Civil Procedure Commons^™

Supreme Court Jurisdiction

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Trial By Jury

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ex Post Facto In The Civil Context: Unbridled Punishment, Jane Harris Aiken

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Civil Complicity: Using The Pinkerton Doctrine To Impose Vicarious Liability In Civil Rico Actions, Susan W. Brenner

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

On Bringing The Justice Mission Conference Back Home, Marjorie A. Silver

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Civil Rights Plaintiffs And The Proposed Revision Of Rule 11, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The 1983 amendment of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 has been the most controversial revision of the Federal Rules in their fifty-five-year history, and Rule l l's implementation has been most controversial in civil rights cases. Rule ll's application has disadvantaged civil rights plaintiffs more than any other category of civil litigant. Courts have found civil rights plaintiffs in violation of Rule 11 at a higher rate than other types of plaintiffs and have imposed substantial sanctions on them. Civil rights plaintiffs have been required to participate in expensive, unnecessary satellite litigation involving this provision. Indeed, a new study …

Civil Justice Planning In The Montana Federal District, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The Montana Federal District Court recently finalized its civil justice expense and delay reduction plan under the Civil Justice Reform Act (CJRA) of 1990. In April, 1992, the Montana District essentially adopted whole cloth, and made effective, the civil justice plan that it had issued in December, 1991 to qualify for designation as an Early Implementation District Court (EIDC). Relatively few members of the Montana Bar exhibited much interest in the planning effort that preceded promulgation of the civil justice plan. Because the new procedural regime that the Montana District instituted could significantly change the character of federal court practice, …

The Transformation Of Trans-Substantivitiy, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Professor Linda Mullenix and Professor Gene Shreve have recently ventilated two intertwined issues at the core of modern federal civil procedure. They questioned scholars' growing criticism of the idea that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are trans-substantive. Both writers also asked about the increased emphasis that commentators have accorded procedure's detrimental effects on specific rights, such as civil rights, and on particular groups or litigants, such as minorities. The preferable response to these plaints is a single word: Congress. Because the issues that Professors Mullenix and Shreve raise are thought-provoking, however, they deserve elaboration.

Environmental Litigation And Rule 11, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The 1983 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 has been the most controversial revision in the half-century history of the Federal Rules. Judges have applied amended Rule 11, which requires them to sanction lawyers and parties who do not conduct reasonable inquiries before filing papers, in over 1000 reported opinions, considerably more unreported determinations, and numerous informal contexts. The Rule has engendered much unnecessary satellite litigation and has been implemente4 inconsistently, while attorneys' fees remain the "sanction of choice" for violations. Rule 11 activity has especially disadvantaged civil rights plaintiffs and lawyers, whose lack of resources can make …

Burns V. Burns, 88-Ca-579, 91-Ap-21 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Dec. 17, 1991), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

The Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration. The trial court held that under Rule 6, Chapter 11 of the Blackfeet Tribal Code, a motion for reconsideration must present the court with something that would make the judge change their previous ruling, such as newly discovered evidence.

Youngman V. England, 91-Ca-07, 91-Ap-13 (Blkft. Tr. Ct. App., Dec. 17, 1991), Blackfeet Appellate Court

Court Decisions

The Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court because the defendant was served only one day before trial and therefore did not have enough time to prepare, violating his right to due process.

Appellate Practice And Procedure, Marion T. Pope Jr., Ann H. Kelley

Mercer Law Review

Practitioners in Georgia's state appellate courts recognize that the most important step in the appellate process is to first ascertain the proper procedure to insure that their appeal is properly before the court, Because the statutory and decisional law governing appellate practice and procedure is not immutable, the appellate practitioner must consistently strive to stay abreast of the law in this area. With these thoughts in mind, this Article will survey selected opinions of Georgia's state appellate courts pertaining to appellate practice and procedure rendered during the period from June 1, 1988 to May 31, 1991. The Article will also …

Telling Tales In Court: Trial Procedure And The Story Model, Richard O. Lempert

Articles

There are three ways in which stories may figure prominently at trials. First, litigants may tell stories to jurors. Not only is there some social science evidence that this happens, but trial lawyers have an instinctive sense that this is what they do. Ask a litigator to describe a current case and she is likely to reply, "Our story is ... " Second, jurors may try to make sense of the evidence they receive by fitting it to some story pattern. If so, the process is likely to feed back on itself. That is, jurors are likely to build a …

Procedure—Sanctions—Federal Procedural Rules Do Not Displace Inherent Powers Of Court To Award Attorney's Fees For Bad Faith Conduct. Chambers V. Nasco, Inc., 111 S. Ct. 2123 (1991)., Goodloe Partee

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Injunctive Relief And Section 1985(3): Anti-Abortion Blockaders Meet The "Ku Klux Klan Act", Bruce Brown

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Heileman Power: Well-Honed Tool Or Blunt Instrument?, Thomas A. Tozer

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Interpreting Statutes Faithfully-Not Dynamically, Craig W. Dallon

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sovereignty And Personal Jurisdiction Doctrine: Up The Stream Of Commerce Without A Paddle, Pamela J. Stephens

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Trial Practice And Procedure, Molly Townes O'Brien

Mercer Law Review

If "[t]he history of liberty has largely been the history of the observance of procedural safeguards," then 1990 should be regarded as a fine year in the history of liberty. In this year's rulings, the Eleventh Circuit required the district courts to scrutinize in forma pauperis complaints carefully before dismissing them as frivolous and demanded that pro se parties receive express written notice that they must file affidavits in response to a motion for summary judgment. The Eleventh Circuit was also unusually receptive this year to claims by nonresident defendants that the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over them would …

Giving Notice: An Argument For Notification Of Putative Plaintiffs In Complex Litigation, Majorie A. Silver

Washington Law Review

Professor Silver advocates recognition of an inherent judicial power to send or authorize notice of pending litigation to potentially interested persons with unfiled claims. Recognizing such a judicial power is consistent with recent legal developments establishing a role for judges in expediting and managing federal litigation. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only explicitly provide for notice to potential parties in Rule 23 class action litigation, Professor Silver demonstrates that a more general judicial power to notify putative plaintiffs is consistent with the federal rules and the Constitution. She also shows that first amendment values support a judicial role …

Is 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A) A Federal Forum-Shopping Statute?, Michaael B. Rodden

Washington Law Review

In 1948, Congress enacted section 1404(a) of Tit;e 28 to allow transfers between federal district courts. Congress intended the statute to promote convenience in the federal courts. The statute does not specify which state's law applies following a transfer, but in 1964, in Van Dusen v. Barrack, the Supreme Court determined that the state law of the transferor court must apply following defendant-initiated transfers. The Van Dusen Court reasoned that application of the statute should promote convenience and uniformity and discourage forum-shopping in the federal courts. In 1990, in Ferens v. John Deere Co., the Supreme Court held that the …

Certification And Civil Rights, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

In this 1991 article, Carl Tobias responds to Professor Arthur Miller's suggestion that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 should not be prematurely revised.

"Professor Miller's admonitions may convince some observers, especially those authorized to propose revisions in, or to amend, the Rule that there is little wrong with Rule 11's application and that the federal judiciary simply needs a few more years to refine the implementation of this new concept. Numerous problems, however, remain substantial and some may be intrinsic or even irremediable, while certain litigants, especially civil rights plaintiffs, cannot afford to wait. I trust that Professor Miller's …

Multiple Jury Formats And Civil Litigation: Arnold V. Eastern Airlines, David S. Chipman

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 11 And Federalizing Lawyer Ethics, Judith A. Mcmorrow

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Defining “Co-Party” Within Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 13(G): Are Cross-Claims Between Original Defendants And Third-Party Defendants Allowable?, John Bessler

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Defining "Co-Party" Within Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 13(G): Are Cross-Claims Between Original Defendants And Third-Party Defendants Allowable?, John D. Bessler

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Plotting The Next "Revolution" In Choice Of Law: A Proposed Approach, Gary J. Simson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Impact Of Alternative Negligence Defense Rules On Litigation Behavior And Tort Claim Disposition, Marianne M. Jennings

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

Application Of Rule 11 In The Fourth Circuit

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.