Civil Procedure Commons^™

Lewis V. Clarke, Summer L. Carmack

Public Land & Resources Law Review

One manner in which Indian tribes exercise their inherent sovereignty is by asserting sovereign immunity. In Lewis v. Clarke, the Court decided that the sovereign immunity extended to instrumentalities of tribes did not further extend to tribal employees acting within the scope of their employment. The Court acknowledged the concerns of the lower court, namely, the possibility of setting a precedent allowing future plaintiffs to sidestep a tribe’s sovereign immunity by suing a tribal employee in his individual capacity. However, the Supreme Court ultimately felt that the immunity of tribal employees should not exceed the immunity extended to state …

Discovering Forensic Fraud, Jennifer D. Oliva, Valena E. Beety

Northwestern University Law Review

This Essay posits that certain structural dynamics, which dominate criminal proceedings, significantly contribute to the admissibility of faulty forensic science in criminal trials. The authors believe that these dynamics are more insidious than questionable individual prosecutorial or judicial behavior in this context. Not only are judges likely to be former prosecutors, prosecutors are “repeat players” in criminal litigation and, as such, routinely support reduced pretrial protections for defendants. Therefore, we argue that the significant discrepancies between the civil and criminal pretrial discovery and disclosure rules warrant additional scrutiny.

In the criminal system, the near absence of any pretrial discovery means …

What Do I Have To Do To Get Paid Around Here?: Rule 26(B)(4)(E)(I) And The Qualms Regarding Expert Deposition Preparation Time, Brett Lawrence

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Can Nfl Players Obtain Judicial Review Of Arbitration Decisions On The Merits When A Typical Hourly Union Worker Cannot Obtain This Unusual Court Access?, Michael Z. Green, Kyle T. Carney

Faculty Scholarship

Several recent court cases, brought on behalf of National Football League (NFL) players by their union, the NFL Players Association (NFLPA), have increased media and public attention to the challenges of labor arbitrator decisions in federal courts. The Supreme Court has established a body of federal common law that places a high premium on deferring to labor arbitrator decisions and counseling against judges deciding the merits of disputes covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). A recent trend suggests federal judges have ignored this body of law and analyzed the merits of labor arbitration decisions in the NFL setting.

NFL …

Milky Whey, Inc. V. Dairy Partners, Llc: Transacting Business Under Montana’S Long-Arm Statute To The Full Constitutional Limit, Victoria Dettman

Montana Law Review

Milky Whey, Inc. v. Dairy Partners, LLC: Transacting Business Under Montana’s Long-Arm Statute to the Full Constitutional Limit

Civil Procedure: Certifying An Opt-In Class Under Rule 23, Scott Dodson

The Judges' Book

No abstract provided.

Civil Procedure: How To Apply Diversity Jurisdiction In A Multiparty Case, Scott Dodson

The Judges' Book

No abstract provided.

Civil Procedure: Class Action Fee And Cost Awards, Morris Ratner

The Judges' Book

No abstract provided.

City Of Sparks Vs. Reno Newspapers, Inc., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (August 3, 2017), Brittni Griffith

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court reviewed an appeal to determine whether an appellant: (1) “properly sought the disclosure of public records by a writ of mandamus,” and (2) whether medical marijuana establishments (“MMEs”) business license identifying information must be disclosed pursuant to the Nevada Public Records Act. The Court held that NRS 239.011 provides the specific means by which to challenge the disclosure of public records, and thus Respondent properly filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. Additionally, pursuant to NRS 453A.370(5), the Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Public and Behavior Health (“Division”) has the proper authority to adopt …

Of Carrots And Sticks: General Jurisdiction And Genuine Consent, Craig Sanders

Northwestern University Law Review

The United States Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman changed how the courts will determine whether companies should be subject to general personal jurisdiction. In 1945, Pennoyer v. Neff’s geographical fixation gave way to International Shoe Co. v. Washington, which provided a test for courts to determine whether corporations had sufficient contact with a forum to meet the bar for personal jurisdiction there. Specific jurisdiction requires “minimum contacts,” provided the action is satisfactorily related to the forum. However, to be subject to general jurisdiction, a corporation must possess more than just “minimum contacts,” and claimants …

Upside-Down Juries, Josh Bowers

Northwestern University Law Review

The practical disappearance of the jury trial ranks among the most widely examined topics in American criminal justice. But, by focusing on trial scarcity, scholars have managed to tell only part of the story. The unexplored first-order question is whether juries even do their work well. And the answer to that question turns on the kinds of work jury members are typically required to do. Once upon a time, trials turned upon practical reasoning and general moral blameworthiness. Modern trials have come to focus upon legal reasoning and technical guilt accuracy. In turn, the jury has evolved from a flexible …

Wynn Resorts, Ltd. V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (July 27, 2017), Elise Conlin

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that the business judgment rule defense alone does not mandate waiver of attorney-client privilege related to discovery documents. The Court also adopted the “because of” test with a “totality of the circumstances” standard to determine when a document falls under the work-product privilege.

19th Annual Open Government Summit: Access To Public Records Act & Open Meetings Act, 2017, Department Of Attorney General, State Of Rhode Island

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Hefetz V. Beavor, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 46 (July 6, 2017), Julia Barker

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that parties must timely assert the one-action rule as an affirmative defense in their response pleadings. If not, it is waived. As such, the District Court erred when it granted Respondent Beavor’s motion to dismiss pursuant to the one-action rule because he failed to raise that defense in a timely manner.

The End Of Low-Value Consumer Class Action Lawsuits?: The Federal Circuit Split On The Ascertainability Requirement For Class Certification, Kyle Harris Timmons

Mercer Law Review

This Comment seeks to address the growing circuit split on the ascertainability requirement of class action lawsuits. The split centers around what Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure' explicitly states are the requirements for class certification and what some courts have read into Rule 23. Under the high standard, creating a plan or proposing a method with which to identify purported class members is not enough to satisfy the ascertainability requirement. Instead, a class must show that evidentiary means exist and are readily obtainable to support the proposed method of identifying the case. Conversely, under the low …

Class Actions, Thomas M. Byrne, Stacey Mcgavin Mohr

Mercer Law Review

The past year saw a mix of results in class-action litigation in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. with both plaintiffs and defendants notching victories in class certification controversies. Of significance to class-action practice was the court's first foray into applying the challenging new Article III standing decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. The court also continued to address arbitration issues arising in putative class actions, while the prospects for curbing the availability of arbitration as an alternative to class litigation appeared to fade with the changing political …

Trial Practice And Procedure, John O'Shea Sullivan, Ashby K. Fox, Tala Amirfazli

Mercer Law Review

The 2016 survey period yielded noteworthy decisions relating to federal trial practice and procedure in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit,I several of which involved issues of first impression. This Article analyzes recent developments in the Eleventh Circuit, including significant rulings in the areas of statutory interpretation and class actions.

#Worstplaintiffever: Popular Public Shaming And Pseudonymous Plaintiffs, Jayne S. Ressler

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Delucchi V. Songer, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (June 29, 2017), Krystina Butchart

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

"Where The Cause Of Action Accrued": How Florida's Venue Statute Violates The Policy It Designed To Protect, Kristin Nelson Royal

Florida Law Review

Venue is the “proper or a possible place for a lawsuit to proceed,” and its purpose is to ensure all possible fairness and convenience for parties to litigation, especially the defendant. Florida Statute § 47.011 provides three places where venue may be proper: the county where the defendant resides, the county where the cause of action accrued, and the county where the property in litigation is located. Although determining where a defendant lives or where property is located is fairly simple, determining where a cause of action accrued can prove more difficult. In an action for tort, courts have indicated …