Civil Procedure Commons^™

How To Assert State Sovereign Immunity Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Calvin Cohen

Vanderbilt Law Review

Twenty years have passed since the Supreme Court announced dramatic changes to the doctrine of state sovereign immunity in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida.' This doctrine prevents "suits by private parties against unconsenting States" in recognition of the state's power to govern itself and its citizens freely, as well as the financial impact lawsuits have on the state's treasury. Since Seminole Tribe, the Supreme Court has-in a series of contentious 5-4 decisions-increasingly allowed this doctrine to immunize states and their officers from suits arising under the federal laws and sometimes even the Constitution. But while the Court has expanded …

A Welfarist Perspective On Lies, Ariel Porat, Omri Yadlin

Indiana Law Journal

Should a Muslim employee who, in order to avoid discrimination, falsely stated in his job interview that he is Christian be fired for his dishonesty? Should a buyer of a tract of land who, before contracting, conducted an expensive investigation that revealed a high likelihood of mineral deposits be subject to liability for fraud because he told the seller he knew nothing about the land’s mineral potential before purchase? Is a doctor violating her legal duties toward her patient if she convinces him to get vaccinated on the pretext that it is in his best interest when it is instead …

The 2015 Changes To The Federal Rules Matter For Your Patent Case And Tech Business: Getting In The Courthouse Door Just Got Tougher, Matthew D'Amore

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Who Is Responsible For The Stealth Assault On Civil Rights?, Samuel R. Bagenstos

Michigan Law Review

Staszak’s book does a great service in demonstrating the extent of the stealth assault on civil-rights litigation. As Staszak shows, procedural and remedial decisions fly under the public’s radar, but they have exceptionally important consequences. Indeed, one can draw a clear line between judicial decisions on such obscure topics as standing and qualified immunity and the persistent acts of police misconduct that have aroused great public concern in recent months. Any effort to ensure that civil-rights protections make a concrete difference in people’s lives must attend to the procedural and remedial issues Staszak discusses.

Communication And Competence For Self-Representation, E. Lea Johnston

Fordham Law Review

In Indiana v. Edwards, the U.S. Supreme Court held that states may impose a higher competency standard for self-representation than to stand trial in criminal cases. While the Court articulated a number of interests relevant to representational competence, it left to states the difficult task of formulating an actual competence standard. This Article offers the first examination and assessment of the constitutionality of state standards post-Edwards. It reveals that seven states have endorsed a representational competence standard with a communication component. Additionally, twenty states have embraced vague, capacious standards that could consider communication skills. In applying these standards, states …

Oh, Won't You Stay With Me?: Determining Whether § 3 Of The Faa Requires A Stay In Light Of Katz V. Cellco Partnership, Alessandra Rose Johnson

Fordham Law Review

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides the legal framework to render international and interstate arbitration agreements judicially enforceable in the United States. In furtherance of that goal, it provides that, if a party initiates litigation rather than arbitration of an arbitrable dispute, either party may request that the court stay the litigation pending resolution in an arbitration proceeding. The U.S. courts of appeals are currently split as to whether § 3 of the FAA requires a court under these circumstances to stay the action or whether the court has the discretion to dismiss the action altogether. In Katz v. Cellco …

Submerged Precedent, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Faculty Scholarship

Numerous studies have pointed to the skewed picture of trial courts' workload, management, and disposition of cases that exists from examining Westlaw and Lexis opinions alone, akin to navigating the iceberg from its tip.⁴ But submerged precedent pushes docketology in an uncharted direction by identifying a mass of reasoned opinions-putative precedent and not mere evidence of decision-making-that exist only on dockets. Submerged precedent thus raises the specter that docket-based research may be necessary in some areas to ascertain an accurate picture of the law itself not just trial courts' administration of it.

The existence of a submerged body …

Sutton V. United Airlines, Inc.: The Supreme Court "Substantially Limits" The Americans With Disabilities Act, Stephanie Beige

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Summary Judgement In Employment Discrimination Cases In The Eastern District Of New York, Peter J. Ausili

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

How To Screen For Success In Employment Law Cases, Robert M. Rosen

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Strategic Evidence Issues In Equal Employment Litigation, Marc Rosenblum

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Nela Touro Conference 1999 Selected Second Circuit Cases Of Interest, Lawrence Solotoff

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rish V. Simao, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Mar. 17, 2016), Heather Caliguire

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court held that the District Court wrongly excluded evidence of low-impact defense when it required a biomechanical expert testify about the nature of the accident, erroneously interpreting Hallmark v. Eldgridge Instead, Hallmark requires sufficient foundation for admission of testimony and evidence, specifically excluding a biomechanical expert’s testimony under NRS 50.275. The Court additionally held that the District Court erred when it ultimately struck the defendant’s answer for violations of the pretrial order precluding defendant from raising a minor or low impact defense.

Law Day Fifth District Court Of Appeal Oral Arguments At Florida Agricultural And Mechanical University College Of Law, 2016, Honorable James A. Edwards, Honorable Richard B. Orfinger, Honorable Vincent G. Torpy Jr.

Law Day Presentations

As part of FAMU College of Law's Law Day activities, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal is holding a session in the FAMU College of Law Ceremonial Moot Courtroom. A three judge panel is hearing oral arguments from attorneys representing their clients in cases involving suppression of evidence, the exclusionary rule and other evidentiary questions, as well as the ineffective assistance of counsel in a case involving deportation issues. A question-and-answer session follows each set of arguments during which the justices and attorneys entertain questions about the appellate process and organization of the court.

Hairr V. First Judicial Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 16 (Mar. 10, 2016), Douglas H. Smith

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Supreme Court denied petitioners’ application for a writ of mandamus for abuse of the district court’s discretion. If granted, this writ would have compelled the district court to grant the petitioners’ application to intervene under Rule 24 of the Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure as defendants in a constitutional challenge to a program that awards grants to children who are educated by entities other than public schools. The State is presumed to adequately represent the interests of those who support the bill. Since they did not demonstrate a conflict of interest with the State’s position or present an argument …

Tom V. Innovative Home Systems, Llc, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 15 (Mar. 10, 2016), Adrienne Brantley

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determine that the decision of the State Contractors’ Board closing homeowners’ complaint and directing contractor to make repairs to residence was not a final decision resolving a contested case, as required to preclude a homeowner from relitigating whether contractor was required to have an electrical license. The Court also determine that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the contractor needed an electrical license and genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the contractor completed its contractual obligations to homeowner.

A Comparative Study Of Attorney Responsibility For Fees Of An Opposing Party, Amy Salyzyn

Journal of International and Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Reconsidering Indirect-Purchaser Class Actions, Stephen Carr

Florida Law Review

Few issues have proven more vexing to private antitrust enforcement than those related to indirect-purchaser class actions. The current dual system of enforcement—federal and state—exacerbates the difficulty of litigating indirect-purchaser claims by layering procedural complexity on top of substantive complexity and by explicitly allowing (perhaps even incentivizing) duplicative recovery. Almost all commentators are in substantial agreement that reform is necessary, but Congress appears unlikely to take action on the issue in the near future. This Note proposes a procedural solution that would consolidate litigation in a single federal court based on the limited-fund class action model of Federal Rule of …

Coastal Conservation Association V. United States Department Of Commerce, Taylor R. Thompson

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Eastern Louisiana District Court upheld Amendment 40 to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council’s Reef Management Plan. The court held that the Gulf Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service’s proposed rule establishing fishing quotas for the red snapper met all of the statutory guidelines imposed under the Magnusson-Stevens Act.

Trending @ Rwu Law: Dean Yelnosky's Post: United States Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims Visits Rwu Law: 03-03-2016, Michael Yelnosky

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Video: Adding To Your Case: Examining And Cross Examining Expert Witnesses, Michael J. Dale, Kathryn Webber, Valerie B. Barnhart Esq., Jack L. Harari M.D., J.D., F.A.A.E.M.

NSU Law Seminar Series

Learn skills for using expert witness testimony at trial: Developing strategy for selecting topics and order of presentation Using proper form of questioning on direct and cross Understanding rules of evidence, procedure, and ethics Two role play demonstrations help you learn techniques

Codifying The Issue Class Action, Laura J. Hines

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Rise And Fall Of Plausibility Pleading?, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and its 2009 decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal unleashed a torrent of scholarly reaction. Commentators charged these decisions with adopting a new pleading regime, "plausibility pleading," that upended the notice-pleading approach that had long prevailed in federal court. Whether a complaint could survive a motion to dismiss — it was argued — now depends on whether the court found the complaint plausible, allowing courts to second-guess a complaint's allegations without any opportunity for discovery or consideration of actual evidence. Lower courts began to cite Twombly and Iqbal at a …

Submerged Precedent, Elizabeth Y. Mccuskey

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Fraud On The Court And Abusive Discovery, David R. Hague

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Rise And Fall Of Plausibility Pleading?, Adam N. Steinman

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and its 2009 decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal unleashed a torrent of scholarly reaction. Commentators charged these decisions with adopting a new pleading regime, "plausibility pleading," that upended the notice-pleading approach that had long prevailed in federal court. Whether a complaint could survive a motion to dismiss-it was argued-now depends on whether the court found the complaint plausible, allowing courts to second-guess a complaint's allegations without any opportunity for discovery or consideration of actual evidence. Lower courts began to cite Twombly and Iqbal at a remarkably high rate, and …

What Remains Of Vicarious Jurisdiction For Establishing General Jurisdiction Over Corporate Defendants After Daimler Ag V. Bauman?, Keri Martin

Seton Hall Circuit Review

No abstract provided.

Nevada Dep’T Of Trans. V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 10 (Feb. 25, 2016), F. Shane Jackson

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion to dismiss. Petitioner Nevada Department of Transportation (“NDOT”) sought dismissal of a professional negligence claim filed against it on grounds that the complaint was not accompanied by an attorney affidavit and expert report as required by NRS 11.258, and when the court denied NDOT’s motion, it filed the instant petition. The Court denied the petition, holding that NDOT is not a design professional under NRS 11.2565(1)(a), and therefore the requirements of NRS 11.258 are inapplicable to NDOT since the action would not …

A Constitutional Right To Discovery? Creating And Reinforcing Due Process Norms Through The Procedural Laboratory Of Arbitration, Imre Stephen Szalai

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This article explores an overlooked dynamic between arbitration and the more formal court system. As developed in more detail below, this article's thesis is that arbitration can help define and reinforce due process norms applicable in court, and a due process-like norm regarding discovery is beginning to develop. Courts often review arbitration agreements for fairness, and through this judicial review, courts have developed a body of law discussing and defining whether certain procedures (or the lack thereof) violate fairness norms in connection with the resolution of a particular dispute. Through this body of law exploring procedural fairness, one can identify …

Whistling In Silence: The Implications Of Arbitration On Qui Tam Claims Under The False Claims Act, Mathew Andrews

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

For nearly twenty years, corporate defendants have sought unsuccessfully to use arbitration to roll back protections for whistleblowers suing under federal law. The state and federal judiciaries have long stymied these efforts, on the grounds that defendants cannot force the Government's claims into the secretive forum of arbitration. In January 2013, this protection came to an end. A federal court ruled for the first time that a whistleblower suing on behalf of the United States must pursue its action in arbitration. Five months later, this trend continued as federal courts have compelled arbitration of state law qui tam actions. This …