Civil Procedure Commons^™

The Paradox Of Exclusive State-Court Jurisdiction Over Federal Claims, Thomas B. Bennett

Faculty Publications

Standing doctrine is supposed to ensure the separation of powers and an adversary process of adjudication. But recently, it has begun serving a new and unintended purpose: transferring federal claims from federal to state court. Paradoxically, current standing doctrine assigns a growing class of federal claims - despite Congressional intent to the contrary - to the exclusive jurisdiction of state courts. Even then, only in some states, and only to the extent authorized by state law.

This paradox arises at the intersection of three distinct areas of doctrine:

(1) a newly sharpened requirement of concrete injury under Article III that …

New Kid On The Block: An Introduction To The Hague Rules On Business And Human Rights Arbitration, Bhavya Mahajan

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

In the medieval European states, Lex Mercatoria, literally "Merchant Law," was a prevalent custom, which developed out of the norms and needs of the market and influenced the transborder trade practices among merchants. For redressal of trade-related disputes, arbitration was the popular method and the merchants elected their own judges in the courts of arbitration that they established. These courts developed a reputation for swift resolution of disputes using high moral standards. Non-compliance with practiced norms, or with the arbitral decisions of the courts, would solidify pariah status for the defaulting merchant in the trading community. Gradually, with the …

Brain-Computer-Interfacing & Respondeat Superior: Algorithmic Decisions, Manipulation, And Accountability In Armed Conflict, Salahudin Ali

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

This article examines the impact that brain-computer-interfacing platforms will have on the international law of armed conflict’s respondeat superior legal regime. Major Ali argues that the connection between the human brain and this nascent technology’s underlying technology of artificial intelligence and machine learning will serve as a disruptor to the traditional mental prerequisites required to impart culpability and liability on commanders for actions of their troops. Anticipating that BCI will become increasingly ubiquitous, Major Ali’s article offers frameworks for solution to BCI’s disruptive potential to the internal law of armed conflict.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents.

28 Usc § 1782 In Aid Of Foreign Arbitration: "A Tribunal By Any Other Name", Attilio M. Costabel

St. Thomas Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Trial Preparation Procedures—Civil, Will Rhee, L. Richard Walker

Law Faculty Scholarship

In an effort to provide scholarship immediately useful to the litigator, this Article proposes a detailed systems workflow to plan and coordinate preparing for federal civil trials called the Trial Preparation Procedures—Civil or "TrialPrepPro—Civil" for short. Although there is an abundance of anecdotal "learning from doing" trial preparation guidance, empirically testable "learning about doing" trial preparation guidance is rare. We present our TrialPrepPro to learn more about doing.

The TrialPrepPro is modeled after the battle-proven U.S. Army Troop Leading Procedures used, with modifications, by all U.S. military services, our NATO allies, and many other foreign militaries. Although there is ample …

Judges And The Deregulation Of The Lawyer's Monopoly, Jessica Steinberg, Anna Carpenter, Colleen Shanahan, Alyx Mark

Faculty Articles

In a revolutionary moment for the legal profession, the deregulation of legal services is taking hold in many parts of the country. Utah and Arizona, for instance, are experimenting with new regulations that permit nonlawyer advocates to play an active role in assisting citizens who may not otherwise have access to legal services. In addition, amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct in both states, as well as those being contemplated in California, now allow nonlawyers to have a partnership stake in law firms, which may dramatically change the way capital for the delivery of legal services is raised as …

An Appellate Solution To Nationwide Injunctions, Sam Heavenrich

Indiana Law Journal

District courts have issued an unprecedented number of nationwide injunctions during the Obama and Trump administrations, provoking criticism from the Supreme Court. This Article proposes a change to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that addresses the Justices’ concerns without taking the drastic step of eliminating nationwide injunctions entirely. Specifically, this Article recommends amending Rule 65 to allow only the appellate courts to issue injunctive relief that extends beyond the plaintiffs in cases challenging a federal law or policy. In addition to the proposed Rule change, this Article offers a categorization framework for existing proposals addressing nationwide injunctions, classifying them …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents and Special Thanks.

The Easterbrook Theorem: An Application To Digital Markets, Joshua D. Wright, Murat C. Mungan

Faculty Scholarship

The rise of large firms in the digital economy, including Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google, has rekindled the debate about monopolization law. There are proposals to make finding liability easier against alleged digital monopolists by relaxing substantive standards; to flip burdens of proof; and to overturn broad swaths of existing Supreme Court precedent, and even to condemn a law review article. Frank Easterbrook’s seminal 1984 article, The Limits of Antitrust, theorizes that Type I error costs are greater than Type II error costs in the antitrust context, a proposition that has been woven deeply into antitrust law by the Supreme …

Appellate Courts And Civil Juries, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

In federal civil litigation, decision-making power is shared by juries, trial courts, and appellate courts. This Article examines an unresolved tension in the different doctrines that allocate authority among these institutions, one that has led to confusion surrounding the relationship between appellate courts and civil juries. At base, the current uncertainty stems from a longstanding lack of clarity regarding the distinction between matters of law and matters of fact. The high-stakes Oracle-Google litigation—which is now before the Supreme Court—exemplifies this. In that case, the Federal Circuit reasoned that an appellate court may assert de novo review over a jury’s verdict …

Are We There Yet? Discovery For The New Litigator, Erin Rhinehart, Leonard M. Niehoff

Articles

If the road is life, then discovery is litigation. It is how we reach our destination. Unfortunately, discovery is like getting there with someone in the backseat.

Anyone who has ever traveled with passengers, especially children, knows how it plays out. In the beginning, everybody is excited. Everyone gleefully piles into the car, eager to launch. No one has any trouble amusing themselves. A couple hours in, a bathroom break and gas station snack later, it hits. The adrenaline wears off and the tedium kicks in. And then you hear the dreaded cry coming from the rear: Are we there …

Recollections Refreshed And Recorded, Leonard M. Niehoff

Articles

Witnesses forget stuff. When they do, the evidence rules give us two tools to help solve the problem. Lawyers call one "refreshed recollection" and the other "past recollection recorded," labels just similar enough to guarantee confusion. Nevertheless, these principles get at very different things and are well worth the effort necessary to distinguish and understand them.

So how do we get there?

The Political Reality Of Diversity Jurisdiction, Richard D. Freer

Faculty Articles

Diversity jurisdiction survived concerted frontal assaults made from the mid- to late-twentieth century. It weathered criticism of academics and of some high-profile federal judges. Today, diversity jurisdiction represents a burgeoning percentage of the federal civil docket, and it is supported by an efficiency rationale that did not exist at the founding. Today, academics and judges seem relatively ambivalent toward, and some even accepting of, diversity jurisdiction. Today, we see efforts not to abolish diversity jurisdiction, but to rationalize the various threads of its doctrine.

These efforts should be informed by the lessons that should have been learned by those who …

Assertion And Hearsay, Richard Lloret

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This article explores the characteristics and functions of assertion and considers how the term influences the definition of hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801. Rule 801(a) defines hearsay by limiting it to words and conduct intended as an assertion, but the rule does not define the term assertion. Courts and legal scholars have focused relatively little attention on the nature and definition of assertion. That is unfortunate, because assertion is a robust concept that has been the subject of intense philosophic study over recent decades. Assertion is not a mere cypher standing in for whatever speech or conduct one …

The Elastics Of Snap Removal: An Empirical Case Study Of Textualism, Thomas O. Main, Jeffrey W. Stempel, David Mcclure

Scholarly Works

This article reports the findings of an empirical study of textualism as applied by federal judges interpreting the statute that permits removal of diversity cases from state to federal court. The “snap removal” provision in the statute is particularly interesting because its application forces judges into one of two interpretive camps—which are fairly extreme versions of textualism and purposivism, respectively. We studied characteristics of cases and judges to find predictors of textualist outcomes. In this article we offer a narrative discussion of key variables and we detail the results of our logistic regression analysis. The most salient predictive variable was …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

That's Not Fair Use: Why Rule 68 Copyright Defendants Canno Recover Post-Offer Attorney's Fees, Ryan Kaiser

American University Law Review

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 (Rule 68) is a cost-shifting rule that allows a non-prevailing defendant who made an offer of judgment more favorable than the final judgment to recover costs incurred from the point the offer was made. Until the mid-1980s, whether the rule could apply to the attorney’s fees was the source of much debate. In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court provided a partial answer when it decided Marek v. Chesny, holding that Rule 68 operates to preclude a civil rights plaintiff from recovering post-offer attorney’s fees. The Court stated that Rule 68 costs include all costs …

Polanco V. Lombardi, 231 A.3d 139 (R.I. 2020), Edward A. Gencarelli Jr.

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gallop V. Adult Correctional Institutions, 218 A.3d 543 (R.I. 2019), Thomas M. Wall

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.