Civil Procedure Commons^™

Cultural Identity And Territorial Autonomy: U.S. Virgin Islands Jurisprudence And The Insular Cases, Dolace Mclean

Fordham Law Review

This Essay utilizes the lens of postcolonial theory to analyze the development of U.S. Virgin Islands jurisprudence. This Essay asserts that the United States’s acquisition of the territory served the purpose of helping to construct an American narrative of moving from colony to colonial power that surpassed its European forebears. The colonial narrative is fractured by instances of the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands re-narrating territorial space by utilizing legal principles that are informed by local cultural expressions. Consequently, Virgin Islands jurisprudence is transformed from “colonial dependent” to “postcolonial independent” based on intersectional, progressive principles.

Differentiating Strict Products Liability’S Cost-Benefit Analysis From Negligence, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Dangerous products may give rise to colossal liability for commercial actors. Indeed, in 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Johnson & Johnson v. Ingham, permitting a more than two billion dollar products liability damages award to stand. In his dissenting opinion in another recent products liability case, Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries, Justice Gorsuch declared that “[t]ort law is supposed to be about aligning liability with responsibility.” However, in the products liability context, there have been ongoing debates concerning how best to set legal rules and standards on tort liability. Are general principles of …

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.

“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 …

“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 …

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.

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

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

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, …

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 …

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 …

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. …

Shielded Book Launch, Cardozo Center For Rights And Justice

Event Invitations 2023

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 …

“In These Times Of Compassion When Conformity’S In Fashion”: How Therapeutic Jurisprudence Can Root Out Bias, Limit Polarization, And Support Vulnerable Persons In The Legal Process, Michael L. Perlin

Texas A&M Law Review

This Article considers the extent to which caselaw has—either explicitly or implicitly—incorporated the precepts of therapeutic jurisprudence (“TJ”), a school of legal thought that focuses on the law’s influence on emotional life and psychological well-being, and that asks us to assess the actual impact of the law on people’s lives. Two of the core tenets of TJ in practice are commitments to dignity and to compassion. I conclude ultimately that with these principles as touchstones, TJ can be an effective tool—perhaps the most effective tool—in rooting out bias, limiting polarization, and supporting vulnerable persons in the legal process. But this …

An Imperfect Solution: The Due Process Case For Providing Court-Appointed Interpreters For Pro Se Plaintiffs, Abdullah Z. Khalil

Texas A&M Law Review

A federal law, the Court Interpreters Act, provides litigants with complimentary access to a qualified or professionally certified interpreter in actions instituted by the United States. The majority of pro se civil litigation in federal courts is initiated by the United States, and thus, those pro se litigants who speak little-to-no English need not pay for access to an exceptional interpreter. Indeed, federal courts offer interpreters proficient in a multitude of languages, and the courts work hard to ensure adequate interpretation in proceedings brought by the United States.

However, those limited-English-proficient pro se plaintiffs initiating their own lawsuits face a …

Mooting Unilateral Mootness, Scott T. Macguidwin

Michigan Law Review

Several situations cause a case to be moot. These include settlement agreements, party collusion, changes in litigant status, and extrinsic circumstances thwarting the court from granting any relief. The final reason is unilateral mootness—when a defendant ends a lawsuit against a plaintiff’s wishes by giving them everything for which they ask. In practice, this allows defendants to strategically stop lawsuits when it is clear they are not going to win. By doing so, they prevent the court from handing down adverse precedent and preserve the opportunity to engage in similar behavior with impunity. Courts have established a series of mootness …