Civil Procedure Commons^™

The Amended Attorney-Client Privilege In Oklahoma: A Misstep In The Right Direction, Robert A. Brown

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Please Plead Me: Ashcroft V. Iqbal And Implications For Oklahoma Pleading, Paula M. Williams

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Plausible Answers And Affirmative Defenses, Eric S. Janus, Thomas Tinkham

Faculty Scholarship

Our federal courts have introduced a degree of uncertainty in the law of pleading that ought to be resolved with a clear decision about the scope of Twombly and Iqbal. We write to set forth what we believe are the overwhelming arguments in support of the developing majority view: pleading standards should not distinguish between plaintiffs and defendants, or between pleadings asserting and pleadings defending against a claim. Proponents of the minority view make policy arguments grounded in the asserted realities of litigation, leveraging small textual differences between Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8(a) and 8(c). But the …

Two Views Of Class Action, Alexandra Lahav

Faculty Articles and Papers

No abstract provided.

Defining Civil Disputes: Lessons From Two Jurisdictions, Elizabeth Thornburg, Camille Cameron

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Court systems have adopted a variety of mechanisms to narrow the issues in dispute and expedite litigation. This article analyses the largely unsuccessful attempts in two jurisdictions - the United States and Australia - to achieve early and efficient issue identification in civil disputes. Procedures that rely on pleadings to provide focus have failed for centuries, from the common (English) origins of these two systems to their divergent modern paths. Case management practices that are developing in the United States and Australia offer greater promise in the continuing quest for early, efficient dispute definition. Based on a historical and contemporary …

The Price Of Access To The Civil Courts In Australia: Old Problems And New Solutions - A Commercial Litigation Funding Case Study, Camille Cameron

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

In the past decade litigation funding companies have assumed an increasingly prominent role in commercial litigation and class actions in Australia. The growth of commercial litigation funding is a predictable response to various features of Australia’s costs and fee allocation rules and practices, including the “loser pays” rule, the prohibition on lawyer’s charging contingency fees, the hourly billing practices of lawyers, and the open-ended and unpredictable nature of much civil litigation. This chapter explores the growth of commercial litigation funding in Australia and uses it as a window through which to view how Australia’s costs and fee allocation rules operate …

Defining Civil Disputes: Lessons From Two Jurisdictions, Camille Cameron, Elizabeth Thornburg

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Court systems have adopted a variety of mechanisms to narrow the issues in dispute and expedite litigation. This article analyses the largely unsuccessful attempts in two jurisdictions - the United States and Australia - to achieve early and efficient issue identification in civil disputes. Procedures that rely on pleadings to provide focus have failed for centuries, from the common (English) origins of these two systems to their divergent modern paths. Case management practices that are developing in the United States and Australia offer greater promise in the continuing quest for early, efficient dispute definition. Based on a historical and contemporary …

Erie’S Suppressed Premise, Michael S. Green

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Class Certification’S Preclusive Effects, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In September 2010, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the controversial Baycol litigation. The central question will be whether, subsequent to a denial of class certification, preclusion can prevent an absentee from seeking to certify another class action on a similar claim. This Essay answers that question in the affirmative, while warning that the preclusion is very limited in scope. It arrives at this answer by analogizing to the more established doctrine of jurisdiction to determine no jurisdiction: if a court’s finding of no jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person can preclude, then a finding of no authority …

The Procedure Of Election Law In Federal Courts, Joshua A. Douglas

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Election law scholars have paid scant attention to the different procedures by which courts decide election law cases. Further, there has been little exploration of the reasons why certain processes exist, and there is even less discussion of which procedures are best for election law cases. One commentator has advocated for state legislatures to define clearly certain procedural matters for election contests, including: “(1) who can be a contestant; (2) what standard of evidence to require; and (3) how to expedite contests.” But there are more fundamental and foundational questions: What goals are we trying to achieve in enacting special …

Due Process In Civil Commitments., Alexander Tsesis

Faculty Publications & Other Works

In one of its most controversial decisions to date, United States v Comstock, the Roberts Court upheld a federal civil commitment statute requiring only an intermediate burden of proof The statute provided for the postsentencing confinement of anyone proven by "clear and convincing evidence" to be mentally ill and dangerous. The law relied on a judicial standard established more than thirty years before. The majority in Comstock missed the opportunity to reassess the precedent in light of recent psychiatric studies indicating that the ambiguity of available diagnostic tools can lead to erroneous insanity assessments and mistake evaluations about patients' likelihood …

W(H)Ither The Jury? The Diminishing Role Of The Jury Trial In Our Legal System, Jennifer Walker Elrod

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process In Civil Commitments, Alexander Tsesis

Washington and Lee Law Review

In one of its most controversial decisions to date, United States v. Comstock, the Roberts Court upheld a federal civil commitment statute requiring only an intermediate burden of proof. The statute provided for the postsentencing confinement of anyone proven by "clear and convincing evidence" to be mentally ill and dangerous. The law relied on a judicial standard established more than thirty years before. The majority in Comstock missed the opportunity to reassess the precedent in light of recent psychiatric studies indicating that the ambiguity of available diagnostic tools can lead to erroneous insanity assessments and mistaken evaluations about patients’ likelihood …

Making Sense Of Twombly, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

In May 2007, the United States Supreme Court decided Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and sent shockwaves throughout the federal civil justice system. Reversing the Second Circuit, the Court held that an antitrust complaint that alleged mere parallel behavior among rival telecommunications companies, coupled with stray averments of agreement that amounted merely to legal conclusions, failed as a matter of law to state a claim for conspiracy in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act and had been properly dismissed by the trial court. The Court then proceeded to (1) redefine the concept of notice pleading by "retiring" …

An Expectation Of Empathy, Steve Leben

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

Jurisdiction By Cross-Reference, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

State and federal law often cross-reference each other to provide a rule of decision. The difficulties attendant to these cross-referenced schemes are brought to the fore most clearly when a federal court must determine whether such bodies of law create federal question jurisdiction. Indeed, the federal courts have issued scores of seemingly inconsistent opinions on these cross-referential cases. In this article, I offer an ordering principle for these apparently varied, cross-referential, jurisdictional cases. I argue that the federal courts only take federal question jurisdiction over cross-referenced claims when they, from a departmental perspective, maintain declaratory authority over the cross-referenced law. …

Availability Of Spousal Privileges For Same-Sex Couples, Lisa Yurwit Bergstrom, W. James Denvil

University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class

No abstract provided.

Revitalizing Motive And Opportunity Pleading After Tellabs, Marvin Lowenthal

Michigan Law Review

Congress passed the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA") to prevent frivolous lawsuits that had been draining resources from businesses. This legislation included provisions for heightening the pleading requirements for the scienter, or state of mind, requirement for securities law violations. Many circuit courts debated whether the motive and opportunity test for scienter, applied initially by the Second and Third Circuits, survived the passage of the PSLRA. This Note argues that while the motive and opportunity test has been discounted by numerous circuits, it not only remains viable for pleading scienter under the PSLRA, but it accomplishes the …

Rule 15(C) Mistake: The Supreme Court In Krupski Seeks To Resolve A Judicial Thicket, Robert A. Lusardi

Faculty Scholarship

While recognizing the importance of a statute of limitations, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 acts as a counterbalance to such statutes by allowing a plaintiff to freely amend a complaint to assert additional claims, or to name new or additional parties, and have those amendments relate back to a complaint filed within the statute of limitations even though that statute has run.

There have been interpretive problems, particularly with the language of Rule 15 (c)(1)(C)(ii). These problems arise when the "amendment changes the party or the naming of the party" after the statutory period and the conditions of Rule …

Rulemaking, Litigation Culture And Reform In Federal Courts, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

Culturally based litigation practices are central to the policies of federal courts. Unlike the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, cultural based practices are neither uniform nor explicitly defined among the federal courts. These practices are specifically tailored to ensure judicial efficiency, and in turn, they heavily influence practice and procedure in federal courts. This Article examines the significance of cultural litigation practices and their influence on amending or establishing new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The author proposes that rulemaking must compliment cultural practices in order to be successful and concludes that when conflict exists between these practices and rulemaking, …