Civil Procedure Commons^™

Erie Railroad V. Tompkins, Wendy Collins Perdue

Law Faculty Publications

Erie Railroad v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64 (1938), limited the power of federal courts to create judge-made law that would displace state law. Jurists view the Supreme Court's decision both a modern cornerstone of American judicial federalism and an example of legal realism's influence.

Judge Harry Edwards: A Case In Point!, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Judge Harry Edwards dislikes empirical work that is not flattering to federal appellate judges. A few years ago Dean Richard Revesz published an empirical study of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit providing further support for the rather tame proposition that judges’ political orientation has some effect on outcome in some politically charged cases. A year later Judge Edwards published a criticism phrased in extreme terms. Dean Revesz then wrote a devastating reply by which he demonstrated that Judge Edwards “is simply wrong with respect to each of the numerous criticisms that he levels.” We believe …

Plaintiphobia In The Appellate Courts: Civil Rights Really Do Differ From Negotiable Instruments, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Professors Clermont and Eisenberg conducted a systematic analysis of appellate court behavior and report that defendants have a substantial advantage over plaintiffs on appeal. Their analysis attempted to control for different variables that may affect the decision to appeal or the appellate outcome, including case complexity, case type, amount in controversy, and whether there had been a judge or a jury trial. Once they accounted for these variables and explored and discarded various alternate explanations, they came to the conclusion that a defendants' advantage exists probably because of appellate judges' misperceptions that trial level adjudicators are pro-plaintiff.

Appeal From Jury Or Judge Trial: Defendants' Advantage, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The prevailing "expert" opinion is that jury verdicts are largely immune to appellate revision. Using a database that combines all federal civil trials and appeals decided since 1988, we find that jury trials, as a group, are in fact not so special on appeal. But the data do show that defendants succeed more than plaintiffs on appeal from civil trials, and especially from jury trials. Defendants appealing their losses after trial by jury obtain reversals at a 31% rate, while losing plaintiffs succeed in only 13% of their appeals from jury trials. Both descriptive analyses of the results and more …

They Toil Not, Neither Do They Spin: Civil Liability Under The Oregon Securities Law, Keith A. Rowley

Scholarly Works

Under Oregon law, persons who sell securities in violation of statutory registration requirements, or by means of some misrepresentation or omission of material fact, may be liable to any person or entity who buys securities from or through them. Likewise, persons who buy securities by means of some misrepresentation or omission of material fact may be liable to any person or entity who sells securities to or through them. In addition to, or in lieu of, suing the person who committed the material misrepresentation or omission, a plaintiff may sue one or more persons or entities who might be vicariously …

Anti-Plaintiff Bias In The Federal Appellate Courts, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

A recent study of appellate outcomes reveals that defendants succeed significantly more often than plaintiffs on appeal from civil trials-especially from jury trials.

Did The Civil Justice Reform Act Of 1990 Actually Expire?, Carl Tobias

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (CJRA) was intended to reduce the expense and delay associated with federal district court litigation by requiring courts to study and adopt new procedures. The CJRA's gains, however, may be erased by the uncertainty surrounding its sunset provision. Professor Tobias argues that Congress or the Judicial Conference should resolve the uncertainty by proclaiming that the CJRA has expired, thus forcing districts to abrogate procedures inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Simplifying The Choice Of Forum: A Reply, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

We have three things to think about here, as the real estate agents say—“location, location, location.” Accordingly, the two of us have engaged for several years in empirical studies aimed at gauging the effect of forum on case outcome. The results to date strongly suggest that forum really matters. An early piece of the puzzle fell into place in our study of venue. In that article, we examined the benefits and costs of the federal courts scheme of transfer of civil venue “in the interest of justice.” Ours was a pretty straightforward and simple cost-benefit analysis, but we supported it …

Xenophilia In American Courts, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Foreigner! The word says it all. Verging on the politically incorrect, the expression is full of connotation and implication. A foreigner will face bias. By such a thought process, many people believe that litigants have much to fear in courts foreign to them. In particular, non-Americans fare badly in American courts. Foreigners believe this. Even Americans believe this.

Such views about American courts are understandable. After all, the grant of alienage jurisdiction to the federal courts, both original and removal, constitutes an official assumption that xenophobic bias is present in state courts. As James Madison said of state courts: “We …

Courts In Cyberspace, Theodore Eisenberg, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Trial By Jury Or Judge: Which Is Speedier?, Theodore Eisenberg, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Many take as a given that jury-tried cases consume more time than judge-tried cases. Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit, for example, opines: “Court queues are almost always greatest for parties seeking civil jury trials. This makes economic sense. Such trials are more costly than bench trials both because of jury fees (which … understate the true social costs of the jury) and because a case normally takes longer to try to a jury than to a judge …. Parties are therefore “charged” more for jury trials by being made to wait in line longer.”

A close reading reveals …

Exorcising The Evil Of Forum-Shopping, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Most of the business of litigation comprises pretrial disputes. A common and important dispute is over where adjudication should take place. Civil litigators deal with nearly as many change-of-venue motions as trials. The battle over venue often constitutes the critical issue in a case.

The American way is to provide plaintiffs with a wide choice of venues for suit. But the American way has its drawbacks. To counter these drawbacks, an integral part of our court systems, and in particular the federal court system, is the scheme of transfer of venue "in the interest of justice." However, the leading evaluative …

Trial By Jury

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Settling For A Judge: A Comment On Clermont And Eisenberg, Samuel R. Gross

Articles

Trial by Jury or Judge: Transcending Empiricism,1 by Kevin Clermont and Theodore Eisenberg, is not only an important article, it is unique. To most Americans, trial means trial by jury. In fact, over half of all federal trials are conducted without juries2 (including 31% of trials in cases in which the parties have the right to choose a jury3), and the proportion of bench trials in state courts is even higher.4 And yet, while there is a large literature on the outcomes of jury trials and the factors that affect them,5 nobody else has systematically compared trials by jury to …

Section 1983, Honorable George C. Pratt, Martin A. Schwartz, Leon Friedman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Summary Judgment Before The Completion Of Discovery: A Proposed Revision Of Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 56(F), John F. Lapham

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I of this Note discusses the purpose of summary judgment in a regime of notice pleading. Part II examines how the federal courts have interpreted and applied rule 56(f). Part III suggests that rule 56(f) be modified to require a more significant factual showing before a court may grant a continuance for further discovery. In addition, Part III examines the policy considerations that support a more stringent rule. Finally, Part IV provides a hypothetical example illustrating the benefits of this proposal.

Rhetoric And Reality In The Law Of Federal Courts: Professor Fallon's Faulty Premise, Michael L. Wells

Scholarly Works

Richard Fallon's recent article, "The Ideologies of Federal Courts Law," [74 Va. L. Rev. 1141 (1988)] offers valuable insights into a bewildering body of Supreme Court doctrine. He effectively demonstrates the "substantial doctrinal instability" of this body of law, and also discerns a pattern amid the chaos. Fallon's treatment of the case law and the scholarship is fair-minded, meticulous, and incisive.

I disagree, however, with one aspect of Fallon's thesis. In my view, he falters when identifying sources of the discontinuity in the doctrine. In Part I of his article he argues that the decisions reflect "two sets of incompatible …

3rd Annual Federal Practice Institute, Office Of Continuing Legal Education At The University Of Kentucky College Of Law, John R. Leathers, Willam M. Lear, Edward H. Johnstone, Eugene E. Siler, Frank E. Haddad, Laramie L. Leatherman, Melissa Forsythe, Gregory L. Monge, Leonard Green, Thomas D. Lambros, Stanley M. Chesley, Charles S. Cassis

Continuing Legal Education Materials

Outline of speakers' presentations from the 3rd Annual Federal Practice Institute held by UK/CLE on September 23, 1988.

Nationwide Service Of Process: Due Process Limitations On The Power Of The Sovereign, Robert A. Lusardi

Faculty Scholarship

There are a number of instances in which a federal court asserts personal jurisdiction by service of process beyond the territorial limits of the state in which it sits. The most common examples of these assertions of jurisdiction are the use of a state's long-arm statute and the "bulge" provision of the federal rules. But, in addition, there are a number of statutes by which Congress has authorized nationwide service of process in particular circumstances.

It is generally accepted that Congress may authorize expansion limits of the states in which it sits, including authorization of extraterritorial service of process. However, …

Procedural And Substantive Problems In Complex Litigation Arising From Disasters, Jack B. Weinstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Book Review. Privatization And The New Formalism: Making The Courts Safe For Bureaucracy, Bryant G. Garth

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Mass And Repetitive Litigation In The Federal Courts, Edward H. Cooper

Articles

The topic of "Mass and Repetitive Litigation in the Federal Courts" is even more vast and unwieldy than the complex litigations it brings to mind. The implicit assignment to address the topic by contemplating the events that may occur over the next century is still more daunting. One hundred years bring untellable changes to all of our social and political institutions, judicial and otherwise. Rather than attempt to meet the challenge by uttering bold prophecies of the circumstances that will confront our successors of the future, I will follow an easier course. This paper will select a few illustrations of …

Preclusion And Federal Choice Of Law, Gene R. Shreve

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Should Federal Courts Give Greater Effect To State Judgments Than Would The Courts That Rendered Them?, Gene R. Shreve

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Conceptual Overburden In The System's Operation?: Of Judges And Scholars, Jurisdiction And All That, James Dickson Phillips Jr.

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Federal Practice and Procedure, Volumes 13-19: Jurisdiction and Related Matters by Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, and Edward H. Cooper

Causation As A Standing Requirement: The Unprincipled Use Of Judicial Restraint, Gene R. Nichol Jr.

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Pendent Jurisdiction - The Problem Of "Pendenting Parties", William H. Fortune

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Federal courts have generally discouraged the joinder of a third party solely on the basis of a claim pendent to a federal cause of action. They have, however, been more liberal in allowing joinder in diversity cases. The author reviews the case law and argues that a more liberal attitude toward joinder should be adopted, except in diversity cases where, he believes, liberal joinder erodes the requirement of complete diversity.

Wright & Miller: Federal Practice And Procedure, Civil Procedure, William H. Becker, W. Brown Morton Jr.

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil Procedure Vol. 4 & 5 by Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller

The Consumer Class Action, Arthur H. Travers Jr., Jonathan M. Landers

Publications

No abstract provided.

Simplification Of Judicial Procedure In Federal Courts, Edson R. Sunderland

Articles

In 1914 the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives unanimously reported favorably upon a bill (H. R. 133) authorizing the Supreme Court of the United States to prescribe by rule the forms, kind and character of the entire pleading, practice and procedure to be used in all actions and proceedings at law in the federal courts, with a view to their simplification, which rules should, when promulgated, take precedence of any law in conflict therewith. On January 2, 1917, a similar bill (S. 4551) was favorably reported from the Senate Judiciary Committee by a distinguished graduate of this Law …