Civil Procedure Commons^™

The Effect Of The Utah Administrative Procedures Act On The Standards Of Review For Final Administrative Agency Adjudications, John C. Steele

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

The Fragmentation Of Federal Rules, Erwin Chemerinsky, Barry Friedman

Mercer Law Review

In 1938, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted. Their adoption represented a triumph of uniformity over localism. The lengthy debate that prefaced the adoption of the rules focused upon the value of a national set of rules, as opposed to the then-governing practice of "conformity," in which local federal practice mirrored that of the state in which the federal courts sat. Although many different arguments were offered in favor of the federal rules, at bottom the rules' proponents carried the day by arguing that procedure ought to be the same across the federal courts and the cases those …

Suggestions For Circuit Court Review Of Local Procedures, Carl Tobias

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Rejoinder, Jonathan R. Macey

Cardozo Law Review

In a rare moment of self-restraint, I resolved not to bother to write a comment to David Ratner's spirited but unconvincing reply to my earlier article in the Cardozo Law Review. Since Ratner's response contained no defense whatsoever of the work of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), no criticism whatsoever of my general theory of agency obsolescence, and no theory of its own to defend the SEC, it seemed to me at first that the best course of action was to allow Ratner's reply to serve as its own refutation.

The Fee Shifting Remedy: Panacea Or Placebo? (Foreward), Harold J. Krent

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Legal Process And The Past Of Antitrust, William L. Reynolds, Spencer Weber Waller

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Substantial Right Doctrine And Interlocutory Appeals, J. Brad Donovan

Campbell Law Review

One does not have the right to appeal from an interlocutory order except in certain circumstances. In this Article, Mr. Donovan focuses on the right to appeal based on the substantial right doctrine. This subject was addressed by Justice Willis P. Whichard in an article published in 1984, and Mr. Donovan continues the work in this area with a study of the subsequent case law. The Article carries forward the format used by Justice Whichard -presenting the law according to the subject area of the law. The twenty-four subject areas are organized alphabetically to facilitate the use of the Article …

Is The Natural Accumulation Rule All Wet?, Michael J. Polelle

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Civil Procedure - Personal Jurisdiction: Evolution And Current Interpretation Of The Stream Of Commerce Test In The Third Circuit, Martin F. Noonan

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Preemption Of State Law By Federal Law: A Task For Congress Or The Courts, Susan J. Stabile

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Fugitives And Forfeiture--Flouting The System Or Fundamental Right?, N. Brock Collins

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Perspectives: The Federal Rules' Quest For Efficiency, Susan J. Becker

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

As lawyers celebrate (or mourn) the first anniversary of the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is worth noting that last year's amendments marked a major philosophical metamorphosis in our theory of civil justice. They reflect an attempt to move away from a system aptly suited to war analogies and toward increased cooperation between the parties and "hands-on" management by the judiciary. This, in turn, is supposed to encourage efficiency--the oft-cited yet elusive goal of civil justice reform.

An Application Of Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 26(A)(1) To Section 1983 Actions: Does Rule 26(A)(1) Violate The Rules Enabling Act, Shilpa Shah

Cleveland State Law Review

The purpose of this note is to generally explain the problems associated with Rule 26(a)(1), and to specifically examine whether it violates the Rules Enabling Act's prohibition on affecting substantive rights. To illustrate the problem with applying Rule 26(a)(1) to all cases, the note will examine mandatory disclosure as it applies to civil rights cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The note concludes that Rule 26(a)(1) infringes on substantive rights in violation of the Rules Enabling Act; however, instead of invalidating the mandatory disclosure rule entirely, federal courts should not apply Rule 26(a)(1) to cases brought under § 1983 …

A Mandatory Disclosure And Civil Justice Reform Proposal Based On The Civil Justice Reform Act Experiments, Eric F. Spade

Cleveland State Law Review

The objective of this note is to examine the CJRA experiments with mandatory disclosure and, based on that examination, to propose an alternative approach to the current trend of micromanaging case management through the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This note begins by defining mandatory disclosure and providing a brief account of its origin. Next, the Civil Justice Reform Act is described, followed by an examination of the various CJRA mandatory disclosure experiments conducted by district courts nationwide. The main portion of this note endeavors to apply some of the lessons learned in the CJRA context to the flawed approach …

Liability-Based Fee-Shifting Rules And Settlement Mechanisms Under Incomplete Information, Eric Talley

Faculty Scholarship

Recent years have seen a debate over litigation reform grow increasingly agitated. Attorneys, judges, academics, and politicians now readily and regularly disagree about how or whether to combat the debilitating litigiousness commonly purported to infect the American Bar. Within this debate, few reform proposals have received as much attention as "fee-shifting" provisions, which, in their most popular incarnation, reallocate litigation costs (particularly attorney's fees) based on the outcome of the liability phase of a trial. This attention is perhaps justified, given the nonuniformity of such rules among industrialized nations. For instance, in the British Commonwealth and much of Continental Europe, …

Suggestions For Circuit Court Review Of Local Procedures, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

During the 1980s, both the Judicial Conference of the United States, which is the policy-making arm of the federal courts, and Congress evinced increasing concern about the proliferation of local civil procedures, such as local rules and the procedures that individual judges apply The Judicial Conference and Congress were particularly troubled by those local procedural requirements that conflicted with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Federal Rules) or provisions of the United States Code.

In 1986, the Judicial Conference commissioned the Local Rules Project to collect and organize all local rules, standing orders of individual judges, and other local procedural …

Automatic Disclosure And Disuniformity In The Ninth Circuit, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The 1993 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) imposes automatic disclosure and is the most controversial formal proposal to revise the Federal Rules ever developed. The provision requires litigants to divulge information that is important to their cases before commencing formal discovery. The amendment also permits all ninety-four federal districts to vary the revision or to reject it completely. Moreover, judges and parties in specific cases may modify any disclosure requirements adopted by the districts.

The amendment has remained controversial since it became effective on December 1, 1993. Less than a majority of districts subscribe to the Federal …

Re-Evaluating Federal Civil Justice Reform In Montana,, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Part I of this piece initially affords an update of relevant developments relating to civil justice reform nationally and in the Montana Federal District Court. It emphasizes the congressional decision to extend the deadlines governing analysis of experimentation in the pilot districts and recent developments that led the Montana district to delay the preparation of a written annual assessment. Part II of this paper then glances into the future.

Defining Excessiveness: Applying The Eighth Amendment To Civil Forfeiture After Austin V. United States, Sarah N. Welling, Medrith Lee Hager

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, And "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, Roger C. Cramton

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Interpreting Insurance Policies, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Like any other contract, an insurance policy may become the subject of a legal dispute. When disputes arise over insurance coverage, lawyers must combine their skill in contract interpretation with their knowledge of insurance law, bringing both to bear on the special problems related to this type of contract. Each dispute has unique traits, but a few basic ground rules of contract law and insurance law can help you interpret insurance policies and resolve disputes over insurance coverage.

An Update On The 1993 Federal Rules Amendments And The Montana Civil Rules, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Professor Tobias' recommendations to the Montana Supreme Court regarding the newly amended F.R.C.P. Rules 11 and 26.

Lesnick V. Hollingsworth & Vose Co. - The Pure Stream Of Commerce No Longer Flows Through The Fourth Circuit, Lori Elizabeth Jones

University of Richmond Law Review

Personal jurisdiction over nonresidents in a forum state has been problematic in our federal system for quite some time. Today, in order to establish personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, the nonresident must have minimum contacts with the forum state. While the test may be stated succinctly, determining whether a person or corporation has minimum contacts with the forum state is an extremely complex process, as seen in the line of personal jurisdiction cases following International Shoe Co. v. Washington.

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The December 1993 Amendments To The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure--A Critical Analysis, Leslie M. Kelleher

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Drafting Mediation Privileges: Lessons From The Civil Justice Reform Act, Michael A. Perino

Faculty Publications

Mediation confidentiality provisions or privileges are now prevalent throughout the United States. Forty-one states have enacted some form of mediation privilege. As part of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1990, Congress enacted legislation to protect confidentiality in mediations involving federal agencies. An additional source for such provisions is the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (CJRA), which required each federal district court to implement a civil justice expense and delay reduction plan (Plan(s)) by the end of 1993. Those Plans seek to implement mechanisms designed to address causes of excessive expense and delay in the federal courts.

A number …

Clinging To History: The Supreme Court (Mis)Interprets Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(1)(B) As Containing A Temporal Requirement, Christopher A. Jones

University of Richmond Law Review

The adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence (the Rules) resulted in a more liberal standard for the admission and use of various forms of evidence. For example, the Rules altered the definition of "relevant evidence" increasing the scope of evidence that can be presented to a jury. Also, the Rules per- mit prior inconsistent statements to be admitted as substantive evidence rather than for impeachment purposes only. The Advisory Committee enunciated these changes, and other changes resulting from the adoption of the Rules, in their notes accompanying the Rules.

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

University of Richmond Law Review

In Burroughs v. Palumbo, defendant was served with process through the Secretary of the Commonwealth. The grounds of defense was due to be filed on September 22, 1994. On September 29, 1994, defendant filed the notice of removal in federal court. On September 30, 1994, the state court entered default judgment against defendant. Later that same day, defendant filed the notice of removal with the state court. Between the time that defendant filed the notice of removal in federal court and the time that he filed it with the state court, both courts had jurisdiction over the case; therefore the …

Extending The Civil Justice Reform Act Of 1990, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The passage of the Judicial Amendments act of 1994 postponed several key implementation deadlines prescribed by the Civil Justice Reform Act (CJRA) of 1990. Perhaps most significantly, the new legislation extends for one year the mid-1995 date when the RAND Corporation, which is studying ten pilot districts' experimentation with cost and delay reduction procedures, must submit its conclusions to the Judicial Conference of the United States. Numerous compelling arguments supported congressional postponement of this deadline. Most importantly, the RAND Corporation can now capture much additional data, which are critical to assessing accurately the procedures' effectiveness in decreasing expense and delay, …

Rambo As Potted Plant: Local Rulemaking's Preemptive Strike Against Witness-Coaching During Depositions, David H. Taylor

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.