Life of a Law Student » Civil Procedure II

Civil Procedure II #24: Alternative Dispute Resolution

Neil — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 07:20:00 +0000

ADR is a key aspect of modern civil procedure, as many more claims are resolved via settlement than trial. In this episode we will examine mediation, arbitration, early neutral evaluation, summary jury trial, mini trial, and the sources of authority for how a trial court can order ADR upon the parties.

In re Atlantic Pipe Corporation

Civil Procedure II #23: Issue Preclusion (aka Collateral Estoppel)

Neil — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:14:00 +0000

Issue preclusion (aka collateral estoppel) is a means by which, under certain circumstances, a party that lost on an issue in a prior case does not get the opportunity to relitigate that issue against another party. In this manner certain issues (but not necessarily entire claims) are removed from consideration in later suits.

Little v. Blue Goose Motor Co.
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore

Civil Procedure II #22 Claim Preclusion (aka Res Judicata)

Neil — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:11:00 +0000

We now turn to preclusion, where prior lawsuits can remove issues or claims from relitigation. Claim preclusion (aka res judicata) operates on the principle that you only get “one bit of the apple.” A plaintiff is forced to bring all of their claims and theories of relief relating to a transaction at once, or be forever barred.

Manego v. Orleans Board of Trade
Landrigan v. City of Warwick

Civil Procedure II #21: Mandamus

Neil — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:08:00 +0000

Our final avenue of appeal that we will examine is mandamus, where a lower court judge is forced to take certain actions. Consider a drastic remedy, it is not often granted.

Will v. United States
In re Chimenti

Civil Procedure II #20: Appeal Under USC 1292(b)

Neil — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:06:00 +0000

1292(b) of the United States Code allows another avenue of intelocutory relief. We will examine the prongs of that manner of appeal in this episode.

Cardwell v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
USC 1292(b)

Civil Procedure II #19: Collateral Order Doctrine

Neil — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:02:00 +0000

Not all appeals have to wait until final judgment. The collateral order doctrine is one avenue of interlocutory appeal, allowing immediate review.

Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
Will v. Hallock
Sell v. United States

Civil Procedure II #18: Introduction to Appeals

Neil — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 07:00:00 +0000

The process of appeal is how trial decisions are reviewed, as well as the law changed if need be. In this episode we’ll examine the federal appellate system and the final judgment rule.

USC 1291
Quackenbush v. Allstate Insurance Co.

Civil Procedure II #17: Special Verdicts

Neil — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 06:55:00 +0000

In the federal system, a jury does not have to simply return a finding for one party along with the money to be paid out (if any). Through the use of special verdicts and special interrogatories, a judge (at the request of the parties) can require the jury to walk through their reasoning step-by-step.

Rule 49
Whitlock v. Jackson

Civil Procedure II #16: Rule 60 / Remittur and Additur

Neil — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 06:45:00 +0000

We conclude our look at post-trial motions by (briefly) examining a request for relief from judgment, and spending some time on remittur and additur. Remittur and additur are when a judge maintains the jury decision on liability, but modifies the amount of money awarded.

Rule 60(b)
Dimick v. Schiedt

Civil Procedure II #15: Motion for New Trial / JMoL

Neil — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 06:42:00 +0000

In addition to moving for judgment as a matter of law, a litigant might desire a new trial. New trials may be granted for a variety of reasons, including a judge deciding that the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence. We’ll examine how motions for new trials and JMoL interact with each other.

Rule 59
Ahern v. Scholz

Civil Procedure II #14: Judgment as a Matter of Law

Neil — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 06:23:00 +0000

Sometimes a plaintiff will fail to meet their burden of production, and as such no rational jury could find for them. In those cases judgment as a matter of law can be awarded. (This was previously known as a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, depending on when rendered.)

Rule 50
Galloway v. United States

Civil Procedure II #13: Seventh Amendment III

Neil — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 06:20:00 +0000

We conclude our discussion of the Seventh Amendment application to federal civil procedure by examining the historical test of whether an action is legal (requiring right of jury) or equitable (no right of jury). We also briefly discuss jury selection.

Teamsters Local No. 391 v. Terry

Civil Procedure II #12: Seventh Amendment II

Neil — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 23:16:00 +0000

We continue examining the Seventh Amendment by applying it to three cases. These cases will hopefully give us an outline of when the right to jury trial is present and when it is not.

Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood
Curtis v. Loether
Tull v. United States

Civil Procedure II #11: Seventh Amendment I

Neil — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 23:12:00 +0000

We now turn to the Seventh Amendment, and with it the right to trial by jury. We will discuss the role of juries, jury nullification, the distinction between law and equity, and other topics.

The Seventh Amendment
Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover

Civil Procedure II #10: Summary Judgment II

Neil — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 23:07:00 +0000

We conclude our discussion of summary judgment by seeing it applied in two decisions.

Arnstein v. Porter
Dyer v. MacDougall

Civil Procedure II #9: Summary Judgment I

Neil — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 20:52:00 +0000

What is summary judgment, and what are the requirements on a party in order to move for it? Is it a tool of right, or is there a burden on the moving party? If the latter, what burden is there?

Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.
Celotex Corp v. Catrett
Rule 56

Civil Procedure II #8: Discovery IV

Neil — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 20:48:00 +0000

We conclude our discussion of discovery by looking at the penalties for failing to comply with discovery: sanctions. Outright dismissal is at the severest end of such penalties.

Cine 42nd Street Theatre Corp v. Allied Artists Pictures Corp.
Rule 37

Civil Procedure II #7: Discovery III

Neil — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:45:00 +0000

We’ve all heard of attorney-client privilege, and those communications are immune to discovery. However there is a related protection called the work-product doctrine. We’ll explore that here, as well as briefly explore attorney-client privilege.

Hickman v. Taylor
Rule 26

Civil Procedure II #6: Discovery II

Neil — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:32:00 +0000

Now that we have some discovery tools available, let’s apply them. Diana Ross and one of her former employees will provide us with a case to examine.

Davis v. Ross
Rule 26
Rule 34

Civil Procedure II #5: Discovery I

Neil — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:32:00 +0000

One of the fundamental purposes of the Federal Rules is to have suits be decided on the merits. To that end, extensive compulsory fact sharing is afforded either party under the umbrella term “discovery.” This episode will walk through the discovery mechanisms of initial disclosures, document inspections, interrogatories, depositions, physical and mental examinations, and requests for admissions.

Societe Internationale v. Rogers
Rule 26
Rule 33
Rule 34
Rule 35
Rule 36

Civil Procedure II #4: Class Actions III

Neil — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 07:52:00 +0000

In our final episode upon class actions, we apply what we’ve learned to two hypotheticals. Notice, opt-out, and settlements will be discussed.

Civil Procedure II #3: Class Actions II

Neil — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 07:49:00 +0000

We continue our discussion of class actions, this time focusing upon Rule 23(b).

Rule 23
In The Matter of Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc.

Civil Procedure II #2: Class Actions I

Neil — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 07:44:00 +0000

We will now begin a set of three episodes exploring class actions. In this first episode we will focus on Rule 23(a), which deals with numerosity, typicality, commonality, and adequate representation.

Rule 23
Hansberry v. Lee
Walters v. Reno
Evan Schaeffer’s Legal Underground

Civil Procedure II #1: Intervention

Neil — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 23:41:00 +0000

Joinder and impleader enable (sometimes unwilling) outsiders to be brought into litigation. Intervention allows a willing outsider to become a party of their own accord.

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)