Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Civil Law (47)
- Litigation (19)
- Courts (16)
- Criminal Procedure (14)
- Torts (12)
-
- Constitutional Law (11)
- Criminal Law (8)
- Evidence (6)
- Family Law (5)
- Jurisdiction (5)
- Commercial Law (4)
- Legal Education (4)
- Insurance Law (3)
- Judges (3)
- Jurisprudence (3)
- Legal Profession (3)
- Legal Remedies (3)
- Medical Jurisprudence (3)
- Property Law and Real Estate (3)
- Bankruptcy Law (2)
- Internet Law (2)
- Legislation (2)
- Privacy Law (2)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (2)
- State and Local Government Law (2)
- Agency (1)
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation (1)
- Banking and Finance Law (1)
- Keyword
-
- Civil procedure (10)
- Book review (7)
- Maine (7)
- Civil law (5)
- Divorce (4)
-
- Diversity (3)
- Diversity jurisdiction (3)
- Evidence (3)
- Federal rules of civil procedure (3)
- Frcp (3)
- Jurisdiction (3)
- Law court (3)
- Negligence (3)
- Punitive damages (3)
- Rule 26 (3)
- Rules of civil procedure (3)
- Business organization (2)
- Constitutional law (2)
- Criminal (2)
- Daubert (2)
- Debt collection (2)
- Discovery (2)
- Expert testimony (2)
- Finality (2)
- Jural entities (2)
- Jury trials (2)
- Legal education (2)
- Legal profession (2)
- Legal writing (2)
- Liability (2)
Articles 61 - 64 of 64
Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure
The Case For Restricting Diversity Jurisdiction: The Undeveloped Arguments, From The Race To The Bottom To The Substitution Effect, David Crump
Maine Law Review
Diversity jurisdiction is an idea whose time has come--and gone. In its present form, it serves its alleged purpose so inconsistently that its benefits are minimal, if they exist at all. And the costs that it imposes are significant. The traditional arguments for and against diversity are well known, but the traditional arguments against it actually understate its disadvantages. Therefore, the purpose of this Article is to construct the arguments against diversity that traditional scholarship has left underdeveloped. These include the proposition that today, in the twenty-first century, there are more reasons than ever to authorize diversity jurisdiction more selectively. …
Tipping The Scales?: Maine Adopts The Continuing Negligent Treatment Doctrine In Baker V. Farrand, Michael P. Beers
Tipping The Scales?: Maine Adopts The Continuing Negligent Treatment Doctrine In Baker V. Farrand, Michael P. Beers
Maine Law Review
In Baker v. Farrand, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, held that for a series of related negligent acts or omissions committed by a health care provider or practitioner, a single cause of action “accrues” under the Maine Health Security Act (hereinafter MHSA) on the date of the last act or omission that contributed to the plaintiff’s injury. Hence, in situations where a physician provides continuing negligent treatment to a patient in which each and every one of the physician’s actions are negligent, the MHSA’s three-year statute of limitations does not begin to run until the …
A Modern Look At The Right To A Civil Jury Trial Under The Maine Constitution, Carolyn A. Liegner
A Modern Look At The Right To A Civil Jury Trial Under The Maine Constitution, Carolyn A. Liegner
Maine Law Review
The right to a civil jury trial is a cornerstone of the American legal system. The Maine Constitution promises an even broader right to a civil jury trial than is offered by the federal Constitution and many other states. Article I, Section 20 states: “In all civil suits, and in all controversies concerning property, the parties shall have a right to a trial by jury, except in cases where it has heretofore been otherwise practiced.” The exception in the provision has been the subject of multiple interpretations by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, since the …
The Difficulties Of Encouraging Cooperation In A Zero-Sum Game, Jacob R. Kreutzer
The Difficulties Of Encouraging Cooperation In A Zero-Sum Game, Jacob R. Kreutzer
Maine Law Review
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally provide only the “rules of the road” on which litigation is conducted. However, in some areas the Rules step outside of this role and attempt to overtly encourage cooperation. One such rule is Rule 68, which allows a defendant to make an offer of judgment to the plaintiff, and provides that if the plaintiff refuses and subsequently wins less money than the defendant offered, the plaintiff must cover the defendant’s costs. Rule 68 was launched into prominence when the Supreme Court ruled, in Marek v. Chesney that a Rule 68 offer could negate …