Civil Procedure Commons^™

Amicus Curiae Brief State Of Utah Et. Al. V Walsh Et. Al., Ethan Halman Gonzalez

Honors Program: Senior Projects (Public)

In accordance with Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, this amicus curiae is submitted in the defense of Walsh and the Department of Labor in releasing the prudence and loyalty in selecting plan investments and exercising shareholder rights rule in November of 2022. These brief mainly focuses on the arbitrary and capricious standard, the major questions doctrine, and the legal standing the Department of Labor has to issue rules that apply to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Brief Of Federal Courts Professor Derek T. Muller As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Christopher G. Michel, Rachel G. Frank, Isabel R. Peraza, Katherine Schroeder, Derek T. Muller

Court Briefs

No. 22-824
The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia v. Alexander Belya

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

From the Introduction and Summary of Argument

This case presents an exceptionally important question at the intersection of civil procedure and constitutional law. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction over appeals from “final decisions of the district courts.” That provision, which “descends from the Judiciary Act of 1789,” has long been understood to confer appellate jurisdiction over more than just …

Kekuatan Mengikat Akta Perdamaian (Acte Van Dading) Yang Dibuat Diluar Pengadilan Yang Isinya Berbeda Dengan Putusan Yang Sudah Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap (In Kracht Van Gewijsde), Dhimas Haris Anggara Mukti

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

This article discusses the legal force of peace deeds (acte van dading) made outside of court which contents are different from a legally binding decision (in kracht van gewijsde). The research used as writing material is research using philosophical approaches, normative juridical methods and literature review, which is carried out by examining library materials or secondary data. The results of the research conclude that a peace agreement is valid according to law if it meets the requirements set out in statutory regulations, either in the form of a private agreement or an authentic deed, which will have power for the …

Overview Of Missouri Appellate Briefing Rules And The Case Of Hicks V. Northland-Smithville, Steve Lockwood

SLU Law Journal Online

Starting with the Missouri Supreme Court's 2022 opinion in Lexow v. Boeing Co., appellate courts have put renewed emphasis on the requirements of Rule 84.04. The recent opinion by the Western District Court of Appeals, Hicks v. Northland-Smithville, and several predecessor opinions to Hicks, are a lesson and reminder to practitioners to strictly adhere to the Missouri Rules of Appellate Procedure, specifically Rule 84.04. In this article, Steve Lockwood will discuss Hicks and the implications of the opinion.

The Failure Of Judicial Recusal And Disclosure Rules: Evidence From A Field Experiment, Dane Thorley

Northwestern University Law Review

U.S. courts rely predominately on judicial self-recusal and in-court disclosure to address judicial conflicts of interest and maintain a critical perception of impartiality. But these approaches fail to account for the legal, institutional, and social dynamics that surround the relationship between judges, attorneys, and the adjudicative process. In reality, judges rarely use their discretion to disclose conflicts or recuse themselves, and attorneys do not ask them to do so. If we understand both the legal and extralegal incentives at play in these decisions, none of these outcomes should be surprising. The shortcomings of recusal and disclosure rules are particularly salient …

The Eleventh Amendment And Nondiverse Suits Against States, Collin Hong

University of Cincinnati Law Review

Since Hans v. Louisiana (1890), the Supreme Court has maintained that the Eleventh Amendment protects states from suits by plaintiffs who are citizens of other states and by citizens of that state, despite the text of the Eleventh Amendment specifying that only suits from citizens of other states are barred. Scholars have noted that what therefore protects the states from suits against their own citizens is not the Eleventh Amendment, but rather a common-law immunity that existed between nations at the founding. That immunity applied both to states and to foreign nations. This article argues that just as Congress has …

Home Court Advantage? An Empirical Analysis Of Local Bias In U.S. District Court Diversity Jurisdiction Cases, Kyle C. Kopko, Christopher J. Devine

West Virginia Law Review

In granting diversity of citizenship jurisdiction to the federal courts, there is an underlying assumption that federal courts will be less biased toward out-of-state litigants as compared with state courts. While this may be true, the assumption fails to consider an important empirical question: to what extent do federal courts favor home state litigants or disfavor out-of-state litigants when deciding diversity jurisdiction cases? Relying on the Integrated Database (IDB) compiled by the Federal Judicial Center and the Administrative Offices of the U.S. Courts, we present an original, empirical analysis of diversity jurisdiction case outcomes in the U.S. districts courts from …

Prioritizing Patients Or Impropriety?: Why The 8th Circuit’S Cairns Decision Sets A Dangerous Precedent Jeopardizing Patient Protection And Government Investment In Federal Programs, Nicole Beachboard

SLU Law Journal Online

In July 2022, the 8th Circuit established a stricter causation standard for plaintiffs alleging a False Claims Act claim through a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute in United States ex rel. Cairns v. D.S. Medical LLC. The requirement that a plaintiff demonstrate but-for causation stands in stark contrast to the 3rd Circuit’s “at least one claim standard.” In this article, Nicole Beachboard addresses how the 8th Circuit’s decision enforces an onerous burden on the plaintiff, undermines statutory authority, and facilitates defendant misconduct.

Why Standing Matters, Jeffrey G. Casurella

Mercer Law Review

On December 12, 2020, Donald Trump tweeted:

The Supreme Court had ZERO interest in the merits of the greatest voter fraud ever perpetrated on the United States of America. All they were interested in is “standing[,]” which makes it very difficult for the President to present a case on the merits. 75,000,000 votes

President Trump’s outburst du jour came on the heels of a Supreme Court of the United States case filed in the wake of the 2020 presidential election. That case was brought by the State of Texas against four defendants—the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the States of Georgia, …

Shielded Book Launch, Cardozo Center For Rights And Justice

2023 Event Invitations

Professor Alexander Reinert, Director of the Center for Rights and Justice, will moderate a discussion on Shielded: How the Police Became Untouchable. He will be joined by the author, Joanna Schwartz, Professor of Law at the University of California, Los Angeles. Schwartz is one of the country's leading scholars on policing.

In Shielded, Schwartz explores how the legal system protects the police from being held accountable, with insightful analyses about subjects ranging from qualified immunity to no-knock warrants. By weaving true stories of people seeking restitution for violated rights, cutting across race, gender, criminal history, tax bracket, and …

Civil Procedure—Dukes Commonality Standard—Factors That Courts Should Weigh In Employment Discrimination Class Actions—Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. V. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), Anuj Teotia

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Theseus In The Labyrinth: How State Constitutions Can Slay The Procedural Minotaur, Marcus A. Gadson

Washington Law Review

Civil procedure is one of the biggest hurdles to access to justice. An array of rules and interpretations of those rules have turned lawsuits into meandering mazes with a procedural minotaur waiting to gobble up meritorious claims. The problem is especially acute for the many Americans without abundant resources or access to a lawyer. Fortunately, there is a ready remedy, albeit one access to justice advocates have ignored: state constitutions. Forty state constitutions, which protect hundreds of millions of Americans, generally guarantee “[t]hat all courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his person, property …

Asymmetric Review Of Qualified Immunity Appeals, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

This article presents results from the most comprehensive study to date of the resolution of qualified immunity in the federal courts of appeals and the US Supreme Court. By analyzing more than 4000 appellate decisions issued between 2004 and 2015, this study provides novel insights into how courts of appeals resolve arguments for qualified immunity. Moreover, by conducting an unprecedented analysis of certiorari practice, this study reveals how the US Supreme Court has exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in the area of qualified immunity. The data presented here have significant implications for civil rights enforcement and the uniformity of federal law. …

“Hey, Google, What Are The Elements Of Homicide By Vehicle In The First Degree?”: The Supreme Court Of Georgia Reinforces The Prohibition On Extrajudicial Information Considered By A Jury In Criminal Trials, Savannah Hall

Mercer Law Review

In a criminal trial, the presentation of evidence and the instruction of law to the jury are of crucial importance to ensure that a person is only convicted based upon sound understandings of the factual and legal framework under which they were charged. The complexities surrounding the rules of evidence are in place so that jurors are only allowed to consider the facts and testimony permissible under the rules of evidence, meaning it is of utmost importance for the jury to consider solely those things which a judge deems admissible, relevant, and helpful to understanding the case. However, given the …

Preventing A (Replication) Crisis In The Courtroom, Kaitlin Mccormick-Huhn

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Individual Home-Work Assignments For State Taxes, Hayes R. Holderness

Washington Law Review

The surge in work-from-home arrangements brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic threatens serious disruptions to state tax systems. Billions of dollars are at stake at this pivotal moment as states grapple with where to assign income earned through these remote work arrangements for tax purposes: the worker’s home or the employer’s location? Some states—intent on modernizing their income tax laws—have assigned such income to the employer’s location, but have faced persistent challenges on both constitutional and policy grounds in response.

This Article provides a vigorous defense against such challenges. The Supreme Court has long interpreted the Constitution to be deferential …

“Fundamental Fairness”: Finding A Civil Right To Counsel In International Human Rights Law, Meredith Elliott Hollman

University of Richmond Law Review

Every other Western democracy now recognizes a right to counsel in at least some kinds of civil cases, typically those involving basic human rights. The World Justice Project’s 2021 Rule of Law Index ranked the United States 126th of 139 countries for “People Can Access and Afford Civil Justice.” Within its regional and income categories, the United States was dead last. The United Nations and other international treaty bodies have urged the United States to improve access to justice by providing civil legal aid. How did we fall behind, and what can we learn from the rest of the world? …

Rationalizing Relatedness: Understanding Personal Jurisdiction's Relatedness Prong In The Wake Of Bristol-Myers Squibb And Ford Motor Co., Anthony Petrosino

Fordham Law Review

Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court marked a watershed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s personal jurisdiction jurisprudence. There, the Court came to a reasonable conclusion: Ford, a multinational conglomerate carrying on extensive business throughout the United States, was subject to personal jurisdiction in states where it maintained substantial contacts that were related to the injuries that prompted the suits. This was so, even though the business it conducted in those states was not the direct cause of the suit. While justifying that conclusion, however, the Court drastically altered the personal jurisdiction inquiry’s relatedness prong, which concerns whether …

A Renewed Analysis Of The Expedited Actions Rules In Texas Courts, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Lindsey Wylie, Miriam Hamilton, Brittany K. T. Kauffman, Logan Cornett, James Swearingen, Michael Houlberg, Jeffrey Tsunekawa, Michael Smith, Sheri Woodfin,

Faculty Publications

In October 2021, the Texas Office of Court Administration (OCA) and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) returned to the question of whether the Expedited Action Rules (EARs) adopted in 2012 in Texas were continuing to have a positive impact on civil case processing. With new funding from the State Justice Institute (SJI), the NCSC, OCA, and the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver, set out to replicate a 2016 study. Using the same research methods, the project team gathered data from the district and county courts in Dallas, Fort Bend, …

Brief Of Professor Derek T. Muller As Amicus Curiae In Support Of No Party, Ryan G. Koopmans, Derek T. Muller

Court Briefs

No. 22-2036
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Kim Reynolds

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County Celene Gogerty, District Judge
No. EQCE083074

From the Summary of Argument

Important questions about Iowa constitutional law and abortion are at issue in this appeal. But there is an important, separate question that is predicate to these issues; a question that has the potential for far-reaching impact in civil litigation, of any type, throughout the State of Iowa: When do Iowa courts have the power to modify injunctions based on changes in law?