Courts Commons^™

The Role Of Ideas In Legal History, Jay M. Feinman

Michigan Law Review

A review of Patterns of American Legal Thought by G. Edward White

The Burger Court And "Our Federalism", Henry Paul Monaghan

Faculty Scholarship

Dicey derided federal government as "weak government;" others have found genius lurking in its institutional arrangements. But most students, as Professor S. R. Davis's illuminating little book makes clear, have considerable difficulty in identifying what federal government is, whether the concept is approached analytically, legally, descriptively or normatively. American lawyers are not inclined to pursue such inquiries too far. For, like Justice Black, they are concerned only with "Our Federalism" and, like Justice Stewart and obscenity, they know it when they see it. Moreover, American lawyers have, in large measure, confined their attention to one specific component of "Our Federalism;" …

Survival Of Rights Of Action After Corporate Merger, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Once a corporation ceases to exist, most courts permit neither primary nor derivative suits to be brought in its name. If a merger precipitates that corporate demise, courts usually hold that standing to sue, like other assets of the "merged" corporation, passes to the surviving corporation. This Note ponders the merit of that rule of passage.

Section I categorizes the cases defining the rule of passage. Some courts have steadfastly adhered to the rule and denied standing to the merged corporation's shareholders. Other courts, fearing that the rule would preclude meritorious actions, have created exceptions allowing these shareholders to sue …

Limitation Borrowing In Federal Courts, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note studies limitations on federal actions in light of Occidental Life. Part I discusses the reasons for limiting actions and presents a short history ·of the limitation of actions. Part II analyzes the alternatives for the federal courts when no statute of limitations applies directly. Finally, the Note suggests a solution that will achieve a result most nearly consistent with both the reasons for limiting actions and the proper role of the judiciary. It suggests, notwithstanding Occidental Life, that in some situations courts should borrow specific federal statutes of limitations and that in the remainder they should …

Book Review -- Federal Courts In The Early Republic, Randall Bridwell

Vanderbilt Law Review

FEDERAL COURTS IN THE EARLY REPUBLIC: KENTUCKY 1789-1816.

By Mary K. Bonsteel Tachau.

Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1978. Pp. ix, 234. $16.50.

Reviewed by Randall Bridwell

The Proposed Federal Rules Of Evidence: Of Privileges And The Division Of Rule-Making Power, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note proposes that the lower federal courts accord the same binding authority to the Proposed Rules that they give those judicially promulgated procedural rules, such as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that have been implicitly approved by Congress.

Part I of the Note analyzes the constitutional division of the rule-making power by examining both the policy considerations involved and the relevant constitutional language and doctrines. That examination indicates that the power to establish such rules is shared by Congress and the Supreme Court. To determine when that power is appropriately exercised by one branch rather than the other, …

Justice On Appeal—One Way Or Many?, Michael E. Smith

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

After two centuries of our nation's existence, discussions of federalism are certain to sound familiar. The ground of argument has been worked so thoroughly, there is hardly a patch left unturned. Conventional watchwords suggest the competing interests: adaptability to local circumstances contrasted with efficiencies of scale, circumscribed experimentation contrasted with prevention of forum-shopping, local self-government contrasted with the cosmopolitan perspective. The most that can be done now, absent exceptional insight, is to display these choices in a fresh context.

What follows is yet another variation on the theme. It concerns the propriety, perhaps the desirability, of diversity among the federal …

Separation Of Powers And The Scope Of Federal Equitable Remedies, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

Jurors' Impeachment Of Verdicts And Indictments In Federal Court Under Rule 606(B), Christopher B. Mueller

Publications

No abstract provided.

Jurisdictional Conflicts Over Counterclaims Against The United States, David G. Swenson

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This article first discusses the different approaches that courts have used in determining district court jurisdiction over counterclaims and the differing limits that are imposed upon the size of the counterclaim. Second, it examines the relationship between the Court of Claims and the district courts in cases where the defendant cannot counterclaim for full relief in a district court. The article concludes with several legislative proposals that could lessen the uncertainty and lack of uniformity among the courts currently facing a defendant who wants to counterclaim against the government.

Competency To Stand Trial In Federal Courts: Conceptual And Constitutional Problems, William T. Pizzi

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Second Circuit And The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The most significant development in federal trial procedure in recent years has been the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence, effective July 1, 1975. In the intervening two years since the Rules became effective, the courts of the Second Circuit have bad occasion to make several illuminating applications of and references to them.

An examination of some of these decisions provides insight into the kinds of questions that are coming up not only in the Second Circuit, but around the country, and the kinds of answers that are being given. It is not the bizarre or unusual case that …

Objectivity And Habeas Corpus: Should Federal District Court Judges Be Permitted To Rule Upon The Validity Of Their Own Criminal Trial Conduct?, Marilyn L. Kelley

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

It has already been suggested that one of the main purposes of section 2255 was to provide a convenient forum in which the trial judge might testify, if necessary. That purpose is, obviously, contrary to the interpretation rendered in Carvell.

Beyond this inconsistency, Carvell suggests two significant issues: first, that it is highly desirable that the motions be passed upon by the judge who is familiar with the facts; and second, that the criminal trial judge is not likely to be misled by allegations in the 2255 petition as to what had occurred. The first issue raises the question …

Admiralty Procedure And Jurisdiction After The 1966 Unification, David W. Robertson

Michigan Law Review

From the nation's beginning, the federal district courts have been vested with jurisdiction in cases "of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction." Like its predecessor statute, section 1333 of the present Judicial Code asserts that the jurisdiction is "exclusive of the courts of the states," but the infamous "saving clause" goes on to negate that exclusivity in the bulk of maritime cases by giving the plaintiff the option of maintaining his action in any other court having jurisdiction over it. In "saving clause" cases--that is, cases that could have been brought in federal court under the admiralty jurisdiction, but which were maintained, …

Post-Conviction Review In The Federal Courts For The Service-Member Not In Custody, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines the availability of nonhabeas federal court review for those convicted by courts-martial. Part I discusses the function of such review and suggests a scope of review that would serve that function without unduly burdening the federal courts; Part II sketches the evolution of nonhabeas review and analyzes the jurisdictional problems surrounding its present status; Part III recommends statutory and judicial changes to make the review of courts-martial more equitable and efficient.

Compensation Of The Federal Judiciary: A Reexamination, Elliot A. Spoon

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The compensation of the federal judiciary has been a persistent issue since the enactment of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The problem has been traditionally perceived in the context of particular proposals for salary increases, but the underlying issues are much more fundamental than the concerns of the day. The institutional arrangements by which judicial compensation is determined and the factors which shape that determination have a profound impact on the fiscal and human resources of the judiciary, on the power relationships among the three branches of the national government, and, thereby, on the independence and quality of the judicial …

The Politics Of Federal Judicial Administration, Paul D. Carrington

Michigan Law Review

A Review of The Politics of Federal Judicial Administration by Peter Graham Fish

The Use Of In Camera Hearings In Ruling On The Informer Privilege, Ronald E. Levine

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The thesis of this article is that most of the problems of defining the scope of the privilege in a particular case are due to the paucity of information available to the trial judge who must rule on the issue. Furthermore, many of the formulas presently used are conceptually and functionally inadequate. Both of these problems can be solved by the use of in camera hearings, for such proceedings not only will provide the trial judge with sufficient information to make a fair and rational decision, but will also alleviate the present necessity to rule only on the basis of …

Attempts And Monopolization: A Mildly Expansionary Answer To The Prophylactic Riddle Of Section Two, Edward H. Cooper

Articles

The efforts of activist antitrust lawyers to redefine the contours of attempted monopolization under section 2 of the Sherman Act1 have again forced the courts to wrestle with the classic antitrust dilemma: How far must single-firm competitive behavior be restrained to make competition free? The answer given by the majority of current decisions is that, absent some other established offense, single-firm behavior should be prohibited as an attempt to monopolize only when there is a specific intent to monopolize and the firm has come dangerously near to unlawful monopolization. A contemporary challenge to this orthodox answer is rapidly gaining force. …

The National Court Of Appeals: A Constitutional "Inferior Court"?, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Objections have been raised to the necessity for and the practicality of such a court. These objections are, however, tangential to the subject of this Note and are fully discussed elsewhere. An additional question has been raised regarding the constitutionality of the proposed court. Article III, section 1, of the Constitution provides: "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Several commentators have challenged the proposed court as violative of the provision for "one supreme Court." There is, …

The Proposed Amendments To The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court has approved a uniform code of evidence for all federal courts. Amendments to the Supreme Court's rules are now pending in the House of Representatives. From the point of view of a specialist in the law of evidence, Professor Rothstein analyzes the differences between the Supreme Court's proposals and the House amendments and suggests solutions to these conflicts.

The Three Faces Of Zapata: Maritime Law, Federal Common Law, Federal Courts Law, Harold G. Maier

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

In The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., the Supreme Court upheld the selection of a London forum in a towage contract between a German firm and an American firm and dismissed a suit brought in a Florida federal district court whose jurisdiction was otherwise valid. In doing so, the Court stated the rule: "[Forum-selection clauses] are prima facie valid and should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the resisting party to be 'unreasonable' under the circumstances." The Court qualified the rule by indicating that to be enforceable such clauses must be actually bargained for and agreed to by the …

Federal Court Doctrines In Avoidance Of Adjudication: Exhaustion, Abstention And The Anti-Injunction Statute, Gene R. Shreve

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Wright & Miller: Federal Practice And Procedure, Civil Procedure, William H. Becker, W. Brown Morton Jr.

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil Procedure Vol. 4 & 5 by Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller

Nonstatutory Review Of Federal Administrative Action: The Need For Statutory Reform Of Sovereign Immunity, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, And Parties Defendant, Roger C. Cramton

Michigan Law Review

The purpose of this Article is to generate support for three legislative proposals that will rectify the problems exemplified by the Gnotta case and hosts of other cases: (1) The elimination of the doctrine of sovereign immunity as a barrier to judicial review of federal administrative action; (2) a modest expansion of the subject matter jurisdiction of United States district courts to accommodate such review and, in addition, to provide a remedy against the United States for the resolution of property disputes; and (3) the total elimination of the remaining technicalities concerning the identification, naming, capacity, and joinder of parties …

Massachusetts In The Federal Courts: The Constitutionality Of The Vietnam War, Anthony A. D'Amato

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

One of the most singular pieces of legislation in American constitutional history passed both houses of the Massachusetts legislature on April 1st, 1970, and was signed into law on the following day by Governor Francis W. Sargent. It provides that, except for an emergency, no inhabitant of Massachusetts inducted into or serving in the armed forces "shall be required to serve" abroad in an armed hostility that has not been declared a war by Congress under Article 1, Section 8, clause 11 of the United States Constitution. The bill further directs the state's attorney general to bring a suit testing …

The Consumer Class Action, Arthur H. Travers Jr., Jonathan M. Landers

Publications

No abstract provided.

Res Judicata/Preclusion By Judgment: The Law Applied In Federal Courts, Allan D. Vestal

Michigan Law Review

Preclusion is not a simple principle; it is a multifaceted concept affected by a number of relevant variables. A discussion of the principles is meaningful only if specific situations are discussed; to talk in generalities is not profitable. Therefore, for the sake of clarity, this Article will consider several typical situations.

Swift To Erie/York, Hanna And Beyond: Proposed Solutions For A Major Problem Of Diversity Jurisdiction, E. Blythe Stason Jr.

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

There are four purposes of this article: First, to expose more fully the nature and dimensions of the difficult problem of determining whether a particular rule is "substantive" or "procedural"; Second, to discuss the various judicial attempts to solve it; Third, to show the shortcomings of those attempts, as manifested in both established doctrine and current federal judicial opinions; and, Fourth, to propose some solutions. It should be made clear that we are involved here with a question of allocating power within our federal union. Diversity characterization functions as an unintended device allocating power between state …

Federal Courts--Discovery--Stay Of Discovery In Civil Court To Protect Proceedings In Concurrent Criminal Action--The Pattern Of Remedies, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

The federal criminal discovery rules were a carefully weighed compromise between the parties' needs for information and the defendant's need for protection from inquisatorial investigation. This balance may be upset when the more liberal discovery rules in a concurrent, related civil action permit information to be obtained which is not discoverable under the criminal rules. Two recent cases, United States v. Simon and United States v. American Radiator &- Standard Sanitary Corp., illustrate the difficulty of protecting the integrity of the criminal discovery rules in such a situation.