Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Courts (23)
- Litigation (22)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (21)
- Civil Law (12)
- Constitutional Law (10)
-
- Supreme Court of the United States (9)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (8)
- Jurisprudence (7)
- Legislation (7)
- Judges (6)
- Jurisdiction (6)
- State and Local Government Law (6)
- Torts (6)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (5)
- Conflict of Laws (5)
- Criminal Law (5)
- Criminal Procedure (5)
- Administrative Law (4)
- Evidence (4)
- International Law (4)
- Law and Society (4)
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation (3)
- Common Law (3)
- Consumer Protection Law (3)
- Family Law (3)
- Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law (3)
- Legal History (3)
- Legal Profession (3)
- Institution
-
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (18)
- William & Mary Law School (10)
- University of Georgia School of Law (5)
- American University Washington College of Law (4)
- Duke Law (4)
-
- Brigham Young University Law School (3)
- Brooklyn Law School (3)
- Campbell University School of Law (3)
- Cornell University Law School (3)
- Fordham Law School (3)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (3)
- University of Michigan Law School (3)
- University of Montana (3)
- University of Richmond (3)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (3)
- California Western School of Law (2)
- Cleveland State University (2)
- Florida International University College of Law (2)
- Liberty University (2)
- Loyola University Chicago, School of Law (2)
- Mercer University School of Law (2)
- New York Law School (2)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (2)
- Notre Dame Law School (2)
- Pace University (2)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (2)
- Roger Williams University (2)
- Texas A&M University School of Law (2)
- UIC School of Law (2)
- UIdaho Law (2)
- Keyword
-
- Civil procedure (22)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (14)
- Pleading (11)
- Twombly (9)
- Civil Procedure (8)
-
- Courts (8)
- Discovery (8)
- Iqbal (8)
- Pleadings (8)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal (6)
- Motion to dismiss (5)
- Civil rights (4)
- Class action (4)
- Discrimination (4)
- Litigation (4)
- Notice pleading (4)
- 12(b)(6) (3)
- Appeal (3)
- Appeals (3)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (3)
- Class actions (3)
- Conley (3)
- Jurisdiction (3)
- Negotiation (3)
- New York (3)
- Procedure (3)
- Remedies (3)
- Spencer works (3)
- Access to the courts (2)
- Arbitration (2)
- Publication
-
- Faculty Scholarship (18)
- Nevada Supreme Court Summaries (15)
- Faculty Publications (10)
- Scholarly Works (7)
- Articles (5)
-
- American University Law Review (3)
- Campbell Law Review (3)
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (3)
- Court Decisions (3)
- Law Faculty Publications (3)
- All Faculty Scholarship (2)
- BYU Law Review (2)
- Cardozo Law Review (2)
- Cleveland State Law Review (2)
- Faculty Articles (2)
- Faculty Publications and Presentations (2)
- Faculty Working Papers (2)
- Journal Articles (2)
- Maryland Law Review Online (2)
- Mercer Law Review (2)
- Michigan Law Review (2)
- NYLS Law Review (2)
- Pace Law Review (2)
- Popular Media (2)
- Scholarly Articles (2)
- Scholarship@WashULaw (2)
- Student Works (2010-2019) (2)
- University of Richmond Law Review (2)
- Villanova Law Review (1956 - ) (2)
- Akron Law Faculty Publications (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 121 - 141 of 141
Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure
Comparative Convergences In Pleading Standards, Scott Dodson
Comparative Convergences In Pleading Standards, Scott Dodson
Faculty Publications
Comparative civil procedure has had little influence in American jurisprudence and commentary, in part because of American procedure's deep and widespread exceptionalism. But this may be changing, at least in certain areas. The American notice pleading standard, for example, which has long been considered exceptional, shows signs of trending toward the fact pleading models of foreign countries. Congressional experimentation with heightened pleading in statutes such as the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and the Supreme Court's recent pronouncements in Iqbal v. Ashcroft and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly suggest that American pleading jurisprudence is moving away from its traditionally exceptionalist corner …
Front Loading And Heavy Lifting: How Pre-Dismissal Discovery Can Address The Detrimental Effect Of Iqbal On Civil Rights Cases, Suzette M. Malveaux
Front Loading And Heavy Lifting: How Pre-Dismissal Discovery Can Address The Detrimental Effect Of Iqbal On Civil Rights Cases, Suzette M. Malveaux
Publications
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are trans-substantive, they have a greater detrimental effect on certain substantive claims. In particular, the Supreme Court’s recent interpretation of Rule 8(a)(2)’s pleading requirement and Rule 12(b)(6)’s dismissal criteria - in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal - sets forth a plausibility pleading standard which makes it more difficult for potentially meritorious civil rights claims alleging intentional discrimination to survive dismissal. Such claims are more vulnerable to dismissal because: plaintiffs alleging intentional discrimination often plead facts consistent with both legal and illegal conduct; discriminatory intent is often difficult, if not impossible, …
Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction For Our Federal Courts, A. Benjamin Spencer
Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction For Our Federal Courts, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limits the territorial jurisdiction of federal district courts to that of the courts of their host states.T his limitation is a voluntary rather than obligatory restriction, given district courts' status as courts of the national sovereign. Although there are sound policy reasons for limiting the jurisdictional reach of our federal courts in this manner, the limitation delivers little benefit from a judicial administration or even a fairness perspective, and ultimately costs more to implement than is gained in return. The rule should be amended to provide that district courts have personal …
Pleading With Congress To Resist The Urge To Overrule Twombly And Iqbal, Michael R. Huston
Pleading With Congress To Resist The Urge To Overrule Twombly And Iqbal, Michael R. Huston
Michigan Law Review
In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court changed the rhetoric of the federal pleading system. Those decisions have been decried by members of the bar, scholars, and legislators as judicial activism and a rewriting of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such criticism has led members of both houses of Congress to introduce legislation to overrule the decisions and return to some variation of the "notice pleading" regime that existed before Twombly. This Note argues that both of the current proposals to overrule Twombly and Iqbal should be rejected. Although the bills take different …
New Pleading, New Discovery, Scott Dodson
New Pleading, New Discovery, Scott Dodson
Michigan Law Review
Pleading in federal court has a new narrative. The old narrative was one of notice, with the goal of broad access to the civil justice system. New Pleading, after the landmark Supreme Court cases of Twombly and Iqbal, is focused on factual sufficiency, with the purpose of screening out meritless cases that otherwise might impose discovery costs on defendants. The problem with New Pleading is that factual insufficiency often is a poor proxy for meritlessness. Some plaintifs lack sufficient factual knowledge of the elements of their claims not because the claims lack merit but because the information they need is …
Catching The Waive: The Third Circuit Joins The Growing Trend Of Circuit Courts In Voiding A Class-Arbitration Waiver In Homa V. American Express Co., Steven D. Millman
Catching The Waive: The Third Circuit Joins The Growing Trend Of Circuit Courts In Voiding A Class-Arbitration Waiver In Homa V. American Express Co., Steven D. Millman
Villanova Law Review (1956 - )
No abstract provided.
Direct Examination: Lawyer As Director, Maureen A. Howard
Direct Examination: Lawyer As Director, Maureen A. Howard
Articles
A trial lawyer presenting her case in chief through direct examination is somewhat like a film director: the lawyer thoroughly analyzes the case and develops a plan for the most effective way to present the case to the jury to best advance her theme and theory. Just as no script would play out on film the exact same way in the hands of different directors, no case would be presented in exactly the same way by different trial lawyers. Yet there are constants to be found in the steps effective trial lawyers take during their case in chief when presenting …
Rethinking Summary Judgment: Revamp Required?., Mak Mun Luan
Rethinking Summary Judgment: Revamp Required?., Mak Mun Luan
Student Works (2010-2019)
Summary judgment has been touted as an effective tool for disposing of litigations in timely and cost effective manners, as disputes between litigants may be resolved without the need of full trials and the usual pre-trial processes associated with civil litigation. However, the tension between the potential for this procedure to produce a final judgment versus the litigants' entitlements to full trials, illustrates how reform in this procedure may be crucial. This paper sought to outline the current laws with regards to summary judgment in Malaysia and explore ways in which it may be revamped. For comparison, summary judgment procedures …
Civil Rights And Federal Courts: Creating A Two-Course Sequence, Howard M. Wasserman
Civil Rights And Federal Courts: Creating A Two-Course Sequence, Howard M. Wasserman
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
How States Can Protect Their Policies In Federal Class Actions, Lucas Watkins
How States Can Protect Their Policies In Federal Class Actions, Lucas Watkins
Campbell Law Review
The role of the states in our constitutional system is to protect their citizens and supply tort liability. Where federal law does not preempt state systems of liability, state law supplies the tort- and contract-based rules that govern the vast majority of the relationships in our society and economy. Some think that national rules of liability, or new national choice-of-law rules, should supplant today's state-by-state regulation. But until Congress enacts a comprehensive regulatory scheme, state law will control the causes of action that plaintiffs can bring. And the state law that controls the cause should control the way that the …
Reasonableness In E-Discovery, Debra Lyn Bassett
Reasonableness In E-Discovery, Debra Lyn Bassett
Campbell Law Review
Issues of reasonableness arise regularly throughout American law. Reasonableness is a concept central to tort law, which imposes a reasonable person standard in ascertaining duty. Criminal guilt turns on a reasonable doubt standard. And in civil discovery, the concept of reasonableness features prominently: discovery's scope reaches information that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and discovery cannot be unreasonably cumulative or duplicative. Reasonableness standards require judges to undertake an objective, rather than subjective, evaluation. E-discovery specifically has two significant overarching reasonableness components: reasonable accessibility for production and reasonable care in preservation and disclosure. The interpretation …
Exiting Litigation, Jay Tidmarsh
Exiting Litigation, Jay Tidmarsh
Journal Articles
The American judicial system will face significant challenges in the twenty-first century. One of its immediate challenges is adapting the rules of civil procedure to the stresses under which the civil-justice system operates. Some of the most notable pressures arise from transnational litigation, mass litigation, proliferation of claims against governmental and corporate institutions, and competition from methods of alternative dispute resolution that promise to dispense cheaper, faster, and more satisfying justice.
Resolving Cases On The Merits, Jay Tidmarsh
Resolving Cases On The Merits, Jay Tidmarsh
Journal Articles
Prepared for a Symposium on Civil Justice Reform, this essay examines the role of the “on the merits” principle in modern American procedure. After surveying the possible meanings of the phrase, the essay critiques its most common understanding due to its economic inefficiency and its lack of strong philosophical support. Relying on the recent work of Amartya Sen, the essay proposes that the principle be replaced with a “fair outcome” principle that melds both “procedural” and “substantive” concerns.
Disputing Limited Liability, Christina L. Boyd, David A. Hoffman
Disputing Limited Liability, Christina L. Boyd, David A. Hoffman
Scholarship@WashULaw
This project presents six years of hand-collected federal district court data to analyze the first representative sample of veil piercing litigation. Our method identifies veil piercing complaints through Westlaw's trial pleadings database and codes each case through a detailed examination of PACER records. We test a variety of hypotheses to understand how such litigations are resolved. We find that plaintiffs succeed quite often in veil piercing litigation, if success is defined as winning on motions that do not terminate a case. A variety of legal and extra-legal factors predict such interstitial veil piercing successes. Voluntary creditor causes of action promote …
Multidistrict Litigation: A Surprising Bonus For Pro Se Plaintiffs And A Possible Boon For Consumers, Danielle D'Onfro
Multidistrict Litigation: A Surprising Bonus For Pro Se Plaintiffs And A Possible Boon For Consumers, Danielle D'Onfro
Scholarship@WashULaw
Conventional wisdom says that pro se plaintiffs almost invariably fare worse than represented plaintiffs. However, there exists in federal court a procedural regime under which pro se plaintiffs effectively receive attorneys and therefore experience success rates similar to their represented peers: multidistrict litigation. Multidistrict litigation is a procedure for consolidating multiple federal civil cases sharing common questions of fact into a single proceeding in one federal district court for coordinated pre-trial proceedings and discovery. This paper takes an empirical look at all federal civil cases terminating between 2006 and 2008 to determine what effect multidistrict litigation has on case outcome …
Law, Facts, And Power, Elizabeth G. Thornburg
Law, Facts, And Power, Elizabeth G. Thornburg
Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters
The Supreme Court’s opinion in Ashcroft v. Iqbal is wrong in many ways. This essay is about only one of them: the Court’s single-handed return to a pleading system that requires lawyers and judges to distinguish between pleading facts and pleading law. This move not only resuscitates a distinction purposely abandoned by the generation that drafted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but also serves as an example of the very difficulties created by the distinction. The chinks in the law-fact divide are evident in Iqbal itself - both in the already notorious pleading section of the opinion, and in …
Class Dismissed: Contemporary Judicial Hostility To Small-Claims Consumer Class Actions, Myriam E. Gilles
Class Dismissed: Contemporary Judicial Hostility To Small-Claims Consumer Class Actions, Myriam E. Gilles
Articles
I start from the view that small-value consumer claims are a primary reason that class actions exist, and that without class actions many - if not most - of the wrongs perpetrated upon small-claims consumers would not be capable of redress. It would then seem to follow that the class action device should be readily available in small-claims consumer cases. And yet, over the past decade, federal district courts have repeatedly declined to certify class actions on grounds that are specific to small-claims consumer cases. Foremost among those grounds is the notion that the federal class action rule carries within …
The Bankruptcy Hegemon: Section 524(A) And Its Effect On State And Federal Comity, Benjamin Margulis
The Bankruptcy Hegemon: Section 524(A) And Its Effect On State And Federal Comity, Benjamin Margulis
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
Iqbal And Empathy, Darrell A. H. Miller
Iqbal And Empathy, Darrell A. H. Miller
Faculty Scholarship
This Essay argues that empathy does and should play an important, albeit limited role, in a judge’s decision making process. Specifically, empathy is essential for making correct, principled, and unbiased judgments, because empathy is one of the few means we have to understand human motivation. Empathy is a crucial cognitive mechanism that can help compensate for common cognitive bias. As such, empathy, appropriately restricted, should be an accepted and meaningful tool for judges to use in evaluating the sufficiency of complaints, especially as they relate to Iqbal’s plausibility pleading standard.
All Rise! Standing In Judge Betty Fletcher’S Court, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.
All Rise! Standing In Judge Betty Fletcher’S Court, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.
Faculty Scholarship
In this essay, based on a talk given at the Washington Law Review’s March 2009 symposium in honor of Senior Ninth Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher and her three decades of service on that court, I selectively survey her opinions on justiciability issues: standing, ripeness, mootness, and political questions. A significant starting point for this survey is Professor Richard Pierce’s 1999 law review article, Is Standing Law or Politics?, arguing that many Supreme Court votes in standing cases generally, and appellate judges’ votes in environmental-standing cases specifically, can be explained better on the basis of politics than by reference to …
If We Don’T Get Civil Gideon: Trying To Make The Best Of The Civil-Justice Market, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.
If We Don’T Get Civil Gideon: Trying To Make The Best Of The Civil-Justice Market, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.
Faculty Scholarship
This article considers what market-oriented or market-regulation approaches might be most practical and helpful in trying to satisfy unmet civil legal-service needs and how much it appears that such approaches may be able to succeed in doing so.