Civil Procedure Commons^™

Flying Blind: The Lack Of Uniformity In Federal Pleading After Twombly And Iqbal, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev. 485 (2011), Ryan Charlson

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Spoliation Of Electronic Evidence: Sanctions Versus Advocacy, Charles Adams

Articles, Chapters in Books and Other Contributions to Scholarly Works

This Article proposes that courts should refrain from imposing adverse inference jury instructions as sanctions for the spoliation of evidence. This proposal bears some similarity to the approach taken twenty years ago by the 1993 amendments to Rule 11, which constrained courts' ability to sanction. Instead of imposing an adverse jury instruction as a sanction for spoliation of evidence, courts should allow evidence of spoliation to be admitted at trial if a reasonable jury could find that spoliation had occurred and if the spoliation was relevant to a material issue. If a court allows the introduction of evidence of spoliation …

Rid Of Habeas Corpus - How Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Has Endangered Access To The Writ Of Habeas Corpus And What The Supreme Court Can Do In Maples And Martinez To Restore It, 45 Creighton L. Rev. 185 (2011), Hugh Mundy

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Survey Of Illinois Law: At Long Last, A Long Look At Respondents In Discovery, 35 S. Ill. U. L.J. 703 (2011), Marc Ginsberg

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Pleading And Proving Foreign Law In The Age Of Plausibility Pleading, Roger Michalski

Faculty Articles

No abstract provided.

Plausible Answers And Affirmative Defenses, Eric S. Janus, Thomas Tinkham

Faculty Scholarship

Our federal courts have introduced a degree of uncertainty in the law of pleading that ought to be resolved with a clear decision about the scope of Twombly and Iqbal. We write to set forth what we believe are the overwhelming arguments in support of the developing majority view: pleading standards should not distinguish between plaintiffs and defendants, or between pleadings asserting and pleadings defending against a claim. Proponents of the minority view make policy arguments grounded in the asserted realities of litigation, leveraging small textual differences between Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8(a) and 8(c). But the …

'Til Death Do Us Part: Why Personal Jurisdiction Is Required To Issue Victim Protection Orders Against Nonresident Abusers, Bevan J. Graybill

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Please Plead Me: Ashcroft V. Iqbal And Implications For Oklahoma Pleading, Paula M. Williams

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Amended Attorney-Client Privilege In Oklahoma: A Misstep In The Right Direction, Robert A. Brown

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Two Views Of Class Action, Alexandra Lahav

Faculty Articles and Papers

No abstract provided.

Defining Civil Disputes: Lessons From Two Jurisdictions, Elizabeth Thornburg, Camille Cameron

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Court systems have adopted a variety of mechanisms to narrow the issues in dispute and expedite litigation. This article analyses the largely unsuccessful attempts in two jurisdictions - the United States and Australia - to achieve early and efficient issue identification in civil disputes. Procedures that rely on pleadings to provide focus have failed for centuries, from the common (English) origins of these two systems to their divergent modern paths. Case management practices that are developing in the United States and Australia offer greater promise in the continuing quest for early, efficient dispute definition. Based on a historical and contemporary …

The Price Of Access To The Civil Courts In Australia: Old Problems And New Solutions - A Commercial Litigation Funding Case Study, Camille Cameron

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

In the past decade litigation funding companies have assumed an increasingly prominent role in commercial litigation and class actions in Australia. The growth of commercial litigation funding is a predictable response to various features of Australia’s costs and fee allocation rules and practices, including the “loser pays” rule, the prohibition on lawyer’s charging contingency fees, the hourly billing practices of lawyers, and the open-ended and unpredictable nature of much civil litigation. This chapter explores the growth of commercial litigation funding in Australia and uses it as a window through which to view how Australia’s costs and fee allocation rules operate …

Defining Civil Disputes: Lessons From Two Jurisdictions, Camille Cameron, Elizabeth Thornburg

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Court systems have adopted a variety of mechanisms to narrow the issues in dispute and expedite litigation. This article analyses the largely unsuccessful attempts in two jurisdictions - the United States and Australia - to achieve early and efficient issue identification in civil disputes. Procedures that rely on pleadings to provide focus have failed for centuries, from the common (English) origins of these two systems to their divergent modern paths. Case management practices that are developing in the United States and Australia offer greater promise in the continuing quest for early, efficient dispute definition. Based on a historical and contemporary …

Class Certification’S Preclusive Effects, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In September 2010, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the controversial Baycol litigation. The central question will be whether, subsequent to a denial of class certification, preclusion can prevent an absentee from seeking to certify another class action on a similar claim. This Essay answers that question in the affirmative, while warning that the preclusion is very limited in scope. It arrives at this answer by analogizing to the more established doctrine of jurisdiction to determine no jurisdiction: if a court’s finding of no jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person can preclude, then a finding of no authority …

The Procedure Of Election Law In Federal Courts, Joshua A. Douglas

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Election law scholars have paid scant attention to the different procedures by which courts decide election law cases. Further, there has been little exploration of the reasons why certain processes exist, and there is even less discussion of which procedures are best for election law cases. One commentator has advocated for state legislatures to define clearly certain procedural matters for election contests, including: “(1) who can be a contestant; (2) what standard of evidence to require; and (3) how to expedite contests.” But there are more fundamental and foundational questions: What goals are we trying to achieve in enacting special …

Serving A Summons By First Class Mail: Why Bankruptcy Rule 7004(B)(1) Violates Due Process, Jonathon S. Byington

Faculty Law Review Articles

This article argues that even though it has been accepted and widely used throughout the nation for thirty-five years by courts, practitioners, and commentators, the service method of delivering a summons and complaint solely by first class mail under Bankruptcy Rule 70004(b)(1) violates due process. Part I shows that the establishment of first class mail as an alternate service method occurred before the vast expansion of bankruptcy court jurisdiction. Part II evaluates the various reasons why Rule 7004(b)(1) violates due process. The article concludes in Part III by recommending a two-part solution to revise the rule.

Due Process In Civil Commitments., Alexander Tsesis

Faculty Publications & Other Works

In one of its most controversial decisions to date, United States v Comstock, the Roberts Court upheld a federal civil commitment statute requiring only an intermediate burden of proof The statute provided for the postsentencing confinement of anyone proven by "clear and convincing evidence" to be mentally ill and dangerous. The law relied on a judicial standard established more than thirty years before. The majority in Comstock missed the opportunity to reassess the precedent in light of recent psychiatric studies indicating that the ambiguity of available diagnostic tools can lead to erroneous insanity assessments and mistake evaluations about patients' likelihood …

Shady Grove And The Potential Democracy-Enhancing Benefits Of Erie Formalism, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

W(H)Ither The Jury? The Diminishing Role Of The Jury Trial In Our Legal System, Jennifer Walker Elrod

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process In Civil Commitments, Alexander Tsesis

Washington and Lee Law Review

In one of its most controversial decisions to date, United States v. Comstock, the Roberts Court upheld a federal civil commitment statute requiring only an intermediate burden of proof. The statute provided for the postsentencing confinement of anyone proven by "clear and convincing evidence" to be mentally ill and dangerous. The law relied on a judicial standard established more than thirty years before. The majority in Comstock missed the opportunity to reassess the precedent in light of recent psychiatric studies indicating that the ambiguity of available diagnostic tools can lead to erroneous insanity assessments and mistaken evaluations about patients’ likelihood …

In Defense Of The Substance-Procedure Dichotomy, Jennifer S. Hendricks

Publications

John Hart Ely famously observed, "We were all brought up on sophisticated talk about the fluidity of the line between substance and procedure," but for most of Erie's history, the Supreme Court has answered the question "Does this state law govern in federal court? " with a "yes" or a "no." Beginning, however, with Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, and continuing with Semtek v. Lockheed Martin and the dissenting opinion in Shady Grove v. Allstate, a shifting coalition of justices has pursued a third path. Instead of declaring state law applicable or inapplicable, they have claimed for …

An Expectation Of Empathy, Steve Leben

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

Jurisdiction By Cross-Reference, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

State and federal law often cross-reference each other to provide a rule of decision. The difficulties attendant to these cross-referenced schemes are brought to the fore most clearly when a federal court must determine whether such bodies of law create federal question jurisdiction. Indeed, the federal courts have issued scores of seemingly inconsistent opinions on these cross-referential cases. In this article, I offer an ordering principle for these apparently varied, cross-referential, jurisdictional cases. I argue that the federal courts only take federal question jurisdiction over cross-referenced claims when they, from a departmental perspective, maintain declaratory authority over the cross-referenced law. …

Applying The Rules Of Discovery To Information Uncovered About Jurors, Thaddeus A. Hoffmeister

School of Law Faculty Publications

As more and more personal information is placed online, attorneys are increasingly turning to the internet to investigate and research jurors. In certain jurisdictions, the practice has become fairly commonplace. One prominent trial consultant has gone so far as to claim, “Anyone who doesn’t make use of [internet searches] is bordering on malpractice.” While this may somewhat overstate the importance of investigating jurors online, it nonetheless demonstrates just how routine the practice has become. Aside from increased acceptance among practitioners, courts have both approved of and encouraged online investigation of jurors.

While many view this practice as a benefit to …

Availability Of Spousal Privileges For Same-Sex Couples, Lisa Yurwit Bergstrom, W. James Denvil

University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class

No abstract provided.

Rulemaking, Litigation Culture And Reform In Federal Courts, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

Culturally based litigation practices are central to the policies of federal courts. Unlike the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, cultural based practices are neither uniform nor explicitly defined among the federal courts. These practices are specifically tailored to ensure judicial efficiency, and in turn, they heavily influence practice and procedure in federal courts. This Article examines the significance of cultural litigation practices and their influence on amending or establishing new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The author proposes that rulemaking must compliment cultural practices in order to be successful and concludes that when conflict exists between these practices and rulemaking, …

Making Sense Of Twombly, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

In May 2007, the United States Supreme Court decided Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and sent shockwaves throughout the federal civil justice system. Reversing the Second Circuit, the Court held that an antitrust complaint that alleged mere parallel behavior among rival telecommunications companies, coupled with stray averments of agreement that amounted merely to legal conclusions, failed as a matter of law to state a claim for conspiracy in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act and had been properly dismissed by the trial court. The Court then proceeded to (1) redefine the concept of notice pleading by "retiring" …

An Unnecessary Conflict: Bifurcated Civil Trials And States' Need For An Alternate Rule For Alternate Jurors, Craig M. Brunson

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Rethinking Jurisdictional Discovery Under The Hague Evidence Convention, Kathleen B. Gilchrist

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

When a federal court in the United States compels the discovery of information located abroad to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the defendant, the court can apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Hague Evidence Convention. This Note argues that the approach taken by most courts--applying the balancing test formulated by the Supreme Court in Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. District Court and favoring application of the Federal Rules--is misguided. Courts should apply the Evidence Convention more often in jurisdictional discovery disputes. They can do so under the existing legal framework with one of three holdings: …

Consent V. Closure, Howard M. Erichson, Benjamin C. Zipursky

Faculty Scholarship

Claimants, defendants, courts, and counsel are understandably frustrated by the difficulty of resolving mass tort cases. Defendants demand closure, but class certification has proved elusive and non-class settlements require individual consent. Lawyers and scholars have been drawn to strategies that solve the problem by empowering plaintiffs’ counsel to negotiate package deals that effectively sidestep individual consent. In the massive Vioxx settlement, the parties achieved closure by including terms that made it unrealistic for any claimant to decline. The American Law Institute’s Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation offers another path to closure: it proposes to permit clients to consent …