Civil Procedure Commons^™

The Modern Utility Of Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction, Paul D. Carrington

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Professor Carrington examines the proposed amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that would confer quasi in rem jurisdiction on the federal courts and concludes that it should be rejected. Arguing that the expansion of the concept of personal jurisdiction has removed most of what justification there once was for quasi in rem jurisdiction, the author maintains that the latter jurisdiction often provides only limited and uncertain judgments for local plaintiffs while compelling nonresident defendants to litigate in an inconvenient forum, and herefore should not be made available in the federal courts merely to bring their practice into conformity …

Transfer Of Civil Actions Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A)

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Automatic Amendment Of Pleadings: Federal And Indiana Practice

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Attachment And Garnishment In The Federal Courts, Brainerd Currie

Michigan Law Review

Personal injuries allegedly caused by the negligent manufacture of safety fuses used in blasting operations in a coal mine were suffered by Raymond Davis, apparently a citizen of Arkansas. The manufacturer, Ensign-Bickford Company, was a Connecticut corporation that could not be personally served with process within Arkansas. But it happened that two foreign corporations, amenable to process in the state, were indebted in substantial amounts to Ensign-Bickford Company. Accordingly, counsel for Davis, invoking the diversity jurisdiction, filed an action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Without issue of summons, the plaintiff, in conformity with Arkansas statutes, …

Civil Procedure - Disclosure Of Minutes When Grand Jury Was Used For Purpose Of Preparing For Civil Action, L. Vastine Stabler Jr.

Michigan Law Review

Three weeks after the close of a grand jury investigation of charges of criminal antitrust violations, the Government filed a civil complaint against defendants based upon materials accumulated by the grand jury. Defendants obtained discovery of the grand jury transcript, but the United States Supreme Court overruled, holding that defendants, by merely showing that the Government had not requested an indictment, had not shown "good cause" for discovery under rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court did indicate that a use by the Government of the grand jury for the sole purpose of preparing for a …

Discretionary Jury Trial Under The Federal Rules

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Proposed Revision Of New York Civil Practice, Jack B. Weinstein, Michael I. Sovern, Daniel H. Distler, Stanley H. Fuld

Faculty Scholarship

Our present Civil Practice Act is a patchwork affair; provisions have been changed and sections have been added and eliminated as the particular necessity of the times dictated, without any real regard for rational or integrated compilation.

The problem of revision has long confronted us. There has been none for more than 110 years. Very wisely, the Temporary Commission on the Courts directed such a revision, and in 1955 appointed an advisory committee consisting of outstanding attorneys of extensive and varied experience from all over the state. They were delegated to study and prepare appropriate legislation. The research and drafting …

Edson R. Sunderland And The Teaching Of Procedure, Charles H. King

Michigan Law Review

Once having arrived at the University of Michigan Law School, Edson Sunderland never left, except on a temporary basis. He entered the school in 1898, having previously received his Bachelor's and Master's degrees from the University's College of Literature, Science and the Arts. Immediately upon his graduation in 1901 he was invited to become a member of the faculty, an invitation which he accepted effective the following fall.

Edson R. Sunderland's Contribution To The Reform Of Civil Procedure In Illinois, George Ragland Jr.

Michigan Law Review

Illinois is greatly indebted to Edson R. Sunderland for the effective and enduring contributions which he made to the Civil Practice Act of 1933. That reform was encouraged in no small degree by his speeches and writings. He served as its principal draftsman. His suggestions were of much assistance to the bench and bar of the state in modifying and implementing the original draft so that the measure could be successfully put into operation. Regulation of details of practice by rules of court, which was a primary feature of Professor Sunderland's draft and one which he helped defend against attack, …

Edson R. Sunderland's Role In Michigan Procedure, Jason L. Honigman

Michigan Law Review

More than any other individual, Professor Edson R. Sunderland has had a tremendous impact upon the Michigan law of procedure. The procedural reforms which he urged and molded into the Michigan law of procedure have been in use for nearly half a century, and to this day are the framework for our procedural laws.

Edson Sunderland And The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Charles E. Clark

Michigan Law Review

It was my privilege to be associated with Edson Sunderland for many years in a major endeavor for the improvement of law administration, namely, the framing of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In this association I came to know what a rare spirit he was, how devoted to the public service he had undertaken, and yet withal how gay and charming a friend and co-worker he always showed himself. In the roster of American workers for better justice he stands preeminent for the length, the original character, and the unique persistence of his labors. But this wholehearted idealism in …

Edson R. Sunderland And Judicial Administration, Glenn R. Winters

Michigan Law Review

The name of Edson R. Sunderland stands out as one of the great and forward-looking leaders of his generation and of all time in the improvement of the administration of justice.

Civil Procedure - Trial Practice - Consecutive Motions For Directed Verdict, John Gelder S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff brought an action to recover arrearages in rent. At the conclusion of the evidence, plaintiff and then defendant made motions for a directed verdict. The trial court held that where both parties make a motion to direct a verdict, it is the duty of the court to decide the case on its merits and accordingly found in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant immediately moved to amend his motion to attach a reservation which would have the issues submitted to a jury, but the amendment was disallowed. The appellate court reversed the judgment, finding prejudice to defendant since the trial …

Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure: Liberal Joinder Of Issues And The Sequence Of Trial

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Federal Procedure - Trial Practice - Not Reversible Error For Trial Judge To Summon Jury Sua Sponte After Waiver, Thomas A. Dieterich

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff instituted this action for breach of contract and defendant counterclaimed. Neither party demanded a jury trial during the period in which it was claimable as of right. Subsequently defendant moved for a jury trial. The motion was denied and was never renewed. Seven months later, on the eve of the trial, the court issued an order sua sponte for a jury trial. Plaintiff's objection was overruled. The jury awarded damages to plaintiff in the same amount as the conceded counterclaim. On appeal, held, affirmed, one judge dissenting. Although the trial judge's action in calling a jury on his …

Required Joinder Of Claims, Dieter L. Hoegen

Michigan Law Review

In review we can say that within a comparatively broad field of the American law required joinder of claims is the rule. There are some exceptions. The German law has no rule of compulsory joinder of claims. Here, there are some exceptions, too. In this sense and within a field which is marked out by the American rule and the German exceptions, the relationship of rule and exceptions is reversed in the two systems.

Required Joinder Of Claims, Dieter L. Hoegen

Michigan Law Review

This comparative study is confined to the situation of one claimant against one claimee. The principles which will be considered seem to be rather well settled both in the American and the German law. The fact, however, that besides many a common result we shall find fundamental differences in the pertinent basic concepts of the American and German systems makes the discussion worthwhile. It may, at least, promote a reconsideration of the propriety of those concepts.

Rules Of Practice And Procedure: A Study Of Judicial Rule Making, Charles W. Joiner, Oscar J. Miller

Michigan Law Review

The rule-making power of the courts in the United States is is brought into focus wherever procedural reform is undertaken. As more and more states have undertaken rev1s1on of judicial procedures, the power and authority of courts to promulgate rules of practice and the definition of the scope of such rules have claimed increasingly the attention of legal writers. This trend can be attributed in part to a growing realization that statutes governing practice and procedure in courts, enacted by legislatures meeting every year or two, have failed to achieve that minimum standard in the administration of justice necessary to …

Compulsory Joinder Of Parties In Civil Actions, John W. Reed

Michigan Law Review

Compulsory joinder cases involving interests in land display one peculiar and important characteristic: there is almost never any need in the state courts to wrestle with the question of whether a person is indispensable as distinguished from necessary. One hastens to add that this attribute of land cases appears to have gone largely unnoticed, but it exists none the less. It arises out of the fact that in a suit involving real property it is never impossible for the court to obtain jurisdiction over all persons interested therein to an extent which will enable the court to adjudicate controversies over …

Procedural Techniques For Belated Attacks On Judgments In Indiana

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Compulsory Joinder Of Parties In Civil Actions, John W. Reed

Articles

The plaintiff in a civil cause ordinarily is permitted to select the persons with whom he will litigate. The initial designation of parties to an action is made by the plaintiff, and if he chooses to sue B and not A,' that is ordinarily of no concern to B or to A or to the court. So also where the plaintiff without A as co-plaintiff sues B. Not always, however, is the plaintiff permitted unfettered choice in naming the parties to his lawsuit. On the one hand there are persons whose relationship to the situation in litigation is outside the …

Federal Procedure - Jurisdiction - Appeal From Judgment On Some Of Several Multiple Claims Under Rule 54(B), Lawrence N. Ravick S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff filed a complaint in a federal district court alleging in six counts that defendant was engaged in unfair competition against business ventures carried on by the plaintiff. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The court ordered two counts to be stricken, found that there was no just reason for delaying the final determination of the issues raised by these counts, and directed that judgment be entered thereon against the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed and the defendant moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order and judgment appealed from was not a final or …

Suits Against Unincorporated Associations Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, John Kaplan

Michigan Law Review

Concepts, Benjamin Cardozo has said, "are useful, indeed indispensable, if kept within their place. We will press them quite a distance. . . . A time comes, however, when the concepts carry us too far, or farther than we are ready to go with them, and behold, some other concept, with capacity to serve our needs is waiting at the gate. 'It is a peculiar virtue of our system of law that the process of inclusion and exclusion, so often employed in developing a rule, is not allowed to end with its enunciation, and that an expression in an opinion …

Adequacy Of Instructions To The Jury: Ii, Curtis Wright Jr.

Michigan Law Review

The six states in this group present some very special cases. They range from an original colony to Florida and Texas, which were admitted to statehood in 1845. National rank in population varies from sixth (Texas) to twenty-sixth (Mississippi) with the average almost within the top one-third. As to increase of population, the mean is close to the national figure of fifteen percent. That statement needs qualification, however, since Florida increased 46 percent and Texas 20 percent, whereas Mississippi had an actual loss of two percent. No docket delay of more than six months is found anywhere except in Texas, …

Adequacy Of Instructions To The Jury: I, Curtis Wright, Jr

Michigan Law Review

In view of frequent judicial complaints about "instructions by the acre," it may be appropriate to begin with a short justification for an article bearing a title which might appear to suggest an antithetical problem, that is, the existence of a question as to the adequacy of instructions to the jury. To this end one might repeat the assertion that the verdict of a jury which is not instructed as to the fundamental law of the case is "crackerbarrel justice." If this is true, it certainly is also true that the mere number of instructions given is no guarantee of …

Federal Procedure - Realignment Of Parties In Non-Diversity Case, David D. Dowd, Jr S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff (S1), a surety for the subcontractor, brought an action against the subcontractor and the prime contractor to compel them to set off their respective counterclaims in order to diminish the liability of S1. The subcontractor had another surety (S2) on a different obligation arising out of the same construction job, and the prime contractor, uncertain where liability should be placed, impleaded S2. On S1's motion to vacate the impleader order, held, denied, and the court on its own motion directed realignment of the parties, ruling that the main issue was division of …

Federal Procedure - Juries - Attacking Release For Fraud In Action At Law, James W. Beatty S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff brought an action to recover damages for personal injuries. Defendant filed an answer and asserted that plaintiff had executed a release in full for all claims against the defendant. In his reply plaintiff admitted that he had executed the release, but claimed that it was obtained by fraud on the part of the defendant. The district court granted defendant's motion to deny a jury trial on the ground that the matter of determining the validity of a release was properly cognizable in equity and that therefore plaintiff was not entitled to a jury trial on this issue. On appeal …

Rule 43(A) And The Communication Privileged Understate Law: An Analysis Of Confusion, George W. Pugh

Vanderbilt Law Review

What rules govern the admissibility of evidence in federal court? Rule 43 (a) purports to provide the answer with respect to cases falling within the ambit of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.' Is the Rule working satisfactorily, or should it now be abandoned in favor of a new and different solution? The problem thus presented is broad and pervasive. A definitive answer will not be attempted in this paper. Instead, the writer proposes to give only a general discussion of the broader aspects of the Rule, and to limit analysis of the cases to a very restricted area--the meaning …

Federal Procedure - Counterclaim To A Counterclaim Under The Federal Rules, Elizabeth Gaspar Brown

Michigan Law Review

With one exception the cases decided in the federal courts under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have held that the plaintiff is free to plead a counterclaim in the reply, although in every instance the counterclaim in the reply under consideration was one related to the subject matter of the counterclaim pleaded in the defendant's answer.

Amendments To The Federal Rules: The Function Of A Continuing Rules Committee, Charles A. Wright

Vanderbilt Law Review

No development in American procedural history in the last century has exceeded in importance the adoption by the United States Supreme Court in 1938 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These rules, the product of a distinguished Advisory Committee, introduced a system and a philosophy differing as markedly from the code pleading then in vogue as code pleading, in its day, had differed from common-law pleading. This new system has worked well in the federal courts, so well indeed as to stimulate a reexamination of procedure in many of the states, with nearly a dozen jurisdiction shaving already adopted …