Civil Procedure Commons^™

Citations To Foreign Courts -- Illegitimate And Superfluous, Or Unavoidable? Evidence From Europe, Martin Gelter, Mathias M. Siems

Faculty Scholarship

The theoretical arguments in favour and against citations to foreign courts have reached a high degree of sophistication. Yet, this debate is often based on merely anecdotal assumptions about the actual use of cross-citations. This article aims to fill this gap. It provides quantitative evidence from ten European supreme courts in order to assess the desirability of such cross-citations. In addition, it examines individual cases qualitatively, developing a taxonomy of cross-citations based on the degree to which courts engage with foreign law. Overall, this article high-lights the often superficial nature of cross-citations in the some courts; yet, it also concludes …

Class Actions And Justiciability, Sergio J. Campos

Articles

A lingering issue in class action law concerns the case or controversy requirement of Article III, otherwise known as the requirement of justiciability. For purposes of justiciability doctrines such as standing, mootness, and ripeness, is the class action brought by all class members, some class members, or just the class representative?

This Article argues that the answer should be none of the above-it should be the class attorney. This Article first shows that the function of the class action is to assign dispositive control of, and a partial beneficial interest in, the class members' claims to the class attorney. Put …

Tethered To The Statute: How The Third Circuit’S Narrow Interpretation Of 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) Will Shape The Future Of Cost-Shifting And E-Discovery For The Better, Jason L. Callaway

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Prosecutors’ Disclosure Obligations In The U.S., Bruce A. Green, Peter A. Joy

Faculty Scholarship

The article offers information on the prosecutor's discovery disclosure obligation in the U.S. Topics discussed include efforts of defense attorney in the prosecutor's disclosure obligation, efforts beyond the professional discipline, and legal enforcement to promote and support the approach of prosecutor's disclosure obligation, and collection of material used as evidence in the civil or criminal litigation.

Preliminary Injunctions Post-Mayo And Myriad, Jacob S. Sherkow

Articles & Chapters

The Supreme Court's recent interest in patentable subject matter has had several, unexpected downstream effects on preliminary injunctions in patent disputes.

The Supreme Court has recently expressed increased interest in patent eligibility, or patentable subject matter, the doctrine that limits the types of inventions eligible for patenting. Its two decisions, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., in 2012, and Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., in 2013, represented the first broad restrictions on patentable subject matter in over thirty years. And later this term, the Court will decide yet another patent eligibility case: Alice Corp. v. CLS …

The Undue Hardship Thicket: On Access To Justice, Procedural Noncompliance, And Pollutive Litigation In Bankruptcy, Rafael I. Pardo

Scholarship@WashULaw

This Article offers new insights into understanding the complexities and costs of the litigation burden that Congress has imposed on debtors who seek a fresh start in bankruptcy. In order to explore the problems inherent in a system that necessitates litigation as the path for obtaining certain types of bankruptcy relief, this Article focuses on the particular example of debtors who seek to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy. Such debt may be discharged only if the debtor can establish through a full-blown lawsuit that repaying the loans would impose an undue hardship. The procedure and burdens of proof governing …

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission And Structural Reform Of The American Workplace, Margo Schlanger, Pauline Kim

Scholarship@WashULaw

In 2011, the United States Supreme Court struck down a class action suit alleging that Wal-Mart stores discriminated against female employees in pay and promotion decisions, making it more difficult to obtain certification of private employment discrimination class actions. As a result, the role of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in seeking structural reform of the workplace, always of substantial influence, has gained in comparative importance. Yet there is remarkably little written about the EEOC’s large-scale injunctive cases. This Article addresses this major gap in scholarship. Using both qualitative case studies and a new quantitative data-set, we test existing theories …

Updating Ohio's Class Action Rules After More Than Forty Years, Geoffrey J. Ritts

Cleveland State Law Review

In 1970, the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure made their debut. The new set of rules included Civil Rule 23, governing procedure in class actions. Like most of the new Ohio civil rules, Rule 23 closely tracked its federal counterpart, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which itself was then relatively new, having been adopted in 1966. Since 1970, Ohio’s Rule 23 has sat untouched. In the meantime, the Ohio Supreme Court has amended other civil rules more than thirty times. During the more than forty years since Ohio Rule 23 was adopted, there have been significant changes in class-action …

Summary Of Dogra V. Liles, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 100, Jeff Scarborough

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined three issues: (1) whether a nonresident defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in Nevada when the sole basis asserted is her adult child’s unilateral act of driving the defendant’s vehicle in Nevada; (2) whether a defendant’s filing of a motion to consolidate in a Nevada court waived her right to object to the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over her; and (3) whether an interpleader action filed by a defendant’s car insurance company subjects its insured to personal jurisdiction in Nevada.

Summary Of Lytle V. Rosemere Estate Prop. Owners, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 98, Allison Vitangeli

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined two issues: (1) whether an NRCP 59(e) motion to alter or amend may be properly directed at a post-judgment order or whether that rule is limited to final judgments; and (2) whether NRAP 4(a)(4) tolling applied to the appellants’ NRCP 59(e) motion.

Trial Practice And Procedure, Brandon L. Peak, John C. Morrison Iii, Tedra C. Hobson, Mary K. Weeks, Jeb Butler, Anna W. Howard, Morgan E. Duncan

Mercer Law Review

This Article addresses several significant cases and legislation of interest to the Georgia civil trial practitioner occurring during the survey period of this publication.

To Say What The Law Is: Rules, Results, And The Dangers Of Inferential Stare Decisis, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

Judicial decisions do more than resolve disputes. They are also crucial sources of prospective law, because stare decisis obligates future courts to follow those decisions. Yet there remains tremendous uncertainty about how we identify a judicial decision’s lawmaking content. Does stare decisis require future courts to follow the rules stated in a precedent-setting opinion? Or must future courts merely reconcile their decisions with the ultimate result of the precedent-setting case? Although it is widely assumed that a rule-based approach puts greater constraints on future courts, two recent Supreme Court decisions—Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and Ashcroft v. Iqbal—turn this conventional …

The Limits Of Custom In Constitutional And International Law, Michael D. Ramsey

San Diego Law Review

This Article does not contend that arguments for extension of custom are illegitimate. Instead, it makes two more limited claims. First, there is an important difference between arguments from pure custom and arguments for the extension of custom, with the latter being more properly called common law arguments. Second, the legitimacy of common law arguments in some fields, especially constitutional law and international law, is substantially more problematic than the legitimacy of arguments from pure custom. The Article develops as follows. Part II sets out in greater detail the proposed distinction between arguments from pure custom and arguments for extension …

Summary Of Brooksby V. Nev. State Bank, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 82, Michael Bowman

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined two issues: (1) whether a judgment creditor may garnish a nondebtor’s funds in bank accounts held jointly with a judgment debtor; and (2) whether NRS 31.070 imposes an absolute deadline for making a third-party claim, thereby precluding the district court from having jurisdiction.

Summary Of Humphries V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 85, Sean Daly

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined two issues: (1) whether relief through a writ of mandamus was appropriate for the petitioners, Humphries and Rocha, and (2) whether Ferrell, a non-party cotortfeasor, was a necessary party under NRCP 19(a).

The Misbegotten Judicial Resistance To The Daubert Revolution, David E. Bernstein

Notre Dame Law Review

This Article reviews the history of the evolution of the rules for the admissibility of expert testimony since the 1980s, the revolutionary nature of what ultimately emerged, and the consistent efforts by recalcitrant judges to stop or roll back the changes, even after Rule 702 was amended to explicitly incorporate a strict interpretation of those changes.

Part I reviews the law of expert testimony through the Supreme Court’s Daubert decision. Critics had charged for decades that the adversarial system was a failure with regard to expert testimony. Parties to litigation, they argued, often presented expert testimony of dubious validity because …

Election Law Pleading, Joshua A. Douglas

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article explores how the Supreme Court’s recent pleading decisions in Twombly and Iqbal have impacted election litigation. It explains how Twombly and Iqbal’s “factual plausibility” standard usually does not help in an election case, because there is often little factual dispute regarding the operation of the election practice. Instead, the real question in a motion to dismiss is whether the plaintiff has stated a viable cause of action against the government defendant who is administering the election. But Twombly and Iqbal’s rule does not assist in answering this question. That is, Twombly and Iqbal are incongruent with …

Jurisdiction And The Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments, Tanya Monestier

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Civil Practice And Procedure, Andrew P. Sherrod, Jaime B. Wisegarver

University of Richmond Law Review

This article surveys recent significant developments in Virginia civil practice and procedure. The article discusses opinions of theSupreme Court of Virginia from June 2012 through June 2013 addressing civil procedure topics, significant amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia concerning procedural issues during the same period, and legislation enacted by the Virginia General Assembly during its 2013 session that relates to civil practice.

Nonsuit In Virginia Civil Trials, Richard G. Moore

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.