The Triumph Of Equity Revisited: The Stages Of Equitable Discretion,
2015
Washington and Lee Law School
The Triumph Of Equity Revisited: The Stages Of Equitable Discretion, Doug Rendleman
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Reflections Of A Recovering Aggregationist,
2015
University of Texas School of Law
Reflections Of A Recovering Aggregationist, Linda S. Mullenix
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Judicial Rejection Of Transsubstantivity: The Foia Example,
2015
University of Denver Sturm College of Law
Judicial Rejection Of Transsubstantivity: The Foia Example, Margaret B. Kwoka
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Federal Court Rulemaking And Litigation Reform: An Institutional Approach,
2015
University of Pennsylvania Law School
Federal Court Rulemaking And Litigation Reform: An Institutional Approach, Stephen B. Burbank, Sean Farhang
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Reflections,
2015
Northeastern University School of Law
Contingency Of Openness In Courts: Changing The Experiences And Logics Of The Public's Role In Court-Based Adr,
2015
Yale Law School
Contingency Of Openness In Courts: Changing The Experiences And Logics Of The Public's Role In Court-Based Adr, Judith Resnik
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Some Specific Concerns With The New General Jurisdiction,
2015
Emory University
Some Specific Concerns With The New General Jurisdiction, Richard D. Freer
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Manning The Courthouse Gates: Pleadings, Jurisdiction, And The Nation-State,
2015
Northeastern University School of Law
Manning The Courthouse Gates: Pleadings, Jurisdiction, And The Nation-State, Margaret Y.K. Woo
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Revisiting The Integration Of Law And Fact In Contemporary Federal Civil Litigation,
2015
Brooklyn Law School
Revisiting The Integration Of Law And Fact In Contemporary Federal Civil Litigation, Elizabeth M. Schneider
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Dangerous Diagnoses, Risky Assumptions, And The Failed Experiment Of "Sexually Violent Predator" Commitment,
2015
University of Maine School of Law
Dangerous Diagnoses, Risky Assumptions, And The Failed Experiment Of "Sexually Violent Predator" Commitment, Deirdre M. Smith
Faculty Publications
In its 1997 opinion, Kansas v. Hendricks, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a law that reflected a new model of civil commitment. The targets of this new commitment law were dubbed “Sexually Violent Predators” (SVPs), and the Court upheld indefinite detention of these individuals on the assumption that there is a psychiatrically distinct class of individuals who, unlike typical recidivists, have a mental condition that impairs their ability to refrain from violent sexual behavior. And, more specifically, the Court assumed that the justice system could reliably identify the true “predators,” those for whom this unusual and extraordinary deprivation of liberty …
The Forms Had A Function: Rule 84 And The Appendix Of Forms As Guardians Of The Liberal Ethos In Civil Procedure,
2015
William & Mary Law School
The Forms Had A Function: Rule 84 And The Appendix Of Forms As Guardians Of The Liberal Ethos In Civil Procedure, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
The Appendix of Forms that, from the time of their adoption have accom - panied the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are a seeming anachronism, more appropriate for a much simpler time that hardly characterizes modem day federal civil litigation. Perhaps the form for a negligence complaint is the most striking in this regard, offering only that at a certain time and place "the defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle against the plaintiff," causing harm.2 Not only does such a complaint fail to typify the negligence claims one might find on any federal docket, but it also fails to reflect …
Electronic Data, Electronic Searching, Inadvertent Production Of Privileged Data: A Perfect Storm,
2015
The University of Akron
Electronic Data, Electronic Searching, Inadvertent Production Of Privileged Data: A Perfect Storm, Donald Wochna
Akron Law Review
This article suggests that the practical impact of treating electronic searching as an expert function is to permit attorneys to focus and strategize on the process of electronic searching rather than on the completeness of document production. In effect, electronic searching permits attorneys to quit focusing on finding documents and begin focusing on identifying electronic sources of information on which reside relevant documents that can be extracted by means of electronic searching protocols.
Reconstructing Pleading: Twombly, Iqbal, And The Limited Role Of The Plausibility Inquiry,
2015
The University of Akron
Reconstructing Pleading: Twombly, Iqbal, And The Limited Role Of The Plausibility Inquiry, Stephen R. Brown
Akron Law Review
Although critics have generally failed to appreciate the limited role of the plausibility inquiry, it is still necessary in some cases. I will therefore, in the discussion of plausibility within the three-step framework, provide a general defense of Twombly and Iqbal by recasting the decisions in light of a plaintiff‘s burden to certify to a court that the factual contentions in a complaint ―will likely have evidentiary support under Rule 11. Under this view of the plausibility inquiry, a court acts as a neutral third-party that simply evaluates a plaintiff‘s ability to predict her own likelihood of success. Instead, a …
Summary Judgment In The Shadow Of Erie,
2015
The University of Akron
Summary Judgment In The Shadow Of Erie, Jeffrey O. Cooper
Akron Law Review
This essay addresses one particular challenge to federal summary judgment practice: the possibility of a successful challenge to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, pursuant to Erie Railroad v. Tompkins and its progeny. Part II of this essay addresses differences between summary judgment as practiced in federal courts pursuant to Federal Rule 56 and summary judgment as practiced in state courts, focusing in particular on differences in the ways the federal courts and some state courts allocate the burdens on moving and non-moving parties.Part III suggests that these differences are problematic under Erie and its progeny, and …
Dropping The Spear: The Case For Enhanced Summary Judgment Prior To Class Certification,
2015
The University of Akron
Dropping The Spear: The Case For Enhanced Summary Judgment Prior To Class Certification, Linda S. Mullenix
Akron Law Review
This brief article makes the case for enhanced judicial scrutiny of summary judgment motions prior to the class certification decision. This argument is congruent (and convergent) with the Supreme Court‘s summary judgment trilogy, the Court‘s twin pleading decisions in Twombly and Iqbal, the Third Circuit‘s decision in Hydrogen Peroxide, and the suggestions from various quarters that courts ought to evaluate the merits of proposed class actions during the class certification process.to evaluate the merits of proposed class actions during the class certification process. Summary judgment prior to class certification, then, is a logical―and desirable―extension of these trends. This article argues …
Summary Judgment, Pleading, And The Future Of Transsubstantive Procedure,
2015
The University of Akron
Summary Judgment, Pleading, And The Future Of Transsubstantive Procedure, Stephen B. Burbank
Akron Law Review
David Berger Professor for the Administration of Justice, University of Pennsylvania Law School. This article is based on remarks made at the 2010 meeting of the AALS Section on Litigation.
Six Summary Judgment Safeguards,
2015
The University of Akron
Six Summary Judgment Safeguards, Edward Brunet
Akron Law Review
This article sets forth a more optimistic assessment of the current status of summary judgment. Numerous potential safeguards deter improper grants of summary judgment motions and serve to temper trial judges who are prone to rule favorably on summary judgment requests. While some of the safeguards act more as ineffectual clichés or slogans, others provide a set of significant deterrents to overly adventuresome treatment of Rule 56 motions. The goal of this article is to critique six possible summary judgment safeguards and, in so doing, to determine whether the state of contemporary summary judgment is as bleak as leading critics …
Must, Should, Shall,
2015
The University of Akron
Must, Should, Shall, Steven S. Gensler
Akron Law Review
This Essay has three parts. Parts I and II look backward. Part I tells the story of the switch from ―shall‖ to ―should‖ in 2007. Part II then explains the events that led the Advisory Committee to propose the amendment that, if it takes effect as scheduled on December 1, 2010, will restore ―shall‖ to the text of Rule 56. Part III looks forward. It addresses a single, critical question: how much discretion to deny summary judgment will trial judges have once ―shall‖ is restored? The answer is this: with the restoration of ―shall,‖ trial courts will return to whatever …
Symposium: The Future Of Summary Judgment Foreword - Summary Judgment And The Influence Of Federal Rulemaking,
2015
The University of Akron
Symposium: The Future Of Summary Judgment Foreword - Summary Judgment And The Influence Of Federal Rulemaking, Bernadette Bollas Genetin
Akron Law Review
In this review of the evolving role of summary judgment, Professor Steven Gensler provides insight into whether Rule 56(c) give judges discretion to deny summary judgment even if the preconditions of Rule 56(c) have been met, i.e., if there is no genuine issue of material fact and judgment as a matter of law could be entered, and Professor Edward Brunet engages directly the important debate regarding intemperate use of summary judgment to deny potentially meritorious claims, contending that currently available ―safeguards‖ can prevent inappropriate grant of summary judgment. Professor Stephen Burbank and Professor Linda Mullenix enlarge the discussion to consider …
Summary Of Lisle V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 39 (June 25, 2015),
2015
Nevada Law Journal
Summary Of Lisle V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 39 (June 25, 2015), Adam Wynott
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that the petitions filed by the appellant, Kevin James Lisle (Lisle), were procedurally barred. The Court determined that a petitioner cannot present new evidence of mitigating circumstances in order to prove actual innocence of the death penalty. The Court determined that the claims of Lisle did not warrant relief and upheld the district court ruling.
