidence can only serve to reinforce the current practice. Since most litigated cases involve substantial factual disputes, the development and presentation of expert testimony should be a major concern of all trial attorneys. The importance of trial examination has never been underrated. That part of the litigation process is one that all attorneys relish. The skillful management of expert witnesses, however, involves far more than …