Civil Procedure Commons^™

How Goliath Won: The Future Implications Of Dukes V. Wal-Mart, Suzette M. Malveaux

Publications

No abstract provided.

Horizontal Erie And The Presumption Of Forum Law, Michael Steven Green

Michigan Law Review

According to Erie Railroad v. Tompkins and its progeny, a federal court interpreting state law must decide as the state's supreme court would. In this Article, I argue that a state court interpreting the law of a sister state is subject to the same obligation. It must decide as the sister state's supreme court would. Horizontal Erie is such a plausible idea that one might think it is already established law. But the Supreme Court has in fact given state courts significant freedom to misinterpret sister-state law. And state courts have taken advantage of this freedom, by routinely presuming that …

Pleading With Congress To Resist The Urge To Overrule Twombly And Iqbal, Michael R. Huston

Michigan Law Review

In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court changed the rhetoric of the federal pleading system. Those decisions have been decried by members of the bar, scholars, and legislators as judicial activism and a rewriting of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such criticism has led members of both houses of Congress to introduce legislation to overrule the decisions and return to some variation of the "notice pleading" regime that existed before Twombly. This Note argues that both of the current proposals to overrule Twombly and Iqbal should be rejected. Although the bills take different …

New Pleading, New Discovery, Scott Dodson

Michigan Law Review

Pleading in federal court has a new narrative. The old narrative was one of notice, with the goal of broad access to the civil justice system. New Pleading, after the landmark Supreme Court cases of Twombly and Iqbal, is focused on factual sufficiency, with the purpose of screening out meritless cases that otherwise might impose discovery costs on defendants. The problem with New Pleading is that factual insufficiency often is a poor proxy for meritlessness. Some plaintifs lack sufficient factual knowledge of the elements of their claims not because the claims lack merit but because the information they need is …

Standing Still In The Roberts Court, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

In 2007, The New York Times reported "limiting the ability of plaintiffs to bring or appeal lawsuits" had emerged as an early "theme" of the Roberts Court. The Wall Street Journal concurred, reporting "the biggest change under Chief Justice Roberts might not involve who wins on the merits" but "who gets through the courthouse door in the first place." An early consensus is emerging... that one effect of the Roberts Court is to make it more difficult for prospective plaintiffs to have their day in federal court.

Because standing decisions are more insulated from legislative revision than other sorts of …

Parens Patriae Run Amuck: The Child Welfare System's Disregard For The Constitutional Rights Of Non-Offending Parents, Vivek Sankaran

Articles

Over the past hundred years, a consensus has emerged recognizing a parent's ability to raise his or her child as a fundamental, sacrosanct right protected by the Constitution. Federal courts have repeatedly rejected the parens patriae summary mode of decision making that predominated juvenile courts at the turn of the twentieth century and have instead held that juvenile courts must afford basic due process to parents prior to depriving them of custodial rights to their children. This recognition has led to the strengthening of procedural protections for parents accused of child abuse or neglect in civil child protection proceedings. Yet, …

Procedural Extremism: The Supreme Court's 2008-2009 Labor And Employment Cases, Melissa Hart

Publications

It has become nearly a commonplace to say that the Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts is a court of “incrementalism.” The 2008 Term, however, featured several opinions that showcase the procedural extremism of the current conservative majority. In a series of sharply divided decisions, the Court re-shaped the law that governs the workplace - or more specifically the law that governs whether and how employees will be permitted access to the courts to litigate workplace disputes. At least as important as the Court’s changes to the substantive legal standards are the procedural hurdles the five …

God, Gaia, The Taxpayer, And The Lorax: Standing, Justiciability, And Separation Of Powers After Massachusetts And Hein, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court considered standing in two high-profile cases during the October 2006 term: Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation and Massachusetts v. EPA. Both were 5-4 decisions in which the Court decided along traditional, ideological lines, and both decisions may provide an indication of the future direction of the Supreme Court.

In Hein, a five-Justice majority denied taxpayer standing to challenge the Bush Administration's so-called "faith-based initiatives" as a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. In Massachusetts, the Court broke new ground as it took several steps in a decidedly "liberal" direction. The five Justice …

Merrill Lynch V. Dabit: Federal Preemption Of Holders' Class Actions, Mark J. Loewenstein

Publications

No abstract provided.

Rewriting Shutts For Fun, Not To Profit, Edward H. Cooper

Articles

It has not been easy to reconcile contemporary class-action practice with traditional adversary procedure. For that matter, it is not easy to craft a unitary "class-action" procedure that serves well the many different purposes pursued by the many different species of class actions. The practice has flourished, but few would dare say it has really matured. Many problems remain.

Expert Information And Expert Evidence: A Preliminary Taxonomy, Samuel R. Gross, Jennifer L. Mnookin

Articles

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 speaks in very general terms. It governs every situation in which "scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact," and provides that, in that situation, "a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise . . . .' In 2000, following a trio of Supreme Court cases interpreting Rule 702, the Rule was amended to include a third requirement, in addition to the helpfulness of the testimony and the qualifications of the witness: reliability. Under Rule 702 …

The Importance Of A Contextual Approach To Libel Law: The Impact Of Immuno Ag. V. Moor-Jankowski And Milkovich V. Lorain Journal Co., Margaret Chan

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Erisa And The Bankruptcy Code: Stepping Into Quicksand Or Something Else, Post Mackey, Maria A. Di Pippo, Gerald P. Wolf

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Civil Procedure: Cooter &(And) Gell V. Hartmarx Corp: An Analysis Of Rule 11 And Its Appropriate Standard Of Review, Michael R. Annis

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equal Protection

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Civil Rights In Transition: Sections 1981 And 1982 Cover Discrimination On The Basis Of Ancestry And Ethnicity, Eileen Kaufman, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Schiavone: An Un-Fortune-Ate Illustration Of The Supreme Court's Role As Interpreter Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Joseph P. Bauer

Journal Articles

Let me identify the two basic theses of this paper. First, I believe that in the recent Schiavone v. Fortune case, the Supreme Court gave the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure under consideration there, Rule 15(c), an unduly restrictive reading. In this, the fiftieth year of the effective date of the Rules, it is particularly unfortunate to see any of the Rules given an unnecessarily grudging interpretation. My second assertion is that as a general matter, in interpreting the Federal Rules, courts should recognize that their role is different from the one they play in interpreting statutes or in applying …

Civil Rule 52(A): Rationing And Rationalizing The Resources Of Appellate Review, Edward H. Cooper

Articles

My text is a single and rather simple sentence from Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses. My theme is equally simple.. Rule 52(a) serves a vital institutional role in allocating the responsibility and the power of decision between district courts and the courts of appeals. The "dearly erroneous" standard of appellate review established by the Rule is a …

The Excessive History Of Federal Rule 15(C) And Its Lessons For Civil Rules Revision, Harold S. Lewis Jr.

Michigan Law Review

This case study of one Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is designed to suggest affirmative answers to these questions. My focus is on the surprisingly extensive body of case law, culminating in the Supreme Court's 1986 decision in Schiavone v. Fortune, that parses the second sentence of Federal Rule 15(c). Added in 1966, that sentence attempts to set standards for the relation back of party-changing amendments to pleadings. A more prototypically pedestrian, less prepossessing topic of the traditionalist type could scarcely be imagined. Yet a review of its history brings larger points into sharp relief: something is seriously amiss in …

Rent Control Price Fixing: Another Look At The Emperor's New Clothes, Robert N. Markle

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Collateral Estoppel And Supreme Court Disposition Of Moot Cases, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

In response to the Government's novel proposal in Velsicol, this Note reconsiders the procedures by which the Supreme Court could dispose of moot cases. Section I examines the collateral estoppel effects of the Supreme Court's present procedure and the Government's proposal in Velsicol. Section II concludes that both procedures afford excessive protection from collateral estoppel because they misconceive the purpose of Supreme Court review. The Note suggests that, when faced with a moot federal petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court should either deny the petition or, if certiorari has already been granted, dismiss the case.

Confession Of Error By The Solicitor General, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

It is the position of this Note that the Court should formulate a new policy to govern its review of confessed errors. Specifically, this Note proposes that in deciding whether to grant certiorari and whether to defer to the representations of the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court should distinguish between errors that are normally subject to judicial scrutiny (reviewable errors) and errors of prosecutorial discretion that belong to a category of executive conduct not usually reviewed by the courts. When reviewable errors are confessed, the Court should apply a standard more liberal than that of rule 19 in deciding whether …

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 …

Due Process Of Law In Procedure, Edson R. Sunderland

Articles

There are two classes of cases which may arise under the "due process" provisions of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution, so far as rules of procedure are concerned. One embraces cases of new remedial processes which may be criticized as too radical. The other consists of cases of old processes which may be criticized as obsolete and out of harmony with prevailing conceptions of justice. Due process may thus be said to fill the wide space between those innovations which carry us so far away from established methods as to remove the safeguards which are …

Verdicts, General And Special, Edson R. Sunderland

Articles

The most remarkable thing about this case of Georgia v. Brailsford is that a matter of such elementary importance in the daily administration of the law, after being announced in so dramatic a way by the Supreme Court of the United States at the very threshold of its career, could have dropped into oblivion for a hundred years only to be repudiated in a way hardly less dramatic by a sharply divided court. The controversy here disclosed goes to the very heart of the jury system as it has been developed by the common law and is still almost universally …

Is A Judgment Open To Collateral Attack If Rendered Without Written Pleadings As Required By Statute, Or If The Writings Do Not Comply With The Statutory Requirements?, John R. Rood

Articles

It is believed that no good reason can be assigned for answering the above question in the affirmative. Certainly none has yet been discovered in a careful search of the cases involving the point. And yet the assurance and unanimity with which lawyers and judges give the affirmative answer to it on first thought is indeed remarkable. For instance, Mr. Justice FIELD in speaking for the Supreme Court of the United States, on the question as to whether a judgment is subject to collateral attack if one served with process is not permitted to make any defense when he appears …