Civil Procedure Commons^™

Civil Recourse, Not Corrective Justice, Benjamin C. Zipursky

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Diligent Prosecution Bar To Citizen Suits: The Search For Adequate Representation, Peter A. Appel

Scholarly Works

To ensure that citizen suits assist but do not replace or overshadow government enforcement actions, all environmental statutes which authorize citizen suits bar such suits in certain circumstances. This short Article examines the relatively narrow but important problems created by one such bar, namely the statutory bar on a citizen suit if the federal or state government is “diligently prosecuting” an action against the same violator. The requirement that a governmental prosecution be diligent protects against two types of undesirable situations. On the one hand, the diligent prosecution bar prevents citizens from bringing simple “me too” actions. One would not …

Clear Sailing Agreements: A Special Form Of Collusion In Class Action Settlements, William D. Henderson

Articles by Maurer Faculty

A clear sailing agreement (or clause) is a compromise in which a class action defendant agrees not to contest the class lawyer's petition for attorneys' fees. This Article argues that clear sailing provisions often facilitate collusive settlements in cases involving non-pecuniary relief or claims-made common funds that return all unclaimed monies to the defendant. Because these types of settlements present difficult valuation problems, trial courts lack a clear benchmark for calculating attorneys' fees. Defendants and class can exploit this uncertainty by presenting an inflated settlement value to the court (to justify higher attorneys' fees) while simultaneously reducing the true cost …

Oral Argument In Meyer V. Holley (No. 01-1120), Robert G. Schwemm, Douglas G. Benedon, Malcolm L. Stewart

Law Faculty Advocacy

The matter of Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (2003) was argued before the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday, December 3, 2002. Professor Robert G. Schwemm argued on behalf of the Respondents. This document is a transcript of the oral argument.

The Revolution You Won’T See On Tv, Jeff Rasley

Scholarship and Professional Work - LAS

Article for Newsweek about the author’s experiences in mediation and jury trials as a civil litigator.

Litigation Realities, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

After both summarizing recent empirical work and presenting new observations on each of the six phases of a civil lawsuit (forum, pretrial, settlement, trial, judgment, and appeal), the authors draw a series of lessons for understanding and using empirical methods in the study of the legal system's operation. In so doing, they generate implications for current and projected policy debates concerning litigation, while identifying areas that demand further empirical work.

Towards Tribal Sovereignty And Judicial Efficiency: Ordering The Defenses Of Tribal Sovereign Immunity And Exhaustion Of Tribal Remedies, Kirsten Matoy Carlson

Michigan Law Review

In 1985, the Narragansett Indian Tribe ("Tribe") created the Narragansett Indian Wetuornuck Housing Authority ("Authority"). The Authority, which acts on the Tribe's behalf in its housing development and operations, entered into a contract with the Ninigret Development Corporation for the construction of a low-income housing development. After construction began, disputes developed over how to proceed with the construction. When conciliation efforts failed, the Authority cancelled the contract. The Narragansett Tribal Council, the governing body of the Tribe, followed the forum selection clause in the contract and notified the disputants that it would hold a hearing to resolve the dispute. Ninigret …

Seeing The Appellate Horizon: Civil Trial Strategy And Standards Of Review In The Eighth Circuit, R. Christopher Lawson

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

The Problem Of The Expert Juror., Paul F. Kirgis

Faculty Law Review Articles

In this article, I argue that the new focus on the risks of spurious "expertise" compels attention to the problem of juror expertise. 24 Specialized knowledge poses the same risks to the truth-seeking objectives of trial whether it enters the decision-making process through expert testimony or through the back door of juror background knowledge. In fact, the risks to accuracy may be less when expertise is offered by a witness than when it is introduced by a juror, because the witness will be subject to cross-examination and rebuttal. Flawed expertise brought to the case by a juror is not subject …

Procedure, Politics, And Power, Stephen B. Burbank

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.

Civil Procedure, Robin Jean Davis, Louis J. Palmer Jr.

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Civil And Criminal Contempt Law, Robin Jean Davis, Louis J. Palmer Jr.

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Trial Outcomes And Demographics: Is There A Bronx Effect?, Theodore Eisenberg, Martin T. Wells

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Minorities favor injured plaintiffs and give them inflated awards. This folk wisdom in the legal community influences choice of trial locale and the screening of jurors. A Los Angeles court is said to be known by local lawyers as "the bank" because of the frequency and size of its anti-corporate awards. A newspaper article summarizing court results suggests, somewhat jokingly, that the "Bronx County Courthouse should post a warning: People who get sued here run an increased risk of suffering staggering losses." Beliefs about the influence of factors other than race, such as income and urbanization, also are common.

This …

Reconciling Experimental Incoherence With Real-World Coherence In Punitive Damages, Theodore Eisenberg, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Martin T. Wells

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Experimental evidence generated in controlled laboratory studies suggests that the legal system in general, and punitive damages awards in particular, should display an incoherent pattern. According to the prediction, inexperienced decisionmakers, such as juries, should fail to convert their qualitative judgments of defendants' conduct into consistent, meaningful dollar amounts. This Article tests this prediction and finds modest support for the thesis that experience across different types of cases will lead to greater consistency in awards. Despite this support, numerous studies of damage awards in real cases detect a generally sensible pattern of damage awards. This Article tries to reconcile the …

The Concept Of Equality In Civil Procedure, William B. Rubenstein

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Right To Trial By Jury In Arkansas After Merger Of Law And Equity, John J. Watkins

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Practitioner's Guide To Arkansas's New Judicial Article, Larry Brady, J.D. Gingerich

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Speaking Rights": Evaluating Juror Discussions During Civil Trials, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, G. Thomas Munsterman

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Permitting jurors to discuss evidence during civil trials may facilitate understanding and provide an outlet for their thoughts and questions, and does not appear to lead to prejudgment or prejudice.

A Comparative View Of Standards Of Proof, Kevin M. Clermont, Emily Sherwin

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In common-law systems, the standard of proof for ordinary civil cases requires the party who bears the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts alleged are true. In contrast, the prevailing standard of proof for civil cases in civil-law systems is indistinguishable from the standard for criminal cases: the judge must be firmly convinced that the facts alleged are true. This striking difference in common-law and civil-law procedures has received very little attention from either civilian or comparative scholars.

The preponderance standard applied in common-law systems is openly probabilistic and produces, on average, …

On The Importance Of Institutions: Review Of Arbitral Awards For Legal Errors, Peter B. Rutledge

Scholarly Works

In my view, legislatures, rather than courts or parties, should decide whether (and to what extent) courts should review arbitral awards for errors of law. The optimal legislative mechanism should not be compulsory but should offer parties the choice whether to "opt-in" to this regime of expanded review by inserting language to that effect in their arbitration agreement. A legislative solution with an "opt-in" feature has a sounder doctrinal foundation, better respects the distribution of power between various branches of government, involves a lower risk of error and minimizes transaction costs. From this position, two additional conclusions follow: first, courts …

Juries, Judges, And Punitive Damages: An Empirical Study, Theodore Eisenberg, Neil Lafountain, Brian Ostrom, David Rottman, Martin T. Wells

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This Article, the first broad-based analysis of punitive damages in judge-tried cases, compares judge and jury performance in awarding punitive damages and in setting their levels. Data covering one year of judge and jury trial outcomes from forty-five of the nation's largest counties yield no substantial evidence that judges and juries differ in the rate at which they award punitive damages or in the central relation between the size of punitive awards and compensatory awards. The relation between punitive and compensatory awards in jury trials is strikingly similar to the relation in judge trials. For a given level of compensatory …

The Expiration Of The Civil Justice Reform Act Of 1990, Carl Tobias

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Keeping Courts Afloat In A Rising Sea Of Litigation: An Objective Approach To Imposing Rule 38 Sanctions For Frivolous Appeals, Scott A. Martin

Michigan Law Review

As their dockets swell, federal judges' tolerance for attorney misconduct wears thin. More than ever, judges are willing to impose sanctions for abuses of federal court processes, including frivolous appeals. As one judge explained, "[w]ith courts struggling to remain afloat in a constantly rising sea of litigation, a frivolous appeal can itself be a form of obscenity." Aside from the need to reduce caseloads, other factors underlie the courts' willingness to impose sanctions for frivolous appeals. One concern is that the costs to responsible, ethical litigants increase sharply when the court system's resources are diverted to meritless claims. Another motivating …

Detailed Fact Pleading: The Lessons Of Scottish Civil Procedure, Elizabeth G. Thornburg

The International Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Rule 68 - Should Costs Incurred After The Offer Of Judgment Be Included In Calculating The "Judgment Finally Obtained" - The So-Called Novel Issue In Roberts V. Swain, Jonathan R. Bumgarner

Campbell Law Review

This article analyzes use of force law under North Carolina and federal standards. This article emphasizes methodology and leading Supreme Court, Fourth Circuit and North Carolina cases. Statutory and common law use of force standards under North Carolina law including self defense and apparent dangers are explored. The article analyzes the prevailing federal liability standards which are employed in determining whether use of force is excessive, particularly in "mistaken belief' cases. Finally, the nature of expert testimony typically admissible in use of force litigation is reviewed.

The Adversary System As A Means Of Seeking Truth And Justice, 35 J. Marshall L. Rev. 147 (2002), Robert G. Johnston, Sara Lufrano

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jurisdictional Gerrymandering - Responding To Holmes Group V. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, 36 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (2002), Molly Mosley-Goren

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Draft Hague Convention On Jurisdiction And Enforcement Of Judgments And The Internet-A New Jurisdictional Framework, 36 J. Marshall L. Rev. 223 (2002), Kristen Hudson Clayton

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Lost Chance In Illinois? That May Still Be The Case, 36 J. Marshall L. Rev. 249 (2002), Lisa Petrilli

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Recognition And Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments In The United States: The Need For Federal Legislation, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 229 (2003), Violeta I. Balan

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.