A Modest Reform for Federal Procedural Rulemaking

Following the adoption of the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to discovery in 2000, Prof. Tobias notes the lack of empirical research or other indication of how the new rules might work in practice preceding their enactment. He suggests that Congress should reconsider a reject 1983 amendment to F.R.C.P. 83 which would authorize courts to obtain Judicial Conference approval to test promising mechanisms for five years before adoption

Animals in Christian and Muslim Thought

In this chapter, I shall offer a comparative exegesis and critical assessment of the Christian and Muslim views of animals. This chapter is divided into three parts. First, I shall examine the similarities between the Christian and Muslim views on the place of animals in creation. Second, I shall look at the two greatest moral exemplars of the two traditions. Third, I shall address the issue of diet and the broader ethical implications of killing for food. My hope is to show that Christianity and Islam are much more sympathetic to the cause of animals than it is often presumed and that these traditions can provide valuable insights into our relations with our fellow creatures

Environmental Litigation and Rule 11

The 1983 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 has been the most controversial revision in the half-century history of the Federal Rules. Judges have applied amended Rule 11, which requires them to sanction lawyers and parties who do not conduct reasonable inquiries before filing papers, in over 1000 reported opinions, considerably more unreported determinations, and numerous informal contexts. The Rule has engendered much unnecessary satellite litigation and has been implemente4 inconsistently, while attorneys\u27 fees remain the sanction of choice for violations. Rule 11 activity has especially disadvantaged civil rights plaintiffs and lawyers, whose lack of resources can make them risk averse. The judiciary has sanctioned civil rights plaintiffs more than any other category of civil litigant; in numerous districts, they were nearly three times more likely to be sanctioned than other litigants. Considerable evidence suggests that these developments have chilled the enthusiasm of civil rights plaintiffs and attorneys. Evaluators have analyzed very little formal, and virtually no informal, Rule 11 activity in public law litigation apart from civil rights cases. Because environmental lawsuits are a paradigmatic type of public law litigation that contributes substantially to environmental protection and to the development of public law in other fields, it is important to scrutinize Rule 11 activity in environmental cases. This Article undertakes that effort and is one of the first attempts to study informal Rule 11 activity Part I of this Article briefly describes the developments that led to the significant amendment of Rule 11 during 1983 and explains what the revised Rule requires of attorneys, parties, and the federal judiciary. The second Part evaluates the provision\u27s implementation in environmental litigation since August 1983. This examination finds a low incidence of formal Rule 11 activity in environmental cases and shows that the few courts that have formally applied the Rule were solicitous of the needs of plaintiffs. Indeed, the study reveals striking discontinuities between environmental lawsuits and civil rights actions. Most important, judges have issued only fourteen published opinions in environmental cases which contrasts markedly with the approximately 500 published decisions in civil rights suits. Because assessors have evaluated a small amount of informal Rule 11 activity and because informal activity has seriously disadvantaged civil rights plaintiffs, this Article analyzes informal Rule 11 activity. The study indicates that judges and environmental defendants have invoked the provision somewhat more frequently in informal, than in formal, situations but that environmental plaintiffs have been disadvantaged substantially less than civil rights plaintiffs. Moreover, this Rule 11 activity has neither dissuaded potential litigants from initiating environmental suits nor prevented parties who filed cases from vigorously pursuing the actions. Part III of this Article affords explanations for these findings, particularly the dearth of Rule 11 activity, and explores how that paucity informs understanding of the contemporary legal culture in the federal courts. The segment specifically examines the perspectives on environmental litigation of judges, attorneys, and parties who actively participate in such litigation. By refracting Rule 11 through the prism of environmental lawsuits and comparing that experience with Rule 11 activity in civil rights cases, the study enhances comprehension of modern civil litigation

Filling Judge Flaum\u27s Vacant Seventh Circuit Seat

On November 30, 2020, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Judge Joel Flaum assumed senior status after completing more than forty years in public service as one of the nation’s preeminent jurists. By then, Judge Flaum had compiled the longest active status tenure provided by a federal appellate court jurist, serving over practically thirty-eight years, six as chief judge of the prominent tribunal. On this day, the Senate also promptly resumed Congress’ lame duck session, which the upper chamber had begun after voters chose Joe Biden as President yet concomitantly appeared to retain a close Grand Old Party (GOP) Senate majority. [..

The 1993 Federal Rules Amendments and the Montana Civil Rules

The 1993 Federal Rules Amendments and The Montana Civil Rule

Civil Justice Planning in the Montana Federal District

Civil Justice Planning in the Montana Federal Distric