Civil Procedure Commons^™

Submerged Precedent, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Faculty Scholarship

Numerous studies have pointed to the skewed picture of trial courts' workload, management, and disposition of cases that exists from examining Westlaw and Lexis opinions alone, akin to navigating the iceberg from its tip.⁴ But submerged precedent pushes docketology in an uncharted direction by identifying a mass of reasoned opinions-putative precedent and not mere evidence of decision-making-that exist only on dockets. Submerged precedent thus raises the specter that docket-based research may be necessary in some areas to ascertain an accurate picture of the law itself not just trial courts' administration of it.

The existence of a submerged body …

Sutton V. United Airlines, Inc.: The Supreme Court "Substantially Limits" The Americans With Disabilities Act, Stephanie Beige

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Summary Judgement In Employment Discrimination Cases In The Eastern District Of New York, Peter J. Ausili

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

How To Screen For Success In Employment Law Cases, Robert M. Rosen

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Strategic Evidence Issues In Equal Employment Litigation, Marc Rosenblum

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Nela Touro Conference 1999 Selected Second Circuit Cases Of Interest, Lawrence Solotoff

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rish V. Simao, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Mar. 17, 2016), Heather Caliguire

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court held that the District Court wrongly excluded evidence of low-impact defense when it required a biomechanical expert testify about the nature of the accident, erroneously interpreting Hallmark v. Eldgridge Instead, Hallmark requires sufficient foundation for admission of testimony and evidence, specifically excluding a biomechanical expert’s testimony under NRS 50.275. The Court additionally held that the District Court erred when it ultimately struck the defendant’s answer for violations of the pretrial order precluding defendant from raising a minor or low impact defense.

Law Day Fifth District Court Of Appeal Oral Arguments At Florida Agricultural And Mechanical University College Of Law, 2016, Honorable James A. Edwards, Honorable Richard B. Orfinger, Honorable Vincent G. Torpy Jr.

Law Day Presentations

As part of FAMU College of Law's Law Day activities, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal is holding a session in the FAMU College of Law Ceremonial Moot Courtroom. A three judge panel is hearing oral arguments from attorneys representing their clients in cases involving suppression of evidence, the exclusionary rule and other evidentiary questions, as well as the ineffective assistance of counsel in a case involving deportation issues. A question-and-answer session follows each set of arguments during which the justices and attorneys entertain questions about the appellate process and organization of the court.

Hairr V. First Judicial Dist. Ct., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 16 (Mar. 10, 2016), Douglas H. Smith

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Supreme Court denied petitioners’ application for a writ of mandamus for abuse of the district court’s discretion. If granted, this writ would have compelled the district court to grant the petitioners’ application to intervene under Rule 24 of the Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure as defendants in a constitutional challenge to a program that awards grants to children who are educated by entities other than public schools. The State is presumed to adequately represent the interests of those who support the bill. Since they did not demonstrate a conflict of interest with the State’s position or present an argument …

Tom V. Innovative Home Systems, Llc, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 15 (Mar. 10, 2016), Adrienne Brantley

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determine that the decision of the State Contractors’ Board closing homeowners’ complaint and directing contractor to make repairs to residence was not a final decision resolving a contested case, as required to preclude a homeowner from relitigating whether contractor was required to have an electrical license. The Court also determine that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the contractor needed an electrical license and genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the contractor completed its contractual obligations to homeowner.

A Comparative Study Of Attorney Responsibility For Fees Of An Opposing Party, Amy Salyzyn

Journal of International and Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Reconsidering Indirect-Purchaser Class Actions, Stephen Carr

Florida Law Review

Few issues have proven more vexing to private antitrust enforcement than those related to indirect-purchaser class actions. The current dual system of enforcement—federal and state—exacerbates the difficulty of litigating indirect-purchaser claims by layering procedural complexity on top of substantive complexity and by explicitly allowing (perhaps even incentivizing) duplicative recovery. Almost all commentators are in substantial agreement that reform is necessary, but Congress appears unlikely to take action on the issue in the near future. This Note proposes a procedural solution that would consolidate litigation in a single federal court based on the limited-fund class action model of Federal Rule of …

Coastal Conservation Association V. United States Department Of Commerce, Taylor R. Thompson

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Eastern Louisiana District Court upheld Amendment 40 to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council’s Reef Management Plan. The court held that the Gulf Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service’s proposed rule establishing fishing quotas for the red snapper met all of the statutory guidelines imposed under the Magnusson-Stevens Act.

Trending @ Rwu Law: Dean Yelnosky's Post: United States Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims Visits Rwu Law: 03-03-2016, Michael Yelnosky

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Video: Adding To Your Case: Examining And Cross Examining Expert Witnesses, Michael J. Dale, Kathryn Webber, Valerie B. Barnhart Esq., Jack L. Harari M.D., J.D., F.A.A.E.M.

NSU Law Seminar Series

Learn skills for using expert witness testimony at trial: Developing strategy for selecting topics and order of presentation Using proper form of questioning on direct and cross Understanding rules of evidence, procedure, and ethics Two role play demonstrations help you learn techniques

The Rise And Fall Of Plausibility Pleading?, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and its 2009 decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal unleashed a torrent of scholarly reaction. Commentators charged these decisions with adopting a new pleading regime, "plausibility pleading," that upended the notice-pleading approach that had long prevailed in federal court. Whether a complaint could survive a motion to dismiss — it was argued — now depends on whether the court found the complaint plausible, allowing courts to second-guess a complaint's allegations without any opportunity for discovery or consideration of actual evidence. Lower courts began to cite Twombly and Iqbal at a …

Submerged Precedent, Elizabeth Y. Mccuskey

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Codifying The Issue Class Action, Laura J. Hines

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Fraud On The Court And Abusive Discovery, David R. Hague

Nevada Law Journal

Unbeknownst to many, federal courts have the power under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside judgments entered years earlier that were obtained by “fraud on the court.” Fraud on the court, however, can take many forms and courts and commentators agree that it is a nebulous concept. The power to set aside a judgment requires courts to strike a balance between the principles of justice and finality. A majority of courts require a showing, by clear and convincing evidence, of intentional fraudulent conduct specifically directed at the court itself. This standard is flawed. And courts that have …

The Rise And Fall Of Plausibility Pleading?, Adam N. Steinman

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and its 2009 decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal unleashed a torrent of scholarly reaction. Commentators charged these decisions with adopting a new pleading regime, "plausibility pleading," that upended the notice-pleading approach that had long prevailed in federal court. Whether a complaint could survive a motion to dismiss-it was argued-now depends on whether the court found the complaint plausible, allowing courts to second-guess a complaint's allegations without any opportunity for discovery or consideration of actual evidence. Lower courts began to cite Twombly and Iqbal at a remarkably high rate, and …