Civil Procedure Commons^™

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Civil Practice And Procedure, Donald P. Boyle Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

Virginia courts and the General Assembly have effected a number of changes in civil practice and procedure during the past year. This article focuses on some significant developments of interest to the general litigation attorney.

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Civil Practice And Procedure, David D. Hopper

University of Richmond Law Review

Virginia courts and the General Assembly have effected a number of changes in civil practice and procedure during the past year. This article focuses on some significant developments of interest to the general litigation attorney. Matters affecting real property, juveniles, and construction laws are treated elsewhere in this volume.

Due Process In Death Penalty Commutations: Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit Of Clemency, Daniel T. Kobil

University of Richmond Law Review

The idea of the last-minute reprieve granted by a distant, unknowable dispenser of mercy to a man condemned to death has a powerful hold on our imaginations. Fyodor Dostoevsky's eleventh hour pardon by the czar in many ways shaped his literary career. The scene of the haunted Death Row prisoner who awaits word from the governor as a ticking clock punctuates his final hours is a stock vignette of Hollywood crime films. Anyone who has ever seized on the slimmest hope, whose fate has been committed to the hands of another - virtually all of us - can identify with …

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Civil Practice And Procedure, George J. Dancigers, A. William Charters

University of Richmond Law Review

This article reviews recent developments and changes in legislation, case law, and Virginia Supreme Court Rules affecting civil litigation. Its scope does not extend to criminal procedure or to topics unique to equity practice.

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Civil Procedure And Practice, George J. Dancigers, Michelle Redavid Rack

University of Richmond Law Review

This article reviews recent developments and changes in legislation, case law, and Virginia Supreme Court Rules affecting civil litigation. The scope of the paper does not extend to criminal procedure or topics unique to equity practice.

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.

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.

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.

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 …

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.

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 …

The Abolition Of The Forms Of Action In Virginia, W. Hamilton Bryson

University of Richmond Law Review

The common law procedure for initiating actions at law in the English courts required a plaintiff to obtain a writ invoking the jurisdiction of the court and to file a declaration setting forth the facts that justified instigation of the suit and established the cause of the action. This clumsy and archaic system of litigation was abolished by a single chop of the legislative guillotine in New York in 1848. England followed suit in 1875, and the United States federal courts in 1938. Writs and declarations were replaced by simple forms which were copied from the practice of the equity …

Corporate And Institutional Accident Investigations As Work Product Pursuant To The Rules Of The Supreme Court Of Virginia, William Todd Benson

University of Richmond Law Review

If the magnitude of the mishap so warrants, many businesses immediately call their insurance adjuster or other accident investigator. In some of the larger businesses, accident investigation and insurance have become in-house operations. This quick reflex toward early fact investigation is prompted, in part, by a healthy respect for the potentiality of claims arising out of the day to day conduct of business affairs. When a suit against such company ultimately is ified and discovery sought, an issue often arises concerning whether early institutional investigations are "work product" for purposes of the federal or Virginia rules of civil procedure. This …

The Impact Of Allstate Insurance Co. V. Hague On Constitutional Limitations On Choice Of Law, W. Clark Williams Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

The development of constitutional limitations on choice of law by the United States Supreme Court has turned primarily on the due process clause and the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution. In theory at least, each constitutional provision rests upon separate grounds. The full faith and credit clause, as it applies to public acts, would compel a forum state under appropriate circumstances to honor the sovereignty of a foreign state in the federal system and to apply the law of the foreign state whose interests are sufficiently compelling. The due process clause limits the power of …

The Preclusiveness Of A Party's Testimony: Sixty Years Of Massie V. Firmstone In Virginia, Ann L. Hardy

University of Richmond Law Review

The rule that a party may rise no higher than his own testimony was first articulated in Virginia in Massie v. Firmstone. It has been criticized, misunderstood, and misapplied, but since its inception in 1922, it has grown into an important rule of evidence and procedure. The practitioner must consider the implications of the rule from the moment he begins to gather evidence that he expects to present in the form of live testimony.

The Prejudicial Effects Of Cameras In The Courtroom, Robert J. Fuoco

University of Richmond Law Review

The Supreme Court recently held in Chandler v. Florida, that absent a showing of actual prejudice, it is not per se unconstitutional to televise trials over the objection of the defendant. This decision has a direct bearing on state court procedures, as over one-half of the states currently permit television coverage of trials in one form or another. However, sheer numbers supporting a proposition do not make that proposition "right", nor does a Supreme Court decision upholding its constitutionality imply an unqualified stamp of approval. In fact, previous Supreme Court decisions have overturned convictions because the defendant's right to a …

Collateral Estoppel, Rose M. Alexander, Ofie T. Rubin, Anita G. Vaughn, Carol L. Wingo

University of Richmond Law Review

The doctrine of collateral estoppel involves the use of an old judgment in a new action to prevent the relitigation of issues resolved by that old judgment. At common law, use of the doctrine required that the party using collateral estoppel and the party against whom it was used be the same as the parties to the prior judgment. This common law requirement of mutuality has been relaxed and since the United States Supreme Court's 1979 decision in ParklaneHoisery Co. v. Shore, the strict common law requirement of mutuality has all but completely vanished. In Parklane the Court sanctioned the …

Judicial Restraining Orders And The Media: Does It Really Matter Who Is Gagged?, James M. Jennings Ii

University of Richmond Law Review

Writing in Bridges v. California, Justice Hugo Black observed forty years ago that "free speech and fair trials are two of the most cherished policies of our civilization, and it would be a trying task to choose between them." And yet, these constitutionally guaranteed rights have been in conflict since at least 1807.

When Cops Are Robbers-Municipal Liability For Police Misconduct Under Section 1983 And Bivens, Brenda D. Crocker

University of Richmond Law Review

Municipalities faced with rising crime rates, tighter budgets and an increasingly vocal populace often are pressed to make policy decisions which sacrifice important interests. When fiscal considerations predominate, there arises the danger that local police departments will be unable to fulfill their duty to ensure order in society without disturbing citizens' enjoyment of their civil rights. Until recently, improperly trained, supervised or disciplined police of- ficers merely subjected municipalities to embarrassment. However, with increasing success, citizens are arguing that they should be awarded damages against the municipality in every case where their civil rights have been deprived through police misconduct. …

Counter Revolution In The Federal Courts Of Appeal - The Aftermath Of Vermont Yankee, Jon A. Mueller

University of Richmond Law Review

In recent years, there has been growing judicial concern about the fairness of action by administrative agencies and the ability of courts to effectively review this action. This concern stems from the increased use of informal procedures by agencies promulgating rules or orders, to accomplish the congressional objectives set out in their substantive statutes. In response, certain federal courts of appeal have begun to impose upon these agencies more procedural safeguards than are required by either the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or substantive statutes. These judicially imposed safeguards are more commonly known as hybrid procedures.

Non-Jury Trial Of Civil Litigation: Justifying A Complexity Exception To The Seventh Amendment, Barrett E. Pope

University of Richmond Law Review

The seventh amendment to the United States Constitution states that "[i]n Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved."' When Congress enacted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the right to jury trial at common law remained undisturbed.

The Virginia Judicial Council's Intermediate Appellate Court Proposal, Martha B. Brissette

University of Richmond Law Review

The ever-expanding volume of appellate litigation in Virginia has engendered a crisis in appellate justice in this state which can be adequately addressed only by the creation of an intermediate appellate court. Not only is Virginia the most populous state without such an intermediate court, its highest court also has the largest caseload of any single state appellate court.

Private Causes Of Action From Federal Statutes: A Strict Standard For Implication By Sole Reliance On Legislative Intent, William Francis Drewry Gallalee

University of Richmond Law Review

The implication doctrine allows a federal court to create a private cause of action from a federal statute that does not expressly provide for a private remedy. In Cort v. Ash, the Supreme Court articulated a four factor test to determine when this doctrine should be utilized. This comment will provide a brief history of the implication doctrine and of the major Supreme Court decisions that culminated in the Cort test. Relevant Supreme Court decisions after Cort,will then be examined to reveal a new, more restrictive approach to implication. Finally, reasons will be advanced that justify this stricter approach.