Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Litigation (77)
- Courts (70)
- Supreme Court of the United States (31)
- Jurisdiction (27)
- Legislation (24)
-
- Evidence (22)
- Legal History (21)
- Civil Law (20)
- Constitutional Law (17)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (14)
- State and Local Government Law (13)
- Judges (12)
- Legal Biography (12)
- Business Organizations Law (11)
- Jurisprudence (11)
- Legal Remedies (11)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (10)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (9)
- Legal Writing and Research (9)
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation (8)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (8)
- Securities Law (8)
- Torts (8)
- Conflict of Laws (7)
- Legal Education (7)
- Legal Profession (7)
- Common Law (6)
- Labor and Employment Law (6)
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (113)
- University of Richmond (32)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (28)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (22)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (20)
-
- William & Mary Law School (18)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (13)
- The University of Akron (9)
- University of Colorado Law School (9)
- St. John's University School of Law (8)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (8)
- Cleveland State University (7)
- University of Kentucky (7)
- University of Oklahoma College of Law (6)
- University of Washington School of Law (6)
- Fordham Law School (4)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (4)
- St. Mary's University (4)
- Texas A&M University School of Law (4)
- University of Baltimore Law (4)
- University of Georgia School of Law (4)
- Campbell University School of Law (3)
- Pepperdine University (3)
- Seattle University School of Law (3)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (3)
- University of Cincinnati College of Law (3)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (3)
- Case Western Reserve University School of Law (2)
- Emory University School of Law (2)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (2)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Michigan Law Review (63)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (22)
- Villanova Law Review (1956 - ) (22)
- Faculty Publications (21)
- Indiana Law Journal (21)
-
- Articles (20)
- Law Faculty Publications (19)
- Nevada Law Journal (17)
- University of Richmond Law Review (11)
- Akron Law Review (9)
- Faculty Scholarship (9)
- Washington and Lee Law Review (9)
- Publications (8)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (6)
- Cleveland State Law Review (6)
- Kentucky Law Journal (5)
- Oklahoma Law Review (5)
- Scholarly Works (5)
- Washington Law Review (5)
- Faculty Articles (4)
- Northwestern University Law Review (4)
- Vanderbilt Law Review (4)
- William & Mary Law Review (4)
- All Faculty Scholarship (3)
- Appellate Briefs (3)
- Campbell Law Review (3)
- Pepperdine Law Review (3)
- Richmond Journal of Law & Technology (3)
- Seattle University Law Review (3)
- University of Cincinnati Law Review (3)
- Publication Type
Articles 361 - 376 of 376
Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure
Corporations - Shareholders - Right To Bring Derivative Action For Treble Damages Under Antitrust Laws, William K. Davenport S.Ed.
Corporations - Shareholders - Right To Bring Derivative Action For Treble Damages Under Antitrust Laws, William K. Davenport S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff, owner of 50 percent of the stock in a theater corporation, brought a derivative action in federal court for treble damages for loss of profits allegedly suffered from defendant's violation of the antitrust laws. The district court sustained defendant's motion to dismiss. On appeal to the court of appeals, held, reversed and remanded. Under the new federal rules, a stockholder may bring a derivative action for treble damages under the antitrust laws. Fanchon & Marco, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., (2d Cir. 1953) 202 F. (2d) 731.
Summary Judgment Under The Federal Rules When An Issue Of Fact Is Presented, Mac Asbill, Willis B. Snell
Summary Judgment Under The Federal Rules When An Issue Of Fact Is Presented, Mac Asbill, Willis B. Snell
Michigan Law Review
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure introduced to federal practice the summary judgment procedure, which had been developed previously in England and several of the states. The scope of rule 56 is the broadest possible, since the rule provides that any party may move for a summary judgment in any type of civil action. Rule 56(c) provides that the court shall grant a motion for summary judgment "if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving …
Civil Procedure-Joinder Of Causes Of Action In Michigan, J. David Voss
Civil Procedure-Joinder Of Causes Of Action In Michigan, J. David Voss
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiffs were the owners of several lots, and used their respective properties as residences. Defendants, manufacturers of cement and concrete products, operated several large trucks in their business. Plaintiffs filed a declaration to recover damages for injuries to their properties sustained as a result of the loud noises, vibrations, and cement dust caused by the defendants' trucks when using an alley leading to defendants' place of business. The defendants' motion for dismissal on grounds of misjoinder of parties and causes of action was overruled. On appeal, held, reversed. Owners of property are not entitled to be joined in one …
Federal Procedure-Jurisdiction-Determination Of Amount In Controversy In Class Actions Under Federal Rule 23, James W. Callison
Federal Procedure-Jurisdiction-Determination Of Amount In Controversy In Class Actions Under Federal Rule 23, James W. Callison
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff owned 50 shares of common stock valued at $950. She brought an action in behalf of herself and all other stockholders to enjoin a sale of unissued stock by the corporation to its president, claiming a violation of her preemptive right. The district court ruled on the merits. On appeal, held, the plaintiff's interest was but a small fraction of the $3,000 required to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Although the action was representative, the claims of other stockholders in a like situation could not be cumulated. Ames v. Mengel Co., (2d Cir. 1951) 190 …
The Federal Jurisdictional Amount Requirement And Joinder Of Parties Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Federal Procedure-Joinder Of Legal And Equitable Claims-Trial By Jury, William O. Allen
Federal Procedure-Joinder Of Legal And Equitable Claims-Trial By Jury, William O. Allen
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff brought an action against his employer in a federal district court under the Federal Employers' Liability Act for damages for personal injuries suffered during the course of his employment. In the same action, plaintiff sought to have a release, which he had executed, set aside on the ground that it had been obtained by defendant's fraud. Plaintiff requested a jury trial of both claims; defendant objected to a jury trial of the issue of setting aside the release, on the ground that a claim for cancellation of a release is for equitable relief triable to the court alone. Held …
Federal Courts-Use Of A Cross-Claim Under Rule 13(G) Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Rex Eames S.Ed.
Federal Courts-Use Of A Cross-Claim Under Rule 13(G) Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Rex Eames S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Under an ordinary automobile insurance policy, P insurance company promised to defend and indemnify Harvey for any suit arising from an accident involving his use of the insured truck. Collier sued Harvey in a state court alleging injuries due to the negligent use of the insured truck by two Harvey employees. Before judgment thereon, P, incorporated under the laws of Wisconsin, sued Harvey and Collier, citizens of Oklahoma, in the federal court. P sought a declaratory judgment on the grounds that (a) at the time of the accident the employees were under the control and supervision of the City …
Pleading And Practice-Failure To Answer Request For Admission Of Facts As Basis For Judgment On The Pleadings-Form Of Request For Admission Of Facts, Robert H. Frick
Pleading And Practice-Failure To Answer Request For Admission Of Facts As Basis For Judgment On The Pleadings-Form Of Request For Admission Of Facts, Robert H. Frick
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff filed a complaint for money owing for goods sold and delivered. Defendant filed a cross-complaint. Plaintiff filed an affirmative reply setting forth defenses to the cross-complaint, and three days later served defendant with a request that he "admit each and every allegation and averment contained in paragraphs I, II, III and IV of the plaintiff's affirmative reply to the cross-complaint of the defendants herein is true.'' Defendant failed to answer the request. Washington Rule of Practice 21 provides that such failure shall be deemed an admission of the facts submitted. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for judgment on …
The Amendments To Rule 12 Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, John A. Bauman
The Amendments To Rule 12 Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, John A. Bauman
Articles by Maurer Faculty
No abstract provided.
States' Rights And Federal Procedure, Bernard C. Gavit
States' Rights And Federal Procedure, Bernard C. Gavit
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Federal Courts-Rules Of Civil Procedure-Construction Of Rule 50 (B), Daniel W. Reddin, Ii
Federal Courts-Rules Of Civil Procedure-Construction Of Rule 50 (B), Daniel W. Reddin, Ii
Michigan Law Review
This action was brought in a South Carolina state court and removed to the federal district court on grounds of diversity of citizenship. After the evidence of both parties had been presented, the court denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict. Thereafter, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Although defendant filed a motion for a new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence which the court denied, he did not move to have the verdict and judgment set aside and to have judgment entered in his favor as he might have done under Rule 50 (b) of the …
Amending The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Armistead M. Dobie
Amending The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Armistead M. Dobie
Washington and Lee Law Review
No abstract provided.
The New Federal Rules And State Procedure, Bernard C. Gavit
The New Federal Rules And State Procedure, Bernard C. Gavit
Articles by Maurer Faculty
No abstract provided.
The New Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure [Part 2], Elwood Hutcheson
The New Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure [Part 2], Elwood Hutcheson
Washington Law Review
Continuing with Depositions and Discovery.
Survey Of The New Federal Rules: The New Practice In The Federal Courts In Civil Cases Cognizable At Law Or In Equity, Alfred J. Schweppe
Survey Of The New Federal Rules: The New Practice In The Federal Courts In Civil Cases Cognizable At Law Or In Equity, Alfred J. Schweppe
Washington Law Review
A new era in federal practice, in suits of a civil nature whether cognizable as cases at law or in equity, has been ushered in by the act of Congress of June 19, 19341. Acting under the authority of this statute the Supreme Court of the United States, with the aid of a distinguished advisory committee, undertook the preparation of a "unified system of general rules for cases in equity and actions at law in the District Courts of the United States and in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, so as to secure one form of civil …
Report Of The Committee On Federal Rules, Charles S. Albert
Report Of The Committee On Federal Rules, Charles S. Albert
Washington Law Review
Since the report on the November, 1937, draft of the Federal Rules was written, the Supreme Court, through the Attorney General, submitted to Congress on January 3, 1938, that draft with two important changes advocated by the Washington State Bar Association.