Civil Procedure Commons^™

Rehnquist Or Rorty?, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

A postmodern response to Gene Shreve, Eighteen Feet of Clay: Thoughts on Phantom Rule 4(m), 67 Ind. L.J. 85 (1991).

Personal Jurisdiction And The Beetle In The Box, Wendy Collins Perdue

Law Faculty Publications

In 1980 in World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, the Supreme Court described personal jurisdiction as "an instrument of interstate federalism." Two years later in Insurance Corporation of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, the Court back-pedaled and explained that personal jurisdiction "represents a restriction on judicial power not as a matter of sovereignty, but as a matter of individual liberty." Then, in 1985 in Phillips Petroleum v. Shutts, the Court explained that the purpose of personal jurisdiction is "to protect a defendant from the travail of defending in a distant forum." Three years later in Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, …

Standing To Intervene, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court has rarely considered what applicants must show to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) since the Court amended the provision in 1966. This dearth of Supreme Court treatment has meant that primary responsibility for interpreting Rule 24(a)(2) has devolved upon the lower federal courts. Many of these courts and numerous commentators have recognized that it is very difficult to identify precisely what the Rule demands of those that seek to intervene of right. During much of the last quarter century, however, the federal judiciary agreed about one important proposition: Rule 24(a)(2) does …

Judicial Discretion And The 1983 Amendments To The Federal Civil Rules, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The first section of this Article briefly describes the developments which created the perception that the federal courts were experiencing a litigation explosion and which ultimately led to the promulgation of the 1983 amendments as one response to the perceived explosion. It also examines the substantive content of those changes, especially how the revisions enlarged federal judicial discretion. The second section evaluates the courts' implementation of the 1983 amendments and finds that this application has adversely affected numerous litigants, particularly civil rights plaintiffs, while providing some benefits, namely fostering more expeditious dispute resolution.

The third section provides suggestions for the …

Rule 11 Recalibrated In Civil Rights Cases, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The United States Supreme Court promulgated the 1983 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure out of growing concern about abuse of the civil litigation process. The most controversial aspect of the implementation of these revisions has been judicial enforcement of amended Rule 11 (the Rule) in ways that disadvantage or "chill" civil rights plaintiffs and attorneys. As the federal judiciary enters its eighth year of implementing the Rule, courts apparently have improved their application of it by becoming more solicitous of the needs of civil rights plaintiffs and their counsel, in recognition of the important social function that …

Recent Work Of The Civil Rules Committee, Carl W. Tobias, Margaret L. Sanner

Law Faculty Publications

Congress reformed the procedures for amending the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1988 by prescribing greater public participation in the rules revision process. Since that time, the Advisory Committee on the Civil Rules, which has primary responsibility for studying the Rules and developing proposals for change in them, has examined several important Rules and made controversial recommendations for modifying those provisions. Although the Committee has assessed and suggested controversial revision in summary judgment and discovery, this article analyzes recent efforts of the Committee involving Rule 11, a provision that was fundamentally amended as recently as 1983.

Montana Rule 11 …

Federal Court Procedural Reform In Montana, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Much activity related to civil procedure recently occurred that could significantly affect practice in the Montana Federal District Court. During October 1991, the Committee to Redraft the Uniform District Court Rules (Local Rules Committee), which is charged with considering revision of the local rules, issued an Interim Report that includes suggested changes in those rules. The Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States (Standing Committee) distributed in August 1991 preliminary drafts of proposals to amend in varying degrees eighteen Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Advisory Group to Implement the Civil …

Virginia Manuscript Law Reports, William Hamilton Bryson

Law Faculty Publications

Case law, including published cases and cases that have never been published, is the basis of the common law. Professor Bryson discusses the use of manuscript law reports in Virginia during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Finley V. United States: Unstringing Pendent Jurisdiction, Wendy Collins Perdue

Law Faculty Publications

The approach adopted by the Supreme Court in Finley v. United States calls into question not only pendent-claim jurisdiction but ancillary jurisdiction as well. Particularly vulnerable to attack are those uses of ancillary jurisdiction that involve the addition of new parties such as class action, intervention, and impleader. Furthermore, the opinion may lay a foundation for attacking ancillary-claim jurisdiction involving counterclaims or cross-claims. This commentary will examine Finley and the potential impact of the opinion on the various permutations of ancillary and pendent jurisdiction.

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 …

An Independent Public Law, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

This Article analyzes the application of numerous Federal Rules in public law litigation to show how the resurrection of private law approaches and hostility toward public interest litigants serves to disadvantage public interest litigants. The assessment is intended to discourage such future enforcement of the Federal Rules and analogous judicial treatment in other areas of public law. The Article is also meant to foster greater appreciation of public law and the articulation of a larger complement of public law principles so as to facilitate the growth of an independent public law.

The Specificity Of Pleading In Modern Civil Practice: Addressing Common Misconceptions, Ian James Wilson, William Louis Payne

University of Richmond Law Review

The pleading procedure serves as the foundation for the entire legal process. Pleadings focus the issues, narrow the evidence admissible at trial, apprise the adverse party and the court of the matter in dispute, and provide the extent of the res judicata effect of the judgment. To secure the foundation and to effectuate the purposes of the pleading procedure, it is imperative that the pleading set forth sufficient allegations. The standard for determining the sufficiency of the allegations is referred to as the specificity requirement and serves as the focus of this Note.

Intervention After Webster, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services throws down the gauntlet on the "most politically divisive domestic legal issue of our time," imperiling women's progress in securing reproductive freedom and power in society. The battle over abortion rights is likely to splinter an already deeply divided country. After fierce fighting in many statehouses, some legislatures will pass statutes further restricting abortion. The major battleground, however, will quickly shift to the federal courts, where plaintiffs seeking to protect procreative freedom will challenge these measures. Judges, parties, and lawyers participating in this litigation will rigorously analyze the issues of "substance" that Webster and the …

Sanctioning Defendants' Non-Willful Delay:The Failure Of Rule 55 And A Proposal For Its Reform, Carl B. Schultz

University of Richmond Law Review

For as long as parties have pursued claims through litigation, those against whom claims are asserted have delayed the litigation process. Defendants, and other parties against whom claims are asserted, (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants), fail to answer complaints against them in time; they delay in responding to discovery requests, motions and court orders, and they fail to appear for trials and other proceedings.

Rule 11 And Civil Rights Litigation, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The recent amendment of rule 11 may well have engendered more controversy than any other revision since the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were first promulgated one-half century ago. The new version essentially requires that judges impose sanctions on lawyers and parties who fail to conduct reasonable inquiries before filing court papers. The amendment's adoption was prompted by increasing concern about abuse of the litigation process and about the "litigation explosion" -the perception that unprecedented numbers of civil cases were being filed and that too many lacked merit. Proponents have hailed the revised rule as the savior of the civil …

Grand Jury Reform: A Proposal For Change In Virginia, Charles E. Wall

University of Richmond Law Review

Once a cornerstone of American jurisprudence, the requirement of prosecution based upon grand jury indictment no longer stands unchallenged. Instead, alternate means of commencing prosecution, most notably by information and the preliminary hearing, have prompted lawmakers to look at the grand jury with a heightened scrutiny. Subsequently, such alternatives have become the primary prosecutorial tools in many states. Virginia, however, retains the grand jury system which was implemented in colonial times.

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Civil Procedure And Practice, W. Hamilton Bryson

University of Richmond Law Review

Rules 2:4 and 3:3(c) of the Rules of Virginia Supreme Court ("Rules of Court") require the dismissal of an action if service of process is not accomplished within one year after the filing thereof unless the plaintiff can show "due diligence" or good cause for the delay. Since the plaintiff can get personal service on a defendant who has absconded by means of the general long arm statute, it will be a heavy burden in practice to show due diligence or good cause or it will be a highly unusual situation. Recently, two issues have arisen regarding these rules.

Public Law Litigation And The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The public interest litigant is no longer a nascent phenomenon in American jurisprudence. Born of the need of large numbers of people who individually lack the economic wherewithal or the logistical capacity to vindicate important social values or their own specific interests through the courts, these litigants now participate actively in much federal civil litigation: public law litigation. Despite the pervasive presence of public interest litigants, the federal judiciary has accorded them a mixed reception, particularly when applying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Many federal courts have applied numerous Rules in ways that disadvantage public interest litigants, especially in …

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law - Civil Procedure And Practice, William Hamilton Bryson

Law Faculty Publications

Rules 2:41 and 3:3(c) of the Rules of Virginia Supreme Court ("Rules of Court") require the dismissal of an action if service of process is not accomplished within one year after the filing thereof unless the plaintiff can show "due diligence" or good cause for the delay. 3 Since the plaintiff can get personal service on a defendant who has absconded by means of the general long arm statute,4 it will be a heavy burden in practice to show due diligence or good cause or it will be a highly unusual situation. Recently, two issues have arisen regarding these rules.

Court Costs In Virginia, William Hamilton Bryson

Law Faculty Publications

Costs are certain official expenses of litigation that the court orders the losing party to pay to the prevailing party. They are not a part of the judgment but are appurtenant to it.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Civil Procedure And Practice, W. Hamilton Bryson

University of Richmond Law Review

This article considers recent developments in the field of Virginia civil procedure and practice, including statutes, rules of court, and opinions of the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Court of Appeals of Virginia that have appeared between May 1986 and May 1987. This article also comments on cases in volumes five through eight of Virginia Circuit Court Opinions, many of which were decided before 1986. It is appropriate to mention them here since they were only recently made generally available through publication. In order to facilitate the discussion of numerous Virginia Code sections, they will be referred to in …

Sin, Scandal And Substantive Due Process: Personal Jurisdiction And Pennoyer Reconsidered, Wendy Collins Perdue

Law Faculty Publications

Professor Perdue recounts the underlying story of the U.S. Supreme Court's seminal personal jurisdiction case, Pennoyer v. Neff.

Rule 19 And The Public Rights Exception To Party Joinder, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The increasing number of "public interest" lawsuits suggests that federal courts increasingly will confront difficult party joinder questions posed by such litigation. These problems arise because entities not involved in the litigation may have interests that may be adversely affected by the litigation. The joinder issue presented by such cases is whether rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the suit be dismissed or whether the litigation can continue without joinder of the absent entities. Numerous courts have dealt with the question by creating a 'public rights exception," which permits the litigation to continue even without …

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Administrative Procedure, John Paul Jones

University of Richmond Law Review

Since the last report, administrative law in Virginia has continued to develop on both the legislative and judicial fronts. This year's General Assembly enacted amendments to the state's administrative procedure statute which embody the third and final round of recommendations by the Governor's Regulatory Reform Advisory Board. The major changes were the standardization of procedures for obtaining judicial review of state agency action and the embodiment in statute of a corps of independent hearing officers.

Note: This submission also includes a small preface from the Law Review Editorial Staff.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Civil Procedure And Practice, W. Hamilton Bryson

University of Richmond Law Review

This article considers recent developments in the field of Virginia civil procedure and practice, including statutes, rules of court, and opinions of the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Court of Appeals of Virginia that have appeared between May 1985 and May 1986. This article also comments on cases in volumes three and four of Virginia Circuit Court Opinions, many of which were decided before 1985, but it is appropriate to mention them here since they were only recently made generally available through publication.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law - Civil Procedure And Practice, William Hamilton Bryson

Law Faculty Publications

This article considers recent developments in the field of Virginia civil procedure and practice, including statutes, rules of court, and opinions of the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Court of Appeals of Virginia that have appeared between May 1985 and May 1986. This article also comments on cases in volumes three and four of Virginia Circuit Court Opinions, many of which were decided before 1985, but it is appropriate to mention them here since they were only recently made generally available through publication. There have been no major changes in the area of Virginia civil procedure during the period …

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law - Civil Procedure And Practice, William Hamilton Bryson

Law Faculty Publications

This article considers recent statutes and case law in the field of Virginia civil procedure and practice. Since it has been several years since the last similar effort was published, this essay will take notice of the developments which have taken place from 1983 to May 1985. Much of the case law to be mentioned is pre-1983 trial court material, but since it was only recently published, it will be useful to have it included here. This is especially so since most points of civil procedure and practice, being harmless error, are not often considered by the Virginia Supreme Court …

Virginia's Statute Of Limitations For Section 1983 Claims After Wilson V. Garcia, John R. Pagan

University of Richmond Law Review

Because 42 U.S.C. section 1983 lacks its own statute of limitations, courts determine the deadline for commencing civil rights actions by borrowing the most appropriate limitation prescribed by state law. Courts have used a variety of techniques to choose among arguably relevant state limitation provisions. This diversity has produced "conflict, confusion, and uncertainty concerning the appropriate statute of limitations to apply to this most important, and ubiquitous, civil rights statute.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Civil Procedure And Practice, W. Hamilton Bryson

University of Richmond Law Review

This article considers recent statutes and case law in the field of Virginia civil procedure and practice. Since it has been several years since the last similar effort was published, this essay will take notice of the developments which have taken place from 1983 to May 1985. Much of the case law to be mentioned is pre-1983 trial court material, but since it was only recently published, it will be useful to have it included here. This is especially so since most points of civil procedure and practice, being harmless error, are not often considered by the Virginia Supreme Court …