Civil Procedure Commons^™

What Is Deeply Rooted In The Constitution?, Thomas P. Crocker

BYU Law Review

In a series of cases stretching over a century, the Court made a right’s roots a constitutive feature of its identity. Highlighting the analytic centrality of deep roots to the recognition of rights, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health withdrew prior judicial recognition of a woman’s right to reproductive choice, arguing that such a right was not properly rooted in the American legal tradition. But what does it mean for a right to have deep roots? A surprising feature of American constitutionalism is that there is no single answer to the basic analytic question of what it means for a right …

Across The Aggregation-Entity Divide: Personal Jurisdiction, Standing, And The Nature Of The Class Action, Charles Hill

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Challenging The Juridical Link: Standing, Class Actions, And Article Iii's Limitations, Sebastian W. Johnson

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Private Cause Of Action Under Maine's Unfair Trade Practices Act, Steven A. Shaw

Maine Law Review

In 1970 the Maine Legislature passed the Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA) which declared unlawful any "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce . . . ." UTPA-type statutes, now common to all states, offer several advantages. The statutes provide for a statutory award of attorneys' fees, create a private cause of action which is simple in comparison to analogous common law claims, and offer a flexible concept of unlawful conduct which many courts have shown a willingness to interpret broadly and sympathetically. Although Maine's UTPA was originally …

Hospital Accountability In Health Care Delivery, C. Elisabeth Belmont

Maine Law Review

In recent years, the role of community hospitals in health care delivery has undergone a dramatic change. Until the latter half of the twentieth century, a hospital was merely a "doctor's workshop," providing physicians with the physical facilities, equipment, and personnel necessary to treat their private patients. Due to progressive medical technology, today's hospital has moved from a passive role in patient care to more active participation in the delivery of total health care. The hospital has become a health care provider in its own right, furnishing a broad range of diagnostic and outpatient services, home care assistance, and specialized …

In Defense Of Civil Juries, Peter W. Culley

Maine Law Review

Criticism of the civil jury system is nothing new. In fact, virtually since its inception the civil jury has been embroiled in controversy. Typically critics argue that: the jury cannot handle the complex or technical case; there is great expense and delay attendant to trial by jury; jury adjudication is of low quality; verdicts rendered by different juries in cases involving similar facts often appear inconsistent. Recently, Justice Donald Alexander of the Maine Superior Court stated that "[t]he civil jury system has outlived its usefulness." In support of his basic premise that the civil jury system is merely an historical …

The Vitality Of The Doctrine Of Punitive Damages In Maine, Kevin F. Gordon

Maine Law Review

On four separate occasions between December 1981 and February 1982, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court called into question the continued vitality of the common law doctrine of punitive damages. The substantive propriety of punitive damages was not challenged by any of the defendants in those four cases. As a result, the Law Court assumed for the purposes of each opinion that punitive damages could be awarded by a court "in some instances without explicit statutory authorization." Nevertheless, in a footnote to Braley v. Berkshire Mutual Insurance Co., the court challenged this assumption. Noting that the doctrine of punitive damages initially …

Constitutional Issues Raised By The Civil-Criminal Dichotomy Of The Maine Oui Law, Bruce W. Smith

Maine Law Review

Moving to the forefront of a national trend, the Maine Legislature undertook a thorough reform of its operating under the influence (OUI) law in 1981. The new statute was billed "the toughest in the nation," largely because of a provision for mandatory prison sentences. The statute's most radical provision is not the mandatory prison term, however, but a section which gives prosecutors the option to treat less egregious first offenses as civil infractions rather than crimes. The section generates the broad issue addressed by this Comment: may trial by jury and other constitutional protections formerly afforded OUI defendants be denied …

Who Should Recover For Loss Of Consortium?, Martin S. Amick

Maine Law Review

For more than three centuries courts have recognized a husband's right, where a tortious injury to his wife detrimentally affects the spousal relationship, to recover damages for loss of consortium. For many years the prevailing view was that a wife had no corresponding right to bring a similar action in response to a tortious injury to her husband. Most jurisdictions, however, now allow both the husband and the wife to recover for loss of "spousal" consortium. The right to recover for loss of consortium was extended to the wife largely because modern courts recognized that it was inconsistent and unjustifiably …

Probate Standing, David Horton

Michigan Law Review

Few topics in civil justice have sparked as much criticism as the standing doctrine. The U.S. Constitution and some of its state counterparts require plaintiffs to allege that they suffered an “injury-in-fact” that the defendant caused and that a court can redress. A veritable ocean of commentary argues that this requirement [is confusing, ahistorical, and unmoored from its objectives.

Yet a different manifestation of the standing doctrine has long lurked in obscurity. Standing issues are also common in state probate courts, where the transmission of assets from the dead to the living can affect a variety of parties. But in …

Stacked Recovery Under Maine's Uninsured Motorists Statute: Connolly V. Royal Globe Insurance Company, Edward R. Benjamin Jr.

Maine Law Review

Foremost among the problems of automobile travel facing state legislatures may be that of ensuring adequate compensation for injuries and deaths suffered in traffic accidents. Frequently an injured party wins an award of damages against a negligent motorist, only to find the negligent party unable to meet the financial burden which the judgment imposes. The injured party, though innocent of any wrongdoing, may receive little or no compensation for injuries suffered. State legislatures have attempted to prevent such situations by enacting mandatory liability insurance laws, creating victim compensation funds, or requiring uninsured motorist coverage. Inherent weaknesses exist, however, in both …

Hanover Insurance Co. V. Hayward: Imposition Of Punitive Damages In Addition To Criminal Sanctions, David P. Silk

Maine Law Review

In Hanover Insurance Co. v. Hayward, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, addressed the issue whether punitive damages may be awarded against a defendant who has been criminally convicted for the conduct giving rise to the punitive damages claim. Although it affirmed the superior court's decision not to allow the award of punitive damages, the Law Court concluded that the imposition of criminal sanctions did not by itself bar punitive damages. Instead, the court indicated that criminal punishment is merely one factor to consider in determining whether an award of punitive damages would serve a meaningful …

The Federal Civil Rules After Half A Century, Maurice Rosenberg

Maine Law Review

The name Gignoux is not exactly a household word among the lay citizens of this country and would not qualify as one even if we count all the varied pronunciations people choose to accord it. Indeed, there are probably quite a few members of the bar who do not recognize the name or know anything about its bearer's works. That is their loss. Edward T. Gignoux has been doing so much for the betterment of justice in this country in so many ways and for so many years that he has clearly earned a place of high honor in the …

State Courts' Interest In Federal Rulemaking: A Proposal For Recognition, Vincent L. Mckusick

Maine Law Review

As we approach the half-century anniversary of the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we should take stock of the extent that they have served as a model for state rulemaking. At least thirty states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, now have civil rules substantially identical to the federal rules. Of the remaining states, only three have statutes or rules of civil procedure that bear little or no resemblance to the federal model Even those states such as Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania that have not modeled their civil procedure generally on the federal …

Ouellette V. Sturm, Ruger & Co. And Jones V. North American Aerodynamics: The Effectiveness Of Maine's Borrowing Statute In Cases Involving Corporations, J. Gordon Scannell Jr.

Maine Law Review

Maine's borrowing statute provides that a person may not bring an action in Maine that has been barred by the laws of another jurisdiction wherein all parties resided. In effect, the statute permits "borrowing" the limitation period of the other jurisdiction. In Ouellette v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, interpreted the residency requirement of the borrowing statute as it relates to a corporation and held that for purposes of the statute a corporation is a resident of only the state in which it is incorporated. Because of the peculiar wording of …

United States Ex Rel. Arrow Electronics, Inc. V. G.H. Coffey Co.: Judicial Interpretation Of Timely Notice Under Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 15(C), Brett Dwight Baber

Maine Law Review

In 1966, the United States Supreme Court amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) to eliminate lower court confusion regarding "relation back" of pleading amendments which sought to change the party against whom the claim was asserted. The Rule, as presently formulated, permits a plaintiff to add or change a party defendant after the statute of limitations has run provided that . . . . While the current Rule is more precise than the pre-1966 Rule in defining when "relation back" is permissible, it has not eliminated the sharp divergence among judicial opinion regarding the proper application of the Rule. …

Restraining The Prosecutor: Restrictions On Threatening Prosecution For Civil Ends, James A. Trowbridge

Maine Law Review

Prosecutors in some cases agree to dismiss criminal charges, admit a defendant to a diversion program, or enter a nolle prosequi in exchange for the defendant signing a waiver of any civil claims against law enforcement agents, governments, or private persons. The practice of a prosecutor bargaining for the release of law enforcement personnel or others from civil liability raises serious questions concerning the independence of the prosecutorial function, the relationship of prosecutors to other legal institutions, and the application of rules of professional responsibility. Generally, courts have been critical of these arrangements. The Model Code of Professional Responsibility (Code) …

Tuttle V. Raymond: Drawing The Line On Punitive Damages, Elting H. Smith

Maine Law Review

In Tuttle v. Raymond, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, reconsidered the appropriateness of Maine's common law doctrine of punitive damages. Under the doctrine, punitive or exemplary awards are permitted in tort actions, at the factfinder's discretion, for the purpose of deterring wrongful conduct. Prior to Tuttle, a plaintiff raised a claim for such an award if he proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was guilty of intentional, wanton, malicious, reckless, or grossly negligent behavior. Because of the doctrine's uncertain justification and vague standards, however, punitive damages had become the subject of …

Beyond The Equity Power Of Bankruptcy Courts: Toxic Tort Liabilities In Chapter 11 Cases, Kaighn Smith

Maine Law Review

In 1982, three asbestos product manufacturers filed voluntary petitions for business reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The common reason for each of these filings was that tort liabilities threatened the financial survival of the corporation. Never, in the history of United States bankruptcy law, had any business sought bankruptcy relief for such a reason. By 1985, two more firms, another asbestos product manufacturer and a pharmaceutical company, filed Chapter 11 petitions for the same reason. The torts of these "debtors" in bankruptcy are similar; they extend from the manufacture and wide-spread marketing of products that …

Affirmative Judicial Case Management: A Viable Solution To The Toxic Product Litigation Crisis, Patrick Francis Harrigan

Maine Law Review

With increasing frequency, federal courts throughout the nation have confronted a multiplicity of "toxic tort" claims, claims for relief arising from chronic and latent illnesses or diseases allegedly caused by toxic substances. Toxic substances are substances whose manufacture, processing, distribution, use, or disposal presents or will present an unreasonable risk of injury to a person's health or to the environment. Because many of these unreasonable health risks are caused by consumer and industrial products, many toxic tort claims are actually "toxic product" claims. Examples of toxic product claims include those arising from the use, exposure to, or consumption of chemicals …

Interstate Commerce And Personal Jurisdiction In Flux: A Critical Analysis Of Mallory V. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. And Its Effects On Business Litigation, Mairi Cooley

University of Miami Business Law Review

This Note examines the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., advocating for legislative intervention by Congress to mitigate its adverse effects on interstate commerce. The Court revived a pre-International Shoe v. Washingtonprecedent, validating a Pennsylvania statute that imposes general personal jurisdiction on non-resident businesses registered in the state. Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion, supported by a diverse coalition of Justices, underscored the constitutionality of the statute under the Due Process Clause, with Justice Jackson emphasizing the principle of jurisdictional waiver via business registration. Conversely, Justice Alito’s concurrence, while agreeing on …

Not-So-Special Solicitude, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

In a high-profile case last term about state standing to sue in federal court, Justice Gorsuch deemed it “hard not to wonder why” the majority said “nothing about ‘special solicitude.’” The silence was indeed surprising, for in a landmark decision several years earlier, the Supreme Court had declared that states were “entitled to special solicitude”—presumably meaning some sort of preferential treatment—“in [the] standing analysis.” And since then, commentators had depicted the concept as permitting opportunistic states to wage ideological crusades in courts across the country, especially through administrative-law attacks on federal-government defendants.

But what if “special solicitude” is not so …

The Grapes Of Roth, Bruce E. Boyden

Washington Law Review

Shortly after Roth Greeting Cards was decided in 1970, its offhand reference to the “total concept and feel” of the cards at issue became the dominant standard in copyright law for determining whether two works were substantially similar. That is a remarkable achievement for a phrase that, in the words of the influential Nimmer treatise, “threatens to subvert the very essence of copyright.” It nevertheless had enormous appeal for federal judges, and the reason extends well beyond copyright law. “Total concept and feel” appeared at a critical juncture for the federal judiciary, as an older model of decision-making, based on …

Plausibly Illiberal: Sua Sponte Dismissals Of Pro Se Complaints Under The Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pierce Edlich

Fordham Law Review

Over a quarter of civil litigants file suit in federal court without an attorney. Most unrepresented litigants are in prison, and many of their cases raise complex, delicate constitutional questions. The number of unrepresented litigants in federal courts rose steadily until the 1990s, when Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) of 1995 to limit the burden of frivolous inmate litigation on federal courts. Since 1996, the PLRA has defined courts’ procedural obligations for inmate and in forma pauperis (IFP) suits, often filed pro se. The PLRA requires that courts screen and dismiss sua sponte cases that are frivolous, …

Egbert V. Boule And The Dwindling Bivens Doctrine, Luke Smith

MC Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Fundamental Failing: The Mississippi Judiciary's Abrogation Of Its Constitutional Duty, Brad Robertson

MC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Law, Fact, And Appellate Review, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

For centuries, courts have been called upon to distinguish between law and fact. That distinction played a key role in recent Supreme Court decisions on two critical components of appellate review. Dupree v. Younger considered an important question regarding what a party must do at trial to preserve an issue for appellate review. And Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. addressed how to select and apply the standard of appellate review--specifically, whether and how the appellate court must show deference to particular decisions made at the trial level.
Both decisions were partially right. Dupree correctly focused on whether certain early …

A Take On "Special Solicitude" In State Standing: Reconciling The Unreconcilable, Audrey M. Woodward

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Leveling The Playing Field For Racial Justice In The Civil Litigation System, Suzette M. Malveaux

Scholarly Articles

Under the weight of the #MeToo movement and severe public pressure, Congress stopped this unseemly practice for a subset of Americans—those challenging sexual assault and harassment. The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFASASHA), passed in 2022, gives these victims a choice of whether to challenge sexual misconduct in court or in arbitration. Such ubiquitous take-it-or-leave-it contracts are now unenforceable, giving this narrow swath of the population the power to decide for themselves how to challenge such outrageous wrongdoing. In Expanding the Ban on Forced Arbitration, Michael Z. Green argues that race discrimination claims should …

A Defendant's Right To Counsel In Commitment Hearings For Nonpayment Of A Criminal Fine, Barbara A. Appleby

Maine Law Review

The federal constitutional right of an indigent defendant to appointed counsel in state court proceedings derives from two constitutional provisions. First, the sixth amendment, as incorporated by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, provides the basis for an absolute right to counsel in criminal prosecutions leading to actual imprisonment. Second, the due process clause, as an independent source of individual rights, provides the basis for the right to counsel in civil proceedings. Both the sixth amendment and the due process rights may be implicated in a hearing for non-payment of a criminal fine. Title 17-A, section 1304 of …