Civil Procedure Commons^™

Remote Access Restrictions To Immigration-Related Court Records, Doris H. Zhang

Fordham Law Review

Journalists today often report on newsworthy federal court cases by remotely accessing the court records online. However, thanks to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c), remote access is not available by default in immigration-related cases. To obtain any court records in immigration cases, journalists must go to the courthouse, hire someone to go on their behalf, or ask the court to exercise its discretion to lift the Rule 5.2(c) remote access restrictions. These alternatives are burdensome, hindering the ability of the press and the public to keep track of immigration cases in federal courts. Despite the burdens on the press …

Forum Selling As A Threat To The Rule Of Law, Brian Iverson

FIU Law Review

Forum shopping has long been a feature of federal litigation, but recent years have brought a more troubling dynamic in which federal courts compete for cases by “forum selling.” Judges engage in forum selling by adopting plaintiff-friendly procedures, reliably issuing plaintiff-leaning decisions, and publicly soliciting certain types of cases. These practices transform localized procedural discretion into a structural risk for the federal judicial system.

This Article makes two novel contributions to the federal forum-selling literature. First, it expands the discussion beyond bankruptcy and patent practice to examine ideological influences. Drawing on empirical scholarship and illustrative judicial profiles, the Article identifies …

Data Breaches, Causation, And Constitutional Standing, Anthony Palermo

FIU Law Review

This Article examines the causation requirement of Article III standing in modern data breach litigation. It argues that federal courts have systematically diluted constitutional limits on judicial power by presuming traceability where none exists. While data breaches are ubiquitous and alarming, the Article contends that the mere occurrence of a breach—and even an injury—should not itself establish a justiciable case or controversy. Drawing on foundational separation-of-powers principles, the Article situates the standing doctrine as an essential mechanism of judicial self- restraint—one that prevents courts from reflexively adjudicating societal fears untethered from any fair attribution to the defendant before the court. …

Hryniak’S Erosion: Summary Judgment In Ontario, Suzanne Chiodo, Gerard J. Kennedy, Alyssa S. King

All Papers

No abstract provided.

Civil Procedure: The Complexities Of Consent To Personal Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson

The Judges' Book

In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., the Supreme Court decided a personal-jurisdiction case outside the minimum contacts framework for the first time since 1990. Five justices deemed consent to be a method of establishing personal jurisdiction without regard to International Shoe. And, relying on pre-Shoe precedent, the Court held the defendant to have consented to general personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania by complying with that state’s unique business-registration statute, which permitted its courts to “exercise general personal jurisdiction” over a registered corporation.

Mallory could be read as treating consent to personal jurisdiction as a simple, monolithic concept. …

Civil Procedure: Personal Jurisdiction And Federalism, Scott Dodson

The Judges' Book

The historical development of personal jurisdiction has featured an important interstate-federalism aim: to keep harmony among sovereign states. By purporting to use state borders to partition case allocation among states, personal jurisdiction follows the mantra that good fences make good neighbors.

This structural component fits uncomfortably with the idea of personal jurisdiction as an agent of the individual right protected by the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. Due process, after all, concerns a state’s relationship to a defendant, not the state’s relationship to another state.

In this chapter, I argue that whatever interstate-federalism value personal jurisdiction might, in theory, protect, the …

Civil Procedure: Personal Jurisdiction And The Fifth Amendment, Scott Dodson

The Judges' Book

Since Pennoyer v. Neff, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause has constrained the exercise of personal jurisdiction by state courts. The Fourteenth Amendment permits state courts to exercise personal jurisdiction in four circumstances: (1) consent, (2) in-state service on an individual, (3) residency or citizenship in the state, and (4) minimum contacts with the state such that personal jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Confining state-court personal jurisdiction to connections between the litigant and the forum state serves not only litigant interests of fairness and reasonableness but also federal interests of interstate harmony.

In …

Ideology And Judicial Behavior: How United States Supreme Court Justices’ Beliefs Influence Landmark Decisions, Marina Nichols

Williams Honors College, Honors Research Projects

The United States Supreme Court plays a central role in shaping constitutional meaning and national policy through its landmark decisions. While justices are expected to decide cases based on legal reasoning and precedent, extensive scholarship suggests that ideological beliefs influence judicial behavior. This honors project examines how United States Supreme Court justices’ ideological beliefs influence landmark constitutional decisions through a critical review of existing scholarship. This project synthesizes political science and legal research on judicial ideology to assess how ideological orientations shape decision making across the Warren, Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts Courts. By integrating qualitative analyses of landmark cases with …

Anti-Slapp Confusion: Should Federal Courts Permit Interlocutory Appeal For Anti-Slapp Motions?, Mitchell L. Grantham

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Original E-Discovery: Civil Justice Reform And A Return To The Equitable Origins Of Discovery, Patricia I. Mcmahon

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

In the autumn of 2023, the Chief Justice and Attorney General of Ontario announced a broad new effort to review the rules of civil procedure to make civil dispute resolution more efficient and less expensive to enhance access to justice in the province. However, such efforts to reform the rules of civil procedure are nothing new.

This article examines the historical and contemporary aspects of civil justice reform in Ontario, focusing on the pre-trial discovery process. Among the most expensive aspects of the civil litigation process, discovery began as an equitable tool, with roots in the English Court of Chancery. …

State Of Nevada Comm’R Of Insurance V. Chur; Chur V. State Of Nevada Comm’R Of Insurance, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Dec. 23, 2025), Christianne White

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined a plaintiff may amend a complaint in response to a clarification of the pleading standard.

El Cortez Reno Holdings, Llc V. Pfpco.’S Noble Pie Parlor, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 68 (Dec. 23, 2025), Anastasia Vinson

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

"Professional courtesy" cannot be relied on to excuse procedural failures, as unopposed motions may be treated as concessions under DCR 13(3).

A Zealous Advocate, A Robust Cross: Cross-Examination Of Non-Adverse Witnesses By The Guardian Ad Litem, Scott Swain

BYU Law Review

“When the lives and fundamental rights of children are at stake, there must be no silent witnesses.”1 — Carol Bellamy

Systemic pressures in child welfare litigation regularly lead guardian ad litem attorneys to default to the positions and recommendations of state social services. In such cases, witnesses called by the state in trials and evidentiary hearings are non-adverse to the guardian ad litem. This dynamic undermines the purposes of cross-examination rules, threatening the procedural interests of the parties involved. This paper will use a procedural due process balancing test to guide its analysis as it proposes three potential solutions: a …

Discovering Melodies Or Discovering Lawsuits? Why The Discovery Rule Is Increasingly Inapplicable To Copyright Infringement As The War Over Generative Ai Wages On, Jack Pilon

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Six More Weeks Of Winter: The Third Circuit Rejects The Second Circuit’S Lenient Sec Asset Freeze Test And Champions Tradition In Sec V. Chappell, Elayna Tsiouplis

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Standing In The Dark, Sharon Brett

BYU Law Review

Demonstrating standing for injunctive relief in § 1983 police misconduct cases is undisputedly difficult for civil rights plaintiffs. Under City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, plaintiffs seeking injunctions must present more than evidence of past misconduct; they must show a significant ongoing risk that they will experience the same misconduct again. Scholarly attention to Lyons has focused primarily on doctrinal errors in the Court’s legal analysis, and for good reason. But the case raises another important yet overlooked question: Can civil rights plaintiffs realistically demonstrate risk of future harm given (a) the limited data kept by law enforcement about their …

Trial Practice And Procedure, Joseph M. Colwell, Christopher B. Mcdaniel, John D. Flowers, Madi Mcmichael Moseley

Mercer Law Review

This Article addresses selected opinions and legislation of interest to the Georgia civil trial practitioner issued during the survey period of this publication.

Rules Of Decision, Judicial Power, And The Valid Rule Requirement, John Harrison

Catholic University Law Review

Some current Supreme Court debates that concern seemingly specialized issues raise fundamental questions about the role of the Constitution in the legal system and the role of the courts when they decide constitutional issues. In recent years, Justice Thomas has suggested that the doctrines of First Amendment overbreadth, so-called third-party standing in cases involving constitutional liberty, and statutory inseverability call on federal courts to exceed their role under Article III. Justice Thomas maintains that when courts apply those doctrines, the courts decide cases not before them. Building on the work of Professor Henry Monaghan, this article argues that those concerns …

Rethinking Judicial Power & Remedial Restraint, Caprice L. Roberts

Catholic University Law Review

This Article maintains that groundbreaking Supreme Court cases reshaping judicial power and restraint are frequently remedies centric. The much- anticipated ruling in Trump v. CASA illustrates this correlation. Interpreting traditional equity, the Supreme Court circumscribed federal judicial power to issue universal relief. The Court relied on Marbury v. Madison to bolster its reasoning on the limits of judicial power. Ironically, both cases denied any remedy while enhancing the potential for future judicial power. Whether via judicial review and supremacy power or the Court’s future ability to now be the only federal court able to issue universal remedies—the Court’s role in …

Franceschi V. Lg Chem, Ltd., 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 65 (Dec. 18, 2025), Eden Tesfay

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

When there is a disconnect between a defendant’s contacts with the forum state and the harm alleged by the plaintiff, specific jurisdiction may not lie with the forum court.