Litigation Commons^™

Standards Of Review: Judicial Review Of Discretionary Decisionmaking, Martha S. Davis

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

The applicable standard of review determines how much deference an appellate court gives a lower court’s decision. Discretionary decisions are review under the “abuse of discretion” standard where the process the lower court used to reach its decision is scrutinized. Three scholars attempts to define this standard are first analyzed followed by cases that have molded the standard. Advice to practitioners concludes the article.

Now V. Scheidler, Round Two, Craig M. Bradley

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Civil Justice Delay And Empirical Data: A Response To Professor Heise, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

One decade ago, Congress undertook an ambitious, controversial effort to reduce expense and delay in the federal civil justice system. The Civil Justice Reform Act ("CJRA") of 1990 instituted unprecedented nationwide experimentation by requiring that all ninety-four federal district courts scrutinize their civil and criminal dockets and then promulgate and apply numerous procedures which district judges believed would save cost and time in civil litigation. Congress also prescribed rigorous assessment of the six principles, guidelines, and techniques of litigation management and expense and delay reduction that federal districts in fact adopted and enforced. Lawmakers provided for an expert, independent evaluator …

Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law -- Due Process Clause -- Third Circuit Holds That $50 Million Punitive Damages Award In Context Of A $48 Million Compensatory Award Is Unconstitutionally Excessive -- Inter Medical Supplies, Ltd. V. Ebi Medical Systems, Inc., 181 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 1999)., A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

In 1996, the Supreme Court, in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, struck down a punitive damages award on the ground that it was "grossly excessive" in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . Since BMW, many courts have faced the challenge of applying its principles to determine whether punitive damages awards surpass the constitutional limit. Last June, in Inter Medical Supplies, Ltd. v. EBI Medical Systems, Inc., the Third Circuit faced this difficulty when it considered whether a $50 million punitive damages award, granted in conjunction with a $48 million compensatory damages award, was …

Creating A Seamless Transition From Jury Box To Jury Room For More Effective Decision Making, Annie King Phillips

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Why am I writing here? I am not a judge or lawyer, and I may never be. I don't even play one on TV. In searching for an answer to this question, it came to mind that at sometime in everyone's life, there is a need to enter the court system-as a victim, offender, witness, court staff or juror. The interactions among these persons impact the effective administration of justice in our court system. Every two years for the past eighteen years (like the tick of a clock), I am summoned to jury duty at either the District of Columbia …

The Arizona Jury Reform Permitting Civil Jury Trial Discussions: The Views Of Trial Participants, Judges, And Jurors, Valerie P. Hans, Paula L. Hannaford, G. Thomas Munslerman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In 1995, the Arizona Supreme Court reformed the jury trial process by allowing civil jurors to discuss the evidence presented during trial prior to their formal deliberations. This Article examines and evaluates the theoretical, legal, and policy issues raised by this reform and presents the early results of afield experiment that tested the impact of trial discussions. Jurors, judges, attorneys, and litigants in civil jury trials in Arizona were questioned regarding their observations, experiences, and reactions during trial as well as what they perceived to be the benefits and drawback of juror discussions. The data revealed that the majority of …

Comments On Rooker-Feldman Or Let State Law Be Our Guide, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

I feel privileged to have been asked to be a commentator on the three principal papers in this symposium. These are three excellent papers, and although there has been some valuable commentary on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, there will be no need to go beyond these papers to gain a full appreciation of the doctrine, its applications, and its problems, which run as deep as the problems of any doctrine.

Federal Circuit's Forgotten Lessons: Annealing New Forms Of Intellectual Property Through Consolidated Appellate Jurisdiction, 32 J. Marshall L. Rev. 581 (1999), Chris J. Katopis

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Licensed To Steal: Has Sovereign Immunity Gone Too Far, 32 J. Marshall L. Rev. 779 (1999), Sulaiman M. Qazi

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Budweiser Or Budweiser, 32 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1251 (1999), Jitka Smith

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Spending Clause? - (Or The President's Paramour): An Examination Of The Views Of Hamilton, Madison, And Story On Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 Of The United States Constitution, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 81 (1999), Jeffrey T. Renz

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Impeaching A Jury Verdict, Juror Misconduct, And Related Issues: A View From The Bench Essay, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 145 (1999), Denise M. O'Malley

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Bribery Statute And The Ethics Of Purchasing Testimony, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 209 (1999), Camille Knight

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is The Excessive Fines Clause Excessively Kind To Money Launderers, Drug Dealers, And Tax Evaders, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 243 (1999), Ann Jennings Maron

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Commodities Rulings Appealable To Circuit (New York Law Journal), Daniel Wise

News Articles

No abstract provided.

When To Hear The Hearsay: A Proposal For A New Rule Of Evidence Designed To Protect The Constitutional Right Of The Criminally Accused To Confront The Witnesses Against Her, 32 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1287 (1999), Scott A. Smith

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right To Inspect And Test Breath Alcohol Machines: Suspicion Ain't Proof, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (1999), Gil Sapir, Mark Giangrande

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

State Immunity Waivers For Suits By The United States, Evan H. Caminker

Articles

The Supreme Court closed this millennium with a virtual celebration of state sovereignty, protecting state authority from the reach of congressional power in several significant ways. In a pair of cases, Seminole Tribe v. Florida1 and Alden v. Maine,2 the Court held that states enjoy a constitutional immunity from being sued without their consent. In Seminole Tribe, the Court opined that "the background principle of state sovereign immunity embodied in the Eleventh Amendment"3 protects states from unconsented suits in federal court. In Alden, the Court held that this principle is not merely embodied in the Eleventh Amendment but rather is …

Foxes Guarding The Chicken Coop: Intervention As Of Right And The Defense Of Civil Rights Remedies, Alan Jenkins

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

This article focuses on the recent spate of cases in which educational institutions on the grounds that their race-conscious admissions policies are unconstitutional. The author analyzes the role of minority students and organizations who are the beneficiaries of those polices at the defendant institutions and their recent attempts to intervene in the lawsuits pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. First, the author argues that under the traditional interpretation of Rule 24(a); intervention of right should be granted to minority students and organizations in the great majority of instances. Second, the author looks at the reasons …

Jury Reform At The End Of The Century: Real Agreement, Real Changes, Phoebe C. Ellsworth

Articles

Complaints about the jury system and calls for its reform are nothing new-they have probably existed as long as the jury system itself. Warren Burger called for the reform of the civil jury in 1971'; in 1905 William Howard Taft decried the contemporary tendency "to exalt the jury's power beyond anything which is wise or prudent .... ,2 Judges complain to judges, lawyers complain to lawyers, legal academics write articles about the jury for other legal academics, social scientists report their research on juries to other social scientists, and the jurors themselves go home and express their exasperation to their …

Sticks And Stones, Phoebe C. Ellsworth

Articles

I believe that research should be refuted by research. More and more of our scarce journal space is being taken up by attacks, rebuttals, and rebuttals to the rebuttals, often ending with a whimper of recognition that the adversaries were not so very far apart to begin with, and that the only way (if possible) to resolve the disagreement is through empirical research. Communication of scientific disagreement does not require a published article. Grant proposals and manuscripts submitted to refereed journals like this one are sent out to reviewers, who provide written evaluations that are communicated to the author. Papers …

The Arizona Jury Reform Permitting Civil Jury Trial Discussions: The View Of Trial Participants, Judges, And Jurors, Valerie P. Hans, Paula Hannaford-Agor, G. Thomas Munsterman

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In 1995, the Arizona Supreme Court reformed the jury trial process by allowing civil jurors to discuss the evidence presented during trial prior to their formal deliberations. This Article examines the theoretical, legal, and policy issues raised by this reform and presents the early results of a field experiment that tested the impact of trial discussions. Jurors, judges, attorneys, and litigants in civil jury trials in Arizona were questioned regarding their observations, experiences, and reactions during trial as well as what they perceived to be the benefits and drawback of juror discussions. The data revealed that the majority of judges …

Beyond The Hero Judge: Institutional Reform Litigation As Litigation, Margo Schlanger

Reviews

In 1955, in its second decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court suggested that federal courts might be called upon to engage in long-term oversight of once-segregated schools. Through the 1960s, southern resistance pushed federal district and appellate judges to turn that possibility into a reality. The impact of this saga on litigation practice extended beyond school desegregation, and even beyond the struggle for African-American equality; through implementation of Brown, the nation’s litigants, lawyers, and judges grew accustomed both to issuance of permanent injunctions against state and local public institutions, and to extended court oversight of compliance. …

Ramifications Of Denny V. Ford Motor Co., Peter J. Ausili

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Less Reliable Preliminary Hearings And Plea Bargains In Criminal Cases In California: Discovery Before And After Proposition 115 , Laura Berend

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Practice, Richard Mills

Mercer Law Review

The formula for success in trial practice is simple: Be prepared, be decent, and be on time.

There are ninety-four district courts in the United States. Twenty-four states have two or more districts; for example, Illinois and Georgia have three. Twenty-six states, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, are single districts. And in all of those ninety-four districts over the last thirty years, the civil cases have tripled! In my district we have quadrupled our caseload in that same time frame. In the last five years alone, we have had …

Amchem Products, Inc. V. Windsor: The Supreme Court Defines The Standard For Settlement Class Action Certification, Jimmy White

Mercer Law Review

In Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, a case stemming from the asbestos litigation crisis of the 1970s and 1980s, the United States Supreme Court addressed the certification criteria for settlement-only class actions under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 23").

Plain Meaning, Practical Reason, And Cuplability: Toward A Theory Of Jury Interpretation Of Criminal Statutes, Darryl K. Brown

Michigan Law Review

In one of the few existing recordings of American juries deliberating in an actual criminal case, Wisconsin v. Reed, we observe jurors struggling with how they should apply a statute in a case in which the facts are not in real dispute. The defendant is charged with felon in possession of a gun, and all agree that he has a felony record and owned a pistol until he turned it over to the police upon their request. The statute contains three elements. The defendant must (a) have a felony conviction, (b) have possessed a gun, and (c) have known that …

Brandeis, Progressivism, And Commercial Law: Rethinking Benedict V. Ratner, Edward J. Janger

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.