Civil Procedure Commons^™

Long V. Long: Law Court Ruling Changes The Disposition Of Joint Real Property On Divorce, Marc J. Veilleux

Maine Law Review

In Long v. Long the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, affirmed a district court divorce decree dividing the parties' residence of thirteen years as marital property, even though the majority of the funds used for its purchase were traceable to non-marital property the husband had acquired prior to the marriage. The governing statute instructed the district court to make an “equitable” disposition of all property acquired by the spouses during marriage, but required that it first “set apart to each spouse the spouse's [separate] property,” including property acquired during marriage by a spouse “in exchange for …

Nonmajority Opinions And Biconditional Rules, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

In Hughes v. United States, the Supreme Court will revisit a thorny question: how to determine the precedential effect of decisions with no majority opinion. For four decades, the clearest instruction from the Court has been the rule from Marks v. United States: the Court's holding is "the position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds." The Marks rule raises particular concerns, however, when it is applied to biconditional rules. Biconditionals are distinctive in that they set a standard that dictates both success and failure for a given issue. More formulaically, they combine an …

Georgia's Unconstitutional Business Venue Provision: A Kingdom With Impermissible Borders, Lucas Bradley

Mercer Law Review

A sub-clause of Georgia's business venue statute, as construed in October 2016, violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. That statute, section 14-2-510(b) of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.), provides four venues (counties) in which a company can be sued for an act or omission, depending on the kind of act or omission at issue. The first three venue options apply equally to in-state and out-of-state companies. The fourth venue option does not. This fourth option grants in-state companies an unwarranted advantage compared to out-of-state companies and as a result, runs afoul of the Constitution's Dormant …

States Suing The Federal Government: Protecting Liberty Or Playing Politics?, Elbert Lin

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

A “Procedural Nightmare”: Dueling Courts And The Application Of The First-Filed Rule, Andrew Fuller

Florida Law Review

Pretend that Party A sues Party B in Court 1. Instead of countersuing, however, B then sues A in Court 2. The problem this Note examines is whether Court 1 may enjoin B from continuing to litigate in Court 2 if Court 2 has already declined to stay the case or transfer it to Court 1. This question has sharply divided the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. How the issue is resolved will have serious consequences for high-stakes litigation in the United States. If one district court may overrule a court of coordinate rank, strategically sophisticated parties might file suits …

Fraudulent Aggregation: The Effect Of Daimler And Walden On Mass Litigation, Jeff Lingwall, Chris Wray

Florida Law Review

This Article examines the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisdictional tightening in Daimler and Walden on mass litigation. This Article shows how the Supreme Court’s changes to general and specific jurisdiction, considered together, end the practice of tactically allocating non-diverse plaintiffs across state lines to defeat diversity jurisdiction in nationwide litigation, a doctrine this Article terms fraudulent aggregation. This Article places the doctrine of fraudulent aggregation in the context of fraudulent joinder, the emerging doctrine of fraudulent misjoinder, and other attempts to avoid federal court jurisdiction through artful pleading. Examples from recent products liability litigation show both the application …

Byte Marks: Making Sense Of New F.R.C.P. 37(E), Charles Yablon

Florida Law Review

New FRCP 37(e) limits severe, case ending sanctions for lost electronically stored information (ESI) to situations where a party acted with “intent to deprive” other parties of the use of that information. But it makes no change in existing preservation duties and never explains how “intent” is to be determined for the corporation and other entities likely to be parties in such litigation. The question is—does this Rule make any sense? This Essay seeks to make sense of Rule 37(e) in terms of its language, the stated goals of its drafters, and its role in the regulation of current litigation …

To Understand Us V. Microsoft, Consider 'Acme V. Shamrock', Peter B. Rutledge, Amanda W. Newton

Popular Media

The February 27, 2018, Supreme Court argument in United States v. Microsoft Corp. raises profound questions about issues of executive power, corporate governance, technology, judicial power and international affairs. At stake for the government is the scope of its investigative authority to obtain information located in a foreign country, irrespective of that country’s laws. At stake for Microsoft is its ability to organize its international corporate affairs and the predictability of the laws that will govern those affairs. This article analyzes the potential effects of this critical Supreme Court case.

Who Determines What Is Egregious? Judge Or Jury: Enhanced Damages After Halo V. Pulse, Brandon M. Reed

Georgia State University Law Review

Enhanced damages in patent law are a type of punitive damage that can be awarded in the case of “egregious misconduct” during the course of patent infringement. Authorization for enhanced damages comes from 35 U.S.C. § 284, which allows the district court to increase total damages up to three times the amount of actual damages found by the jury. It is well understood that, since enhanced damages are punitive in nature, enhancement should only be considered for cases of “wanton” or “deliberate” infringement. However, determining what constitutes this “egregious” misconduct has vastly transformed over time to include a negligence standard, …

Motion To Dismiss For Failure To Succeed On The Merits: The Eeoc And Rule 12(B)(6), Perry F. Austin

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Quinn V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 5 (Feb. 8, 2018) (En Banc), Shaneka J. Malloyd

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) a writ of mandamus/prohibition is appropriate when a party does not have an adequate relief in the ordinary course of the law and it is necessary to prevent improper disclosure of privileged and confidential information; (2) a Nevada district court has no authority to compel an out-of-state non-party to appear in Nevada for a deposition; and (3) specifically, a Nevada district court does not have subpoena power over a non-resident attorney that has practiced law in Nevada.

Expert Testimony And Professional Licensing Boards: What Is Good, What Is Necessary, And The Myth Of The Majority-Minority Split, Timothy P. Mccormack

Maine Law Review

Defendants regularly argue that a Review Board's decision must be overturned because it is not supported by expert testimony. Boards counter that they are qualified, by virtue of their role as the guardians of the standards for their profession, to determine the appropriateness of a defendant's conduct without the assistance of expert testimony. When courts address these arguments, they routinely ask if expert testimony is necessary to establish the standard of care in disciplinary hearings before a professional licensing board. Courts answer this question differently. In fact there is a seeming schism among the states about the importance of expert …

Personal Jurisdiction And The Web, Joseph S. Burns, Richard A. Bales

Maine Law Review

Courts have struggled in determining precisely when a defendant should be subject to suit in a particular forum based on his or her Web activity. Although most jurisdictions have applied some form of the “minimum contacts” test, the test has been applied inconsistently. A new standard is needed to resolve personal jurisdiction disputes arising out of Web activity. This Article examines the ways in which modern courts have attempted to resolve personal jurisdiction issues based on Web activity, as well as the inconsistencies that have resulted from the inherent difficulty in conceptualizing the Web.

How The Law Court Uses Duty To Limit The Scope Of Negligence Liability, Paul F. Macri

Maine Law Review

The element of duty is the least understood and most amorphous element of negligence. One reason that duty is not well understood is that duty analysis combines consideration of fact-specific issues of foreseeability of harm, relationship between the parties, and seriousness of injury with analysis of the public policy implications of finding a duty in the specific case, including the burden that will be placed on defendants by imposing a duty. This is a delicate balancing act for most courts. Over the last eleven years, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, has employed duty analysis in …

Castillo V. United Fed. Credit Union, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 3 (Feb. 1, 2018), Jocelyn Murphy

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) in a class action suit parties may not aggregate putative class member claims to reach the statutorily required jurisdictional amount for subject matter jurisdiction; (2) NRS § 104.9625(3)(b) permits an individual to combine the amount of sought statutory damages with the proposed deficiency amount in consumer transactions to obtain the jurisdictional amount for subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) district courts possess original jurisdiction over all claims for injunctive relief, even those that fail to meet the jurisdictional amount.

Mdl V. Trump: The Puzzle Of Public Law In Multidistrict Litigation, Andrew D. Bradt, Zachary D. Clopton

Northwestern University Law Review

Litigation against the Trump Administration has proliferated rapidly since the inauguration. As cases challenging executive actions, such as the “travel ban,” multiply in federal courts around the country, an important procedural question has so far not been considered—Should these sets of cases be consolidated in a single court under the Multidistrict Litigation Act? Multidistrict litigation, or MDL, has become one of the most prominent parts of federal litigation and offers substantial benefits by coordinating litigation pending in geographically dispersed federal courts. Arguably, those benefits would also accrue if “public law” cases were given MDL treatment. There also are some underappreciated …

California V. United States Bureau Of Land Management, Molly M. Kelly

Public Land & Resources Law Review

After President Trump’s Executive Order No. 13783 encouraging relaxing regulatory burdens on energy production, the Bureau of Land Management reevaluated its 2016 “Waste Prevention Rule” which addressed waste of natural gas from venting, flaring, or other leaks resulting from oil and natural gas production activities. The BLM sought to postpone the Rule’s compliance date to give the agency time to promulgate a new rule—effectively overruling the 2016 Rule. Plaintiffs challenged the agency’s compliance under the Administrative Procedures Act, and the court found the BLM did not properly follow APA requirements.

Rwu First Amendment Blog: Diana Hassel's Blog: How Will Supreme Court Slice Wedding Cake Case 01-11-2018, Diana Hassel

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Discouraging Frivolous Copyright Infringement Claims: Fee Shifting Under Rule 11 Or 28 U.S.C. § 1927 As An Alternative To Awarding Attorney’S Fees Under Section 505 Of The Copyright Act, David E. Shipley

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

The United States Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons resolved a disagreement over when it is appropriate to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant under section 505 of the Copyright Act, and ended a perceived venue advantage for losing plaintiffs in some jurisdictions. The Court ruled unanimously that courts are correct to give substantial weight to the question of whether the losing side had a reasonable case to fight, but that the objective reasonableness of that side’s position does not give rise to a presumption against fee shifting. It made clear that other factors …

Disbelief Doctrines, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Employment discrimination law is riddled with doctrines that tell courts to believe employers and not workers. Judges often use these disbelief doctrines to dismiss cases at the summary judgment stage. At times, judges even use them after a jury trial to justify nullifying jury verdicts in favor of workers.

This article brings together many disparate discrimination doctrines and shows how they function as disbelief doctrines, causing courts to believe employers and not workers. The strongest disbelief doctrines include the stray comments doctrine, the same decisionmaker inference, and the same protected class inference. However, these are not the only ones. Even …