Civil Procedure Commons^™

The Original E-Discovery: Civil Justice Reform And A Return To The Equitable Origins Of Discovery, Patricia I. Mcmahon

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

In the autumn of 2023, the Chief Justice and Attorney General of Ontario announced a broad new effort to review the rules of civil procedure to make civil dispute resolution more efficient and less expensive to enhance access to justice in the province. However, such efforts to reform the rules of civil procedure are nothing new.

This article examines the historical and contemporary aspects of civil justice reform in Ontario, focusing on the pre-trial discovery process. Among the most expensive aspects of the civil litigation process, discovery began as an equitable tool, with roots in the English Court of Chancery. …

El Cortez Reno Holdings, Llc V. Pfpco.’S Noble Pie Parlor, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 68 (Dec. 23, 2025), Anastasia Vinson

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

"Professional courtesy" cannot be relied on to excuse procedural failures, as unopposed motions may be treated as concessions under DCR 13(3).

State Of Nevada Comm’R Of Insurance V. Chur; Chur V. State Of Nevada Comm’R Of Insurance, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Dec. 23, 2025), Christianne White

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined a plaintiff may amend a complaint in response to a clarification of the pleading standard.

A Zealous Advocate, A Robust Cross: Cross-Examination Of Non-Adverse Witnesses By The Guardian Ad Litem, Scott Swain

BYU Law Review

“When the lives and fundamental rights of children are at stake, there must be no silent witnesses.”1 — Carol Bellamy

Systemic pressures in child welfare litigation regularly lead guardian ad litem attorneys to default to the positions and recommendations of state social services. In such cases, witnesses called by the state in trials and evidentiary hearings are non-adverse to the guardian ad litem. This dynamic undermines the purposes of cross-examination rules, threatening the procedural interests of the parties involved. This paper will use a procedural due process balancing test to guide its analysis as it proposes three potential solutions: a …

Standing In The Dark, Sharon Brett

BYU Law Review

Demonstrating standing for injunctive relief in § 1983 police misconduct cases is undisputedly difficult for civil rights plaintiffs. Under City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, plaintiffs seeking injunctions must present more than evidence of past misconduct; they must show a significant ongoing risk that they will experience the same misconduct again. Scholarly attention to Lyons has focused primarily on doctrinal errors in the Court’s legal analysis, and for good reason. But the case raises another important yet overlooked question: Can civil rights plaintiffs realistically demonstrate risk of future harm given (a) the limited data kept by law enforcement about their …

Discovering Melodies Or Discovering Lawsuits? Why The Discovery Rule Is Increasingly Inapplicable To Copyright Infringement As The War Over Generative Ai Wages On, Jack Pilon

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Six More Weeks Of Winter: The Third Circuit Rejects The Second Circuit’S Lenient Sec Asset Freeze Test And Champions Tradition In Sec V. Chappell, Elayna Tsiouplis

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Trial Practice And Procedure, Joseph M. Colwell, Christopher B. Mcdaniel, John D. Flowers, Madi Mcmichael Moseley

Mercer Law Review

This Article addresses selected opinions and legislation of interest to the Georgia civil trial practitioner issued during the survey period of this publication.

Rules Of Decision, Judicial Power, And The Valid Rule Requirement, John Harrison

Catholic University Law Review

Some current Supreme Court debates that concern seemingly specialized issues raise fundamental questions about the role of the Constitution in the legal system and the role of the courts when they decide constitutional issues. In recent years, Justice Thomas has suggested that the doctrines of First Amendment overbreadth, so-called third-party standing in cases involving constitutional liberty, and statutory inseverability call on federal courts to exceed their role under Article III. Justice Thomas maintains that when courts apply those doctrines, the courts decide cases not before them. Building on the work of Professor Henry Monaghan, this article argues that those concerns …

Rethinking Judicial Power & Remedial Restraint, Caprice L. Roberts

Catholic University Law Review

This Article maintains that groundbreaking Supreme Court cases reshaping judicial power and restraint are frequently remedies centric. The much- anticipated ruling in Trump v. CASA illustrates this correlation. Interpreting traditional equity, the Supreme Court circumscribed federal judicial power to issue universal relief. The Court relied on Marbury v. Madison to bolster its reasoning on the limits of judicial power. Ironically, both cases denied any remedy while enhancing the potential for future judicial power. Whether via judicial review and supremacy power or the Court’s future ability to now be the only federal court able to issue universal remedies—the Court’s role in …

Franceschi V. Lg Chem, Ltd., 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 65 (Dec. 18, 2025), Eden Tesfay

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

When there is a disconnect between a defendant’s contacts with the forum state and the harm alleged by the plaintiff, specific jurisdiction may not lie with the forum court.

A Comparative Analysis Of Domestic Violence Legislation In India And The United States: Understanding Protection Of Women Against Violence Act 2005 And Violence Against Women Act 1994, Deon Rodrigues

2025 Fall Honors Capstones Projects - Archive

Domestic violence continues to affect millions of individuals worldwide, yet legal systems respond to it in very different ways. This research compares how India’s Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005) and the United States’ Violence Against Women Act (1994; 2021) protect victims and hold offenders accountable. Using a comparative legal analysis, the study examines both laws’ language, enforcement mechanisms, and effectiveness through court cases, government reports, and statistical data. By identifying the strengths of the United States model such as mandatory arrest provisions and victim support systems, the study aims to propose practical reforms for India’s legal framework. …

It’S “Purposeful” For A Reason: Amb Media And Purposeful Availment In The Internet Age, Levi C. Griesing

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note argues that the Sixth Circuit’s ruling in AMB Media II expands the scope of personal jurisdiction to a degree that prevents fairness and due process for out-of-state defendants. Thus, this Note argues that the purposeful availment inquiry for cases involving generally-available commercial websites should include a targeting requirement—that there must first be an action to solicit business taken on behalf of the defendant in the forum state. Part I will review the goals of the personal jurisdiction doctrine and a brief history of purposeful availment cases before and after the Internet age. Part II will discuss AMB …

Interpreting Rule 23: A Legal Basis For Incentive Awards In Class Action Lawsuits, Chris Battaglia

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note first explores the methodologies that the Supreme Court utilizes to interpret the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and then applies these methodologies to interpret Rule 23. It argues that the Court has demonstrated two different viable strategies to interpret the Rules: (1) applying basic principles of statutory interpretation analysis and (2) giving effect to the policy and purpose surrounding the Rule. This Note concludes that both of these methodologies can be applied to Rule 23, and that as applied, both support the position that Rule 23 authorizes courts to legally grant incentive awards to named plaintiffs in …

Bagelmania Holdings, Llc V. Rdh Interests, Inc. C/W 87901, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 62 (Dec. 04, 2025), Miranda Romero

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Affidavit-of-merit and expert report requirements under NRS § 11.258 are satisfied under a single set of submissions where the complainants (1) file a joint complaint, (2) assert identical claims, and (3) represented by the same attorney.

Fifth Circuit And Mississippi Law: Asked And Answered (Or Not), Caroline B. Smith, Emily K. Lindsay, Jim Rosenblatt

MC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Reasonability Rule For Medical Damages In Tort: In Defense Of Chargemaster Recovery, Avery E. Tunstill

Washington Law Review

In a personal injury suit, Washington law requires the plaintiff to prove that their medical costs are reasonable to recover damages for those costs. Tort reform proponents attempt to use this reasonability rule to limit tort damages awards. They argue that a plaintiff should only recover a portion of a hospital’s bill because most people do not pay a hospital’s sticker price—or the “chargemaster rate”—for medical care. Some reformers argue that recovery rates should instead be based on a set figure. Others argue in favor of eliminating the collateral source rule, which prohibits juries from reducing tort damages awards in …

Federal Courts, Class Actions, And The Jurisdictional Void, Courtney T. Welch

Fordham Law Review

To invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, a plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of Article III. Among other things, Article III requires a plaintiff to have and maintain personal stake throughout the lifespan of the litigation. Though a simple premise, this constitutional requirement has a complicated history. This is especially true as applied to class action lawsuits, where plaintiffs bring claims both on behalf of themselves and other harmed individuals.

The U.S. Supreme Court has applied flexible rules to some—but not all—of Article III’s requirements in class actions. The breadth of this flexibility, though, is uncertain. Accordingly, so too …

United States Counsel Being Used In Order To Serve Foreign Entities: Service On Foreign Entities And The Relationship Between Us Counsel And Foreign Companies, Lucy Gottfried

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

This Note examines the use of alternative service on foreign defendants’ United States counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) and USCIT Rule 4(e)(3). A recent challenge in the Court of International Trade has raised the issue of whether this method of service complies with the rule that service be effectuated in a foreign country. Through surveying federal courts decisions addressing motions for alternative service on U.S. counsel, this note demonstrates that courts do not apply a uniform rule. Instead, courts balance different considerations—like due process, international comity, and litigants’ behavior—based on the underlying facts. This Note synthesizes the …

Local Government Standing As State Standing, Katharine Cooney, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

It is increasingly common, and controversial, for local governments to bring lawsuits as plaintiffs in federal court. Many questions about this practice raise matters that sound in policy. But some, including the issue of standing to sue, also raise issues of constitutional law. How local governments fit into standing rules should reflect how they fit into the U.S. constitutional system more broadly. As the Supreme Court put it in the famous (and infamous) 1907 case Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, "[m]unicipal corporations are political subdivisions of the State, created as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers of …

The Value Of Jury Rights, Philip A. Hamburger

Faculty Scholarship

The right to a civil jury trial is often dismissed as an inefficient anachronism ill suited to the complexities of modern litigation, and these efficiency concerns have long overshadowed any serious defense of the Seventh Amendment. This Article argues that such skepticism profoundly misunderstands the constitutional function and enduring value of civil jury rights. The Article observes that the Seventh Amendment’s jury right was adopted with the understanding that it would come with some inefficiencies and that contemporary concerns about its inefficiencies tend to be overstated. Ultimately, the Article finds that civil juries are essential for structural reasons such as …

Nonparty Protective Relief In The Early Republic: Judicial Power To Annul Letters Patent, James E. Pfander, Mary E. Zakowski

Northwestern University Law Review

Much of the debate over the constitutionality of universal or nonparty protective relief in the federal court system has focused on lessons drawn from historical practice. But with its emphasis on injunctive relief, the literature has largely ignored forms of adjudication that arose outside the courts of equity and led to judgments and decrees affecting the rights of nonparties. As a result, the story of nonparty protective relief has not yet been fully told.

This Article offers a more complete story, highlighting proceedings in which federal courts issued judgments that settled a matter once and for all. Some familiar examples …

Preventive Transparency In Third-Party Litigation Funding, Seth Katsuya Endo

Northwestern University Law Review

For years, efforts to comprehensively regulate third-party litigation funding have been unsuccessful. But bills requiring mandatory disclosure are being introduced in Congress, and the Advisory Committee for Civil Rules has finally agreed to take up the issue. By grounding the discussion of third-party litigation funding in both the broader civil procedure and professional responsibility scholarship, this Article identifies an easy, uncontroversial reform to preventively address the categorical concerns raised by the practice. The primary contribution is a doctrinal intervention, identifying how legal ethics are an integral part of federal civil procedure and then drawing out the implications for third-party litigation …

State Of Nevada V. Degraffenreid, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Nov. 13, 2025), William Mcadorey

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Tiktok, Inc. V. Dist. Ct. [State Of Nevada], 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 51 (Nov. 06, 2025) (En Banc), Erika Loveland

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Online platforms establish specific jurisdiction when they collect and sell Nevada users' data. The CDA § 230 and 1st Amendment do not bar claims for design flaws or safety misrepresentations at the pleading stage.

Causation’S Due Process Dimensions, Cassandra Burke Robertson, Charles W. “Rocky” Rhodes

Texas A&M Law Review

For decades, courts have grappled with the tension between compensating victims of mass harms and maintaining fairness to defendants when causation is difficult to prove. This Article argues that the Supreme Court’s due process jurisprudence provides a relevant framework for navigating this tension. We contend that the Court over the last three decades has established a consistent Fourteenth Amendment due process approach in punitive damages and personal jurisdiction cases, which is rooted in antecedents tracing to the nineteenth century and relies on a nexus of interests that balances individual rights, state interests, and federalism concerns. This framework, we argue, has …

Thermtron: The Unsexy Case The Current Court Should Overturn (Statutory Stare Decisis Be Damned), Christine Tamer

Texas A&M Law Review

Since 1887, Congress has created an impenetrable dike wall to stop appellate review of remand orders in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), which provides: “An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise . . . .” Then, in 1976, the Supreme Court held “that § 1447(d) does not mean what it says” and, thereby, punctured not a tiny hole, but a big one in Congress’s dike wall that had been impenetrable for nearly 90 years. While you won’t find Thermtron—an unsexy jurisdictional case—on any list of the …

The Progression Of Deinstitutionalization And Its Effects On The American South: A Judicial Analysis Of 20th-Century United States Supreme Court Decisions, Eva-Marie V. Jones

Honors College Theses

This thesis explores the effects of four landmark Supreme Court cases on the deinstitutionalization movement in the American south. Previous literature frequently discusses the legislative implications of this era; however, no law is applicable without the interpretation and application of the judiciary, which so often contextualizes the greater public perspective. Rarely has an analysis of judicial decisions involving psychiatric care merged with regional focus, and certainly not in a format accessible to the average individual.

From unmarked graves to abandoned infrastructure, the legacy of historic psychiatric care in the United States has been largely obscured – yet its consequences continue …

Chimeric Contacts And Consent: The Ill-Reasoned Expansion Of Corporate Jurisdictional Exposure, James Paul George

Faculty Scholarship

Two recent Supreme Court decisions have imposed aspects of general jurisdiction in a way that exposes corporations and possibly other legal actors to litigation in spuriously connected forums. One case-Ford Motor Company v. Montana-reached a fair result but with strained reasoning that will support unfair results. The second case-Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railroad Company-was wrong on the facts and the law, imposing general jurisdiction based on a vaguely worded corporate registration statute validated by a more than century-old precedent based on Pennoyer v. Neff's limited territorial model. Both decisions were the result of conceptual corners the Supreme Court has created …

Defining “Cases” Or “Controversies”: A Fundamental Confusion In Article Iii Standing Doctrine And Its Consequences In Multi-Plaintiff Litigation, Dominic Signa

Fordham Law Review

The United States Supreme Court has addressed the absolute core requirements of standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution on several occasions. However, the Court has not clearly articulated what purpose standing serves relative to Article III’s limitations on the exercise of judicial power to only “cases” or “controversies,” and this has led to major downstream effects in the realm of multi plaintiff litigation. Specifically, the Court has not explained whether standing is meant to ensure (1) that all potential plaintiffs demonstrate that they are properly parties to the same case or controversy before a federal court or (2) …