Civil Procedure Commons^™

Judicial Recusation In The Federal Republic Of Germany, Sigmund A. Cohn

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Collateral Damage: When Should The Determinations Of Administrative Adjudications Have Collateral Estoppel Effect In Subsequent Adjudications?, Matthew Faust

Fordham Law Review

Collateral estoppel is an equitable doctrine under which a court gives issue-preclusive effect to findings of fact or law made in previous proceedings. The U.S. Supreme Court has recently held that under certain circumstances, the determinations of administrative adjudications have collateral estoppel effect in federal court. The Court, however, did not address under which circumstances the determinations of administrative adjudications should have collateral estoppel effect in subsequent administrative adjudications. There has been little clear and consistent reasoning in lower federal courts about when collateral estoppel should apply in administrative adjudications, and administrative agencies vary widely in their application of collateral …

Race And The Jury: How The Law Is Keeping Minorities Off The Jury, Stephanie Adamakos

Washington University Undergraduate Law Review

The modern jury focuses on three main ideas: impartiality, as laid out in the Sixth Amendment, jury of one’s peers, stemming from the Magna Carta, and a jury that represents a fair cross-section of the community. The cross-section idea has been developed by case law, but originates from the Sixth Amendment, under the belief that jury selection that does not systematically discriminate against members of the community and has a jury pool represents a cross-section of the community is likely to be impartial. Jurors are likely to draw upon their own experiences when deliberating, so having a variety of experiences …

Examining Universal Jurisdiction, Sondra Anton

Washington University Undergraduate Law Review

This article considers the heightened debate over the role of universal jurisdiction within international law, and concludes it should not be judged based on the appropriateness or foundation set by remote precedents. Given the clear disregard for physical integrity rights repeatedly demonstrated by even the most “democratic” of modern governments, it is more pressing than ever to develop universal jurisdiction and ensure the norm’s institutionalization in practice.

Adversary Breakdown And Judicial Role Confusion In “Small Case” Civil Justice, Jessica K. Steinberg

BYU Law Review

This Article calls attention to the breakdown of adversary procedure in a largely unexplored area of the civil justice system: the ordinary, twoparty case. The twenty-first century judge confronts an entirely new state of affairs in presiding over the average civil matter. In place of the adversarial party contest, engineered and staged by attorneys, judges now face the rise of an unrepresented majority unable to propel claims, facts, and evidence into the courtroom. The adversary ideal favors a passive judge, but the unrealistic demands of such a paradigm in today’s “small case” civil justice system have sparked role confusion among …

Extrinsic Evidence In Patent Claim Interpretation: Understanding The Post-Markman Confusion, Karl Koster

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

The Problem Cases

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Statute Of Limitations

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Making Sense Of Sovereignty: A Historical Understanding Of Personal Jurisdiction From Pennoyer To Nicastro, Kyle Voils

Northwestern University Law Review

How can we make sense of sovereignty’s role in Supreme Court personal jurisdiction doctrine? The Supreme Court has once again raised this question with its plurality decision in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, which endorsed a personal jurisdiction doctrine based on sovereign authority of forum states. Scholarly reaction to Nicastro has largely been negative, as scholars argue both that, descriptively, sovereignty considerations have long not played a role in personal jurisdiction, and that, normatively, such considerations ought not play a role in personal jurisdiction. This Note concerns only the former contention, that sovereignty’s role in personal jurisdiction largely …

Mcclendon V. Collins, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 28 (April 21, 2016), Colton Loretz

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The issue here is whether a witness originally designated as a testifying expert who is then later de-designated may be deposed or called to testify at trial by an opposing party. The Court held that after an expert report has been disclosed, a testifying expert witness cannot regain the confidentiality protections of NRCP 26(b)(4)(B) by being de-designated as a non-testifying expert. The Court reasoned that after an expert witness loses protection under the statute that it is at the discretion of the district court as to whether the expert may be deposed or called to testify at trial by an …

Hunter V. Gang, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 22 (April 7, 2016), Brandonn Grossman

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Court of Appeals considered a consolidated appeal from a final district court order dismissing appellant’s complaint with prejudice for a want of prosecution and a post judgment order awarding attorney fees and costs. The Court of Appeals determined the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the action without prejudice, reversed the district court’s dismissal, vacated its award of fees and costs, and remanded.

Jackson V. Groenendyke, 132 Nev., Adv. Op. 409 (April 7, 2016), Kory Koerperich

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The court determined that (1) a district court may consider supplements to a party’s timely filed exceptions to a water rights determination; and (2) the district court’s determination of water rights was supported by substantial evidence.

The Voting Rights Act And The "New And Improved" Intent Test: Old Wine In New Bottles, Randolph M. Scott-Mclaughlin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Misconduct - A Plaintiff's Point Of View, Part Ii, John Williams

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Misconduct - A Plaintiff's Point Of View, Fred Brewington

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Prosecution And Section 1983, Barry C. Scheck

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Procedural Due Process Claims, Erwin Chemerinsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Qualified Immunity When Facts Are In Dispute, Leon Friedman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Section 1983 Custom Claims And The Code Of Silence, Myriam Gilles

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Eleventh Amendment Federalism And State Sovereign Immunity Cases: Direct Effect On Section 1983?, Stephen H. Steinglass

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Having A Say: Democracy, Access To Justice And Self-Represented Litigants, Jennifer Ann Leitch

PhD Dissertations

Access to Justice is one of the most contested issues on the law-and-society agenda. There is a long-standing exchange over its meaning, objectives, and success. Beneath that engagement, there is a deeper and more basic debate about the overall ambitions for access to justice: is the goal to improve peoples access to the legal process and generate more positive outcomes (the practical thesis), or to enhance peoples participation and ultimately their ability to affect justice as an end in itself (the democratic thesis)? This thesis adopts the latter approach.

The plight of self-represented litigants (SRLs) offers a revealing glimpse into …

Sua Sponte Actions In The Appellate Courts: The "Gorilla Rule" Revisited, Ronald J. Offenkrantz, Aaron S. Lichter

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Lay Witness Opinion Testimony On Mental State And Depression: A Call For Reform, Adam Santeusanio

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

How To Assert State Sovereign Immunity Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Calvin Cohen

Vanderbilt Law Review

Twenty years have passed since the Supreme Court announced dramatic changes to the doctrine of state sovereign immunity in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida.' This doctrine prevents "suits by private parties against unconsenting States" in recognition of the state's power to govern itself and its citizens freely, as well as the financial impact lawsuits have on the state's treasury. Since Seminole Tribe, the Supreme Court has-in a series of contentious 5-4 decisions-increasingly allowed this doctrine to immunize states and their officers from suits arising under the federal laws and sometimes even the Constitution. But while the Court has expanded …

A Welfarist Perspective On Lies, Ariel Porat, Omri Yadlin

Indiana Law Journal

Should a Muslim employee who, in order to avoid discrimination, falsely stated in his job interview that he is Christian be fired for his dishonesty? Should a buyer of a tract of land who, before contracting, conducted an expensive investigation that revealed a high likelihood of mineral deposits be subject to liability for fraud because he told the seller he knew nothing about the land’s mineral potential before purchase? Is a doctor violating her legal duties toward her patient if she convinces him to get vaccinated on the pretext that it is in his best interest when it is instead …

The 2015 Changes To The Federal Rules Matter For Your Patent Case And Tech Business: Getting In The Courthouse Door Just Got Tougher, Matthew D'Amore

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Who Is Responsible For The Stealth Assault On Civil Rights?, Samuel R. Bagenstos

Michigan Law Review

Staszak’s book does a great service in demonstrating the extent of the stealth assault on civil-rights litigation. As Staszak shows, procedural and remedial decisions fly under the public’s radar, but they have exceptionally important consequences. Indeed, one can draw a clear line between judicial decisions on such obscure topics as standing and qualified immunity and the persistent acts of police misconduct that have aroused great public concern in recent months. Any effort to ensure that civil-rights protections make a concrete difference in people’s lives must attend to the procedural and remedial issues Staszak discusses.

Communication And Competence For Self-Representation, E. Lea Johnston

Fordham Law Review

In Indiana v. Edwards, the U.S. Supreme Court held that states may impose a higher competency standard for self-representation than to stand trial in criminal cases. While the Court articulated a number of interests relevant to representational competence, it left to states the difficult task of formulating an actual competence standard. This Article offers the first examination and assessment of the constitutionality of state standards post-Edwards. It reveals that seven states have endorsed a representational competence standard with a communication component. Additionally, twenty states have embraced vague, capacious standards that could consider communication skills. In applying these standards, states …

Oh, Won't You Stay With Me?: Determining Whether § 3 Of The Faa Requires A Stay In Light Of Katz V. Cellco Partnership, Alessandra Rose Johnson

Fordham Law Review

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides the legal framework to render international and interstate arbitration agreements judicially enforceable in the United States. In furtherance of that goal, it provides that, if a party initiates litigation rather than arbitration of an arbitrable dispute, either party may request that the court stay the litigation pending resolution in an arbitration proceeding. The U.S. courts of appeals are currently split as to whether § 3 of the FAA requires a court under these circumstances to stay the action or whether the court has the discretion to dismiss the action altogether. In Katz v. Cellco …

Submerged Precedent, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Faculty Scholarship

Numerous studies have pointed to the skewed picture of trial courts' workload, management, and disposition of cases that exists from examining Westlaw and Lexis opinions alone, akin to navigating the iceberg from its tip.⁴ But submerged precedent pushes docketology in an uncharted direction by identifying a mass of reasoned opinions-putative precedent and not mere evidence of decision-making-that exist only on dockets. Submerged precedent thus raises the specter that docket-based research may be necessary in some areas to ascertain an accurate picture of the law itself not just trial courts' administration of it.

The existence of a submerged body …