Civil Procedure Commons^™

Ii. Civil And Crimnal Procedure

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Products Liability And Preemption: A Judicial Framework, Barbara L. Atwell

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

New York Civil Practice, Jay C. Carlisle

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

During the Survey year, the New York Court of Appeals issued important opinions with respect to strict compliance for service of process, the foreign object exception under CPLR 214-a, and disclosure against corporate employees. The Court also imposed sanctions for the first time under Part 130 of the Uniform Rules, and ruled that issue preclusion could be given to a criminal conviction to preclude subsequent civil litigation. In addition the Court recognized that substituted service could be used against a criminal contemnor. New York appellate courts issued instructive decisions regarding long-arm jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and discovery of surveillance videos. …

The Video Deposition As A Civil Litigation Tool, Hugh B. Lewis

Campbell Law Review

This Comment reports the findings of a research project on the video deposition's place in litigation. Professor Thomas P. Anderson, Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law, supervised the project. The paper looks at video depositions from three perspectives. The first perspective outlines 30(b)(4)'s evolution through the court's interpretation of the rule. The second perspective synthesizes the many suggestions on video deposition production found in legal journals. The third perspective analyzes and collates empirical data collected from attorneys and jurors who participated in nine civil trials which used video depositions in the North Carolina Superior Court system. The empirical data also …

Current Status Of Rule 11 In The Ninth Circuit And Washington State, Fredric C. Tausend, Lisa L. Johnsen

Seattle University Law Review

Admittedly, amended Rule 11 has stirred up a great deal of controversy. The Advisory Committee of which Professor Miller is now a member will be considering a variety of proposed amendments to the Rule. While in Seattle for the 1991 spring meeting of the American Bar Association, Professor Miller expressed his own personal hope that the Rule be left unchanged for now, predicting that the upsurge in its use (and misuse) will follow a bell-shaped curve. The authors concur with the hope that it be left unchanged until the bench and bar have had both additional time to develop the …

An Empirical Examination Of Motions On The Merits, Thomas B. Marvell

Seattle University Law Review

This Article evaluates the Motions on the Merits procedure. Section II outlines the history of commissioners in this country. Section III describes Washington Court of Appeals Division III: its caseload trends, procedures in ordinary appeals, the commissioners' duties, and the MMT history and current procedures. Section IV quantitatively evaluates MMT procedures, exploring their impact on volume of cases decided, delay, backlog, and reversal rates. Section V presents the attorneys' opinions of the MMTs, and Section VI summarizes the results.

Wanted: A Federal Standard For Evaluating The Adequate State Forum, Maria L. Marcus

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 11 Recalibrated In Civil Rights Cases, Carl Tobias

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

A Better Approach To Arbitrability, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Historically, Anglo-American courts refused to enforce arbitration agreements, jealously guarding their dispute resolution monopoly. During the early twentieth century, merchants and attorneys began seeking legislation requiring courts to defer to arbitration. The United States Abitration Act took effect January 1, 1926 and has remained essentially unchanged. It was written with the implicit assumption that it would be invoked by commercial actors having relatively equal bargaining power and emotive appeal to a jury. The Act says nothing to direct the court's inquiry concerning the quality of either party's assent to the arbitration clause other than requiring a written arbitration agreement and …

The Rehnquist Court, Statutory Interpretation, Inertial Burdens, And A Misleading Version Of Democracy, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

No one theory or school of thought consistently dominates judicial application of statutes, but the basic methodology employed by courts seems well-established if not always well-defined. Most mainstream judges and lawyers faced with a statutory construction task will look at (although with varying emphasis) the text of the statute, the legislative history of the provision, the context of the enactment, evident congressional purpose, and applicable agency interpretations, often employing the canons of construction for assistance. Although orthodox judicial thought suggests that the judge's role is confined to discerning textual meaning or directives of the enacting legislature, courts also often examine …

Reconsidering The Employment Contract Exclusion In Section 1 Of The Federal Arbitration Act: Correcting The Judiciary's Failure Of Statutory Vision, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

The Federal Arbitration Act (the Act), seeks to eliminate centuries of perceived judicial hostility toward arbitration agreements. The Act made written arbitration agreements involving interstate commerce specifically enforceable. It also provided a procedural structure for enforcing awards, which were protected through deferential judicial review. The Act intended to have a wide reach, employing a broad definition of commerce that has presumably grown in breadth along with the expansion of judicial notions of commerce. Although courts applied the Act in tentative and cautious fashion until the 1960's, arbitration gained momentum during the 1970's and the 1980's. Despite growing judicial enthusiasm for …

Experts–Use And Abuse (Part I): Commentary, William W. Schwarzer

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Slaying The Monsters Of Cost And Delay: Would Disclosure Be More Effective Than Discovery?, William W. Schwarzer

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Discovery Confidentiality Controversy, Richard L. Marcus

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Discovery Along The Litigation/Science Interface, Richard L. Marcus

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Federal Court Procedural Reform In Montana, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Much activity related to civil procedure recently occurred that could significantly affect practice in the Montana Federal District Court. During October 1991, the Committee to Redraft the Uniform District Court Rules (Local Rules Committee), which is charged with considering revision of the local rules, issued an Interim Report that includes suggested changes in those rules. The Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States (Standing Committee) distributed in August 1991 preliminary drafts of proposals to amend in varying degrees eighteen Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Advisory Group to Implement the Civil …

Recent Work Of The Civil Rules Committee, Carl W. Tobias, Margaret L. Sanner

Law Faculty Publications

Congress reformed the procedures for amending the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1988 by prescribing greater public participation in the rules revision process. Since that time, the Advisory Committee on the Civil Rules, which has primary responsibility for studying the Rules and developing proposals for change in them, has examined several important Rules and made controversial recommendations for modifying those provisions. Although the Committee has assessed and suggested controversial revision in summary judgment and discovery, this article analyzes recent efforts of the Committee involving Rule 11, a provision that was fundamentally amended as recently as 1983.

Montana Rule 11 …

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, …

Rule 11 Recalibrated In Civil Rights Cases, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The United States Supreme Court promulgated the 1983 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure out of growing concern about abuse of the civil litigation process. The most controversial aspect of the implementation of these revisions has been judicial enforcement of amended Rule 11 (the Rule) in ways that disadvantage or "chill" civil rights plaintiffs and attorneys. As the federal judiciary enters its eighth year of implementing the Rule, courts apparently have improved their application of it by becoming more solicitous of the needs of civil rights plaintiffs and their counsel, in recognition of the important social function that …

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.

Edmonson V. Leesville Concrete Co.: Will The Peremptory Challenge Survive Its Battle With The Equal Protection Clause, 25 J. Marshall L. Rev. 37 (1991), Steven M. Puiszis

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Eighteen Feet Of Clay: Thoughts On Phantom Rule 4(M), Gene R. Shreve

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Driving Under The Influences In Illinois, Robert G. Johnston, Thomas P. Higgins

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Jury Trial In Illinois: Chancery, Multi-Remedy, And Special Remedy Civil Cases, Robert Jay Nye, Jonathan D. Nye

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Application And Misapplication Of Ohio Rule Of Civil Procedure 54(B), Diane S. Leung

Cleveland State Law Review

The rules of civil procedure, seemingly straightforward, can be misinterpreted due to attorney inattentiveness. One rule which has suffered and still is suffering from misinterpretation and misapplication is Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 54(B), judgment upon multiple claims or involving multiple parties, the subject of this note. The following discussion, an analysis of Rule 54(B), will attempt to accomplish several tasks. First, the note will briefly describe the history, nature, and purpose of the rule. Secondly, it will analyze the major aspects and requirements of Rule 54(B). The analysis will emphasize the facets of the rule which have often been …

The 1988 Revision Of 28 U.S.C. 1391(C): Corporate Venue Is Now Equivalent To In Personam Jurisdiction Effects On Civil Actions For Patent Infringement, Thomas W. Adams

Cleveland State Law Review

Venue in federal cases is controlled by the general venue statute unless there exists an applicable special venue statute that attaches to the particular cause of action under consideration. This note is concerned with the section of the general venue statute applicable to corporate defendants and its interaction with the special venue statute for civil actions in patent infringement cases ("patent venue statute"). As a first step in the discussion of venue, it is necessary to go back in history over 200 years. This note reviews the history of venue, both generally and in cases of patent infringement, the historical …

The 1988 Revision Of 28 U.S.C. 1391(C): Corporate Venue Is Now Equivalent To In Personam Jurisdiction Effects On Civil Actions For Patent Infringement, Thomas W. Adams

Cleveland State Law Review

Venue in federal cases is controlled by the general venue statute unless there exists an applicable special venue statute that attaches to the particular cause of action under consideration. This note is concerned with the section of the general venue statute applicable to corporate defendants and its interaction with the special venue statute for civil actions in patent infringement cases ("patent venue statute"). As a first step in the discussion of venue, it is necessary to go back in history over 200 years. This note reviews the history of venue, both generally and in cases of patent infringement, the historical …

Discovery Standards For The Testimonial Expert Under Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 26(B)(4)(A): A Twentieth Anniversary Assessment, David Day

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Rehnquist Or Rorty?, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

A postmodern response to Gene Shreve, Eighteen Feet of Clay: Thoughts on Phantom Rule 4(m), 67 Ind. L.J. 85 (1991).

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 …