Civil Procedure Commons^™

A Better Approach To Arbitrability, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Historically, Anglo-American courts refused to enforce arbitration agreements, jealously guarding their dispute resolution monopoly. During the early twentieth century, merchants and attorneys began seeking legislation requiring courts to defer to arbitration. The United States Abitration Act took effect January 1, 1926 and has remained essentially unchanged. It was written with the implicit assumption that it would be invoked by commercial actors having relatively equal bargaining power and emotive appeal to a jury. The Act says nothing to direct the court's inquiry concerning the quality of either party's assent to the arbitration clause other than requiring a written arbitration agreement and …

The Rehnquist Court, Statutory Interpretation, Inertial Burdens, And A Misleading Version Of Democracy, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

No one theory or school of thought consistently dominates judicial application of statutes, but the basic methodology employed by courts seems well-established if not always well-defined. Most mainstream judges and lawyers faced with a statutory construction task will look at (although with varying emphasis) the text of the statute, the legislative history of the provision, the context of the enactment, evident congressional purpose, and applicable agency interpretations, often employing the canons of construction for assistance. Although orthodox judicial thought suggests that the judge's role is confined to discerning textual meaning or directives of the enacting legislature, courts also often examine …

Reconsidering The Employment Contract Exclusion In Section 1 Of The Federal Arbitration Act: Correcting The Judiciary's Failure Of Statutory Vision, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

The Federal Arbitration Act (the Act), seeks to eliminate centuries of perceived judicial hostility toward arbitration agreements. The Act made written arbitration agreements involving interstate commerce specifically enforceable. It also provided a procedural structure for enforcing awards, which were protected through deferential judicial review. The Act intended to have a wide reach, employing a broad definition of commerce that has presumably grown in breadth along with the expansion of judicial notions of commerce. Although courts applied the Act in tentative and cautious fashion until the 1960's, arbitration gained momentum during the 1970's and the 1980's. Despite growing judicial enthusiasm for …

Civil Procedure: Cooter &(And) Gell V. Hartmarx Corp: An Analysis Of Rule 11 And Its Appropriate Standard Of Review, Michael R. Annis

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Special Problems In Civil Procedure - Complex Litigation, Francis H. Hare Jr., Judge Robert M. Parker, Gerald A. Connell, Mary Kay Kane

University of Richmond Law Review Symposium

"Organization and Presentation of a Complex Case" lecture given by Francis H. Hare Jr., a partner in the law firm of Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, in Birmingham, Alabama.

"Judicial Management of Complex Cases" lecture given by the Honorable Robert M. Parker, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

"Complex Litigation in the Public Sector" lecture given by Gerald A. Connell, a member of the firm of Baker & Hostetler, in Washington, D.C.

"The Future of Complex Litigation" lecture given by Mary Kay Kane, academic dean and Professor of Law at Hastings College …

Complex-Litigation Reform And The Legislative Process, Charles G. Geyh

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Section 1983, Honorable George C. Pratt, Martin A. Schwartz, Leon Friedman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Environmental Law, Honorable Leon D. Lazer

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Affirmative Action, Douglas Scherer, John Dunne

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Abortion Rights, Eileen Kaufman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equal Protection

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equal Protection

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equal Protection

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Separation Of Powers

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Politics Of Crisis In The Federal Courts, Lauren K. Robel

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Pragmatism Without Politics -- A Half Measure Of Authority For Jurisdictional Common Law, Gene R. Shreve

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Rule 11 And Factually Frivolous Claims-- The Goal Of Cost Minimization And The Client's Duty To Investigate, James E. Ward, Iv

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Note examines the duty Rule 11 creates and its allocation between attorneys and their clients from an economic perspective. Part II examines Rule 11's historical purpose of deterring frivolous claims and traces the roots of the duty the Rule imposes on attorneys to achieve this purpose. Part III discusses how Rule 11 ideally should function in a society with perfect information about the cost of frivolous claims to the judicial system compared to the cost of deterring such claims, and determines that an optimal Rule would minimize the sum of these costs. Given the information constraints of the real …

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).

Rethinking Work Product, Elizabeth G. Thornburg

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This article analyzes the traditional and law & economics explanations purporting to justify the exclusion of work product materials from discovery. It argues that none of these arguments are well founded and that, instead, the privilege increases costs and decreases the system's ability to produce appropriate settlements and accurate fact finding. To the extent that the privilege serves legitimate ends, narrower and more narrowly tailored protections would provide the necessary protection.

Survey Of Civil Jurisdiction In Indian Country 1990, Sandra Hansen Esq.

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Comparison Of Civil Procedure Practices In Products Liability Actions Between The United States And Japan: Underlying Reasons For Basic Differences, Akio Hayashi

LLM Theses and Essays

Both the U.S. and Japan are highly industrialized countries and many of the same products are used in both countries. So, why is there such a large difference in the number of products liability suits filed?

The present work explores the differences in the American and Japanese legal systems with a focus on products liability claims. The conclusion will show that it is the difference in the two countries applicable civil procedures that explain the disparity in suits.

1992: High Time For American Lawyers To Learn From Europe, Or Roscoe Pound's 1906 Address Revisited, James Maxeiner

All Faculty Scholarship

Shows how the key points Roscoe Pound made in his famous law reform address point to foreign law study for future reform.

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 …