Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Supreme Court of the United States (56)
- Courts (50)
- Constitutional Law (39)
- State and Local Government Law (26)
- Civil Law (25)
-
- Jurisprudence (21)
- Litigation (21)
- Jurisdiction (20)
- Judges (18)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (13)
- First Amendment (12)
- Fourteenth Amendment (11)
- Law and Society (9)
- Legal Remedies (9)
- Administrative Law (8)
- Conflict of Laws (8)
- Criminal Procedure (8)
- President/Executive Department (8)
- Rule of Law (8)
- Human Rights Law (7)
- Labor and Employment Law (7)
- Legal History (7)
- Legislation (7)
- Social Welfare Law (7)
- Contracts (6)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (6)
- Law and Economics (6)
- Law and Politics (6)
- Institution
-
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (31)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (11)
- University of Richmond (8)
- Emory University School of Law (6)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (6)
-
- Seattle University School of Law (5)
- American University Washington College of Law (4)
- Texas A&M University School of Law (4)
- Columbia Law School (2)
- Duke Law (2)
- Southern Methodist University (2)
- The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (2)
- The University of Akron (2)
- United Arab Emirates University (2)
- University of Colorado Law School (2)
- West Virginia University (2)
- Cleveland State University (1)
- Georgetown University Law Center (1)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (1)
- Pace University (1)
- Pepperdine University (1)
- St. John's University School of Law (1)
- St. Mary's University (1)
- University of Cincinnati College of Law (1)
- University of Georgia School of Law (1)
- University of Miami Law School (1)
- University of Montana (1)
- University of Oklahoma College of Law (1)
- University of Washington School of Law (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Touro Law Review (28)
- Indiana Law Journal (10)
- Faculty Scholarship (8)
- Faculty Articles (6)
- Scholarly Works (6)
-
- Law Faculty Publications (5)
- Seattle University Law Review (5)
- Nevada Law Journal (4)
- American University Law Review (3)
- University of Richmond Law Review (3)
- Akron Law Review (2)
- Articles (2)
- Catholic University Law Review (2)
- Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters (2)
- Publications (2)
- UAEU Law Journal (2)
- West Virginia Law Review (2)
- American Indian Law Review (1)
- Faculty Articles and Other Publications (1)
- Faculty Publications (1)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (1)
- Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality (1)
- Law Faculty Articles and Essays (1)
- NULR Online (1)
- Pace International Law Review (1)
- Pepperdine Law Review (1)
- Public Land & Resources Law Review (1)
- Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals (1)
- St. Mary's Law Journal (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 61 - 90 of 104
Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure
The Irrepressible Myth Of Celotex: Reconsidering Summary Judgment Burdens Twenty Years After The Trilogy, Adam N. Steinman
The Irrepressible Myth Of Celotex: Reconsidering Summary Judgment Burdens Twenty Years After The Trilogy, Adam N. Steinman
Faculty Scholarship
Twenty years ago, the Supreme Court decided a trilogy of cases on summary judgment. These cases have had a profound impact on federal litigation. Empirical data presented in this article demonstrate that federal courts have cited these three cases more than any Supreme Court decisions in history. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett is widely recognized as the most significant decision of the trilogy, both because it expanded the availability of summary judgment and because it remains the Court's most current instructions on how burdens are allocated between the party seeking and the party opposing summary judgment. However, Celotex failed to clarify …
Unconstitutional Courses, Frederic M. Bloom
Unconstitutional Courses, Frederic M. Bloom
Publications
By now, we almost expect Congress to fail. Nearly every time the federal courts announce a controversial decision, Congress issues a call to rein in "runaway" federal judges. And nearly every time Congress makes a "jurisdiction-stripping" threat, it comes to nothing.
But if Congress's threats possess little fire, we have still been distracted by their smoke. This Article argues that Congress's noisy calls have obscured another potent threat to the "judicial Power": the Supreme Court itself. On occasion, this Article asserts, the Court reshapes and abuses the "judicial Power"--not through bold pronouncements or obvious doctrinal revisions, but through something more …
Lessons From The Damages Decisions Following United States V. Winstar Corp., Rodger D. Citron
Lessons From The Damages Decisions Following United States V. Winstar Corp., Rodger D. Citron
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
Equity And Settlement Class Actions: Can There Be Justice For All In Ortiz V. Fibreboard , Nikita Malhotra Pastor
Equity And Settlement Class Actions: Can There Be Justice For All In Ortiz V. Fibreboard , Nikita Malhotra Pastor
American University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Attorney-Client Privilege When The Client Is A Public Official: Litigating The Opening Act Of The Impeachment Drama, Timothy K. Armstrong
Attorney-Client Privilege When The Client Is A Public Official: Litigating The Opening Act Of The Impeachment Drama, Timothy K. Armstrong
Faculty Articles and Other Publications
The divided panel decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in /n re Lindsey, 158 F.3d 1263 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 466 (1998), represented a dramatic shift in that court's thinking on the question whether the attorney-client privilege protects what a government official says to his agency's counsel in confidence. Although the court of appeals in at least four previous decisions had held that a government agency client holds the same privilege any other client would under like circumstances to communicate with counsel in private, the Lindsey court took a quite different view.
The 1993 Revision Of Federal Rule 11, Carl Tobias
The 1993 Revision Of Federal Rule 11, Carl Tobias
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Freedom Of Speech And The Press
Eighteen Feet Of Clay: Thoughts On Phantom Rule 4(M), Gene R. Shreve
Eighteen Feet Of Clay: Thoughts On Phantom Rule 4(M), Gene R. Shreve
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Compounding Confusion And Hampering Diversity: Life After Finley And The Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute, Richard D. Freer
Compounding Confusion And Hampering Diversity: Life After Finley And The Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute, Richard D. Freer
Faculty Articles
It has been a tough couple of years for supplemental jurisdiction. In recent decades, the doctrine, which earlier had been called the "child of necessity and sire of confusion," had become somewhat less confusing. The Supreme Court created a flurry of concern over the future of the doctrine with a pair of restrictive decisions in the late 1970s, but showed no further interest; the lower courts generally interpreted those holdings narrowly. With exceptions in a couple of areas, the application of supplemental jurisdiction in the various joinder situations became relatively clear and predictable, and the doctrine played a major role …
Section 1983, Honorable George C. Pratt, Martin A. Schwartz, Leon Friedman
Section 1983, Honorable George C. Pratt, Martin A. Schwartz, Leon Friedman
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Personal Jurisdiction And The Beetle In The Box, Wendy Collins Perdue
Personal Jurisdiction And The Beetle In The Box, Wendy Collins Perdue
Law Faculty Publications
In 1980 in World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, the Supreme Court described personal jurisdiction as "an instrument of interstate federalism." Two years later in Insurance Corporation of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, the Court back-pedaled and explained that personal jurisdiction "represents a restriction on judicial power not as a matter of sovereignty, but as a matter of individual liberty." Then, in 1985 in Phillips Petroleum v. Shutts, the Court explained that the purpose of personal jurisdiction is "to protect a defendant from the travail of defending in a distant forum." Three years later in Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, …
Finley V. United States: Unstringing Pendent Jurisdiction, Wendy Collins Perdue
Finley V. United States: Unstringing Pendent Jurisdiction, Wendy Collins Perdue
Law Faculty Publications
The approach adopted by the Supreme Court in Finley v. United States calls into question not only pendent-claim jurisdiction but ancillary jurisdiction as well. Particularly vulnerable to attack are those uses of ancillary jurisdiction that involve the addition of new parties such as class action, intervention, and impleader. Furthermore, the opinion may lay a foundation for attacking ancillary-claim jurisdiction involving counterclaims or cross-claims. This commentary will examine Finley and the potential impact of the opinion on the various permutations of ancillary and pendent jurisdiction.
The Pattern Of Racketeering Element Of Rico Liability, Committee On Federal Courts Of The New York State Bar Association
The Pattern Of Racketeering Element Of Rico Liability, Committee On Federal Courts Of The New York State Bar Association
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Organizational Standing In Environmental Litigation, Jeanne A. Compitello
Organizational Standing In Environmental Litigation, Jeanne A. Compitello
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Determining A Standard For Housing Discrimination Under Title Viii, Richard C. Cahn
Determining A Standard For Housing Discrimination Under Title Viii, Richard C. Cahn
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Rethinking The Class Action: A Policy Primer On Reform, John C. Coffee Jr.
Rethinking The Class Action: A Policy Primer On Reform, John C. Coffee Jr.
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Adjudicatory Jurisdiction And Class Actions, Diane P. Wood
Adjudicatory Jurisdiction And Class Actions, Diane P. Wood
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.