Civil Procedure in a Nutshell
Author:
Kane, Mary Kay
Edition:
8th
Copyright Date:
2018
15 chapters
have results for nutshell on civil procedure
Preface 2 results
- The overall objective of this Nutshell remains an important, but limited, one—to present a view of the forest instead of the trees in the procedure landscape. There is no way in the confines of these few pages for more in depth coverage. Readers who find a need for more can consult my Hornbook on this same topic, J. Friedenthal, M. Kane, & A. Miller,
- Although there have been no new statutes affecting civil procedure or federal rule amendments since the last edition, the Supreme Court has issued several important procedure opinions during this period. These include: adopting a new test for determining when general jurisdiction may be asserted over a defendant and applying the new “at home” standard in several cases; explaining how the constitutional standards for exerting personal jurisdiction are to be applied when parent and subsidiary corporations are defendants; refining the application of specific jurisdiction standards when an intentional tort is involved and rejecting the use of a “sliding-scale” approach in specific jurisdiction that would allow a lesser nexus between the defendant’s contacts and the claim if other state contacts exist. The Court also rendered decisions explaining how forum selection clauses are to be treated when determining venue and transfer motions; upheld the use of juror affidavits regarding racial...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2 Choosing the Proper Court 89 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Necessarily, the discussion in this Nutshell of each of these elements of obtaining proper personal jurisdiction must be somewhat brief. Readers who would like a more complete treatment of these matters should refer to
- The development of state statutes and of the constitutional standard applied to extraterritorial assertions of personal jurisdiction has undergone several twists and turns. In particular, in a series of decisions beginning in 1977, the Supreme Court added some important refinements to the constitutional standard applicable to all assertions of personal jurisdiction. Thus, a complete study of this area of procedure requires an analysis of Supreme Court decisions, a close look at a number of the statutes that have been adopted, and a review of lower court decisions that have applied and interpreted these developments. After an abbreviated review of the historic premises from which the modern law of personal jurisdiction developed, the primary focus in this Nutshell will be on modern jurisdictional theory.
- Civil Procedure
- The federal rules do not address the propriety of limited appearances. Thus, in actions brought in the federal courts the availability of the procedure depends on whether the court refers to state law as the governing law on that issue. See § 9–2, below. Because state courts are split on the propriety of making a limited appearance (with the slightly more prevalent view allowing it), it is most
- Federal court jurisdiction can be invoked under Section 1331 only when the statement of the plaintiff’s claim, properly pleaded, shows that it is based on federal law. Emphasis is placed on what are the proper and necessary elements of a claim for relief. Jurisdiction is not proper if the plaintiff improperly anticipates a defense or if jurisdiction is based on the defendant’s counterclaim. Although the wellpleaded complaint rule has been criticized because it makes jurisdiction turn on technical pleading rules when rigid pleading no longer is part of federal procedure (see § 3–4, below), it remains the governing principle in federalquestion cases under
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1 Introduction 5 results
- The basic first year civil procedure course is designed to teach how lawyers choose a proper court and how they frame and present their cases throughout the proceedings until a judgment has been reached and all available appeals have been pursued. The effect of judgments on future litigation also may be explored. Thus, the primary focus in this book is on the methods and tools available to lawyers as litigators. This study requires an inquiry into judicially developed doctrines, as well as various rules and statutes governing the operation and process of the civil courts. At times it will produce questions that are theoretical or constitutional; at other times issues of careful or strict rule interpretation will be paramount. Throughout, it is important to keep in mind the purpose underlying the development of civil procedure rules and doctrine—to provide a just, efficient, and economical means by which parties can resolve their disputes. Not always will this purpose be met and,...
- Finally, it should be noted that there is a very important aspect to framing litigation that typically is not taught in the basic civil procedure course and will not be discussed in this book: how to select a particular remedy as the one most likely to succeed or best suited to the needs of the client. That inquiry concerns matters such as whether injunctive relief or damages may be sought or whether some form of restitutionary relief might be most appropriate. Historically, the question of what type of relief was involved also dictated the court in which suit should be filed. This was because there were separate courts established—i.e., law, equity, ecclesiastical—to dispense certain types of relief or to hear certain types of disputes. Modern court systems are not so designed. Instead, any civil court is authorized to dispense whatever remedy is appropriate. Thus, the problem of framing a remedy, while an essential step in preparing the case, is not particularly
- Although a few states, such as Maine, have a two-tiered system, most states, as well as the federal courts, are based on a three-tiered model. That means that a litigant will have the opportunity to present his case in a trial court and then there are two levels of appeal at which the losing trial litigant ultimately may succeed. For example, in the federal system the trial court is the United States District Court, of which there is at least one in every state. Many larger states are divided into two, three or even four judicial districts, depending on population, geography and caseload. There are ninety-one districts in the United States and each district court ..., and one for the Federal Circuit, taking appeals from various specialized federal tribunals, such as the Court of Federal Claims, and from all courts on certain specialized matters, such as patents. Each court of appeals has four or more judges who sit in panels of three to review districtcourt decisions, as well as...
- In studying the procedures by which legal rights are vindicated, it also is important to note that the Anglo-American judicial system is based on the adversary model. The judge sits solely to rule on disputed questions, as presented by the parties, and to apply sanctions when they are properly requested by a party. The lawyers shape the contours of the action. Issues not raised, objections not made, or points not challenged are, with very few exceptions, waived. The case moves forward only in response to the demands of the parties. Although judges in recent times have tended to take a somewhat more active role in guiding the litigation before them, it still remains true that the ultimate responsibility for each case rests with the litigants and their attorneys.
- Threetiered systems vary on the role that the highest court plays. The approaches taken reflect differing philosophies with regard to what the highest court should do. For example, in California only criminal cases in which capital punishment has ...as of right to the state supreme court. Similarly, in the federal courts, except in a few very limited circumstances, appeals to the United States Supreme Court are discretionary, by writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court decides for itself what are the most important questions that deserve its attention and will refuse to review decisions raising issues that it feels are not as crucial. In this way it supervises the administration of law by the lower courts on an ad hoc basis. At the other end of the spectrum, such as in New York, appeals to the state’s highest court are as of right in a great many cases. This approach emphasizes the function of New York’s highest court to assure that cases are correctly decided. Recognizing the wide...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3 Pretrial: Framing the Litigation 66 results (showing 5 best matches)
- you plead is a procedural question, depending on the specific rules of the court in which the case is filed. you plead is determined by considerations of substantive law and the knowledge of what facts are legally significant in each context. The primary focus in this book is on the first question. For a more detailed discussion of the art of pleading, see
- The necessary and indispensable party rules compel party joinder in order to protect persons who might be harmed by a judgment entered in their absence or, conversely, to protect existing parties who might not be able to obtain complete relief without the presence of those absent persons. The focus is on the impact of the judgment if the absentees are not joined. The difference between a necessary and an indispensable party has posed some problems for the courts. See § 3–13, below. Nonetheless, the rules serve the important function of protecting existing parties, as well as absent
- Various rules exist governing who may be joined by the plaintiff in a lawsuit, who may be added to the lawsuit by the defendant or who may enter a lawsuit of their own volition. The addition of parties to an ongoing action is restricted by rule requirements, as well as by jurisdiction restraints. The court must be able to assert personal jurisdiction over each of the parties in the suit and, in the federal courts, subject-matter jurisdiction must be established over each of the claims between the various parties. The rules authorizing party joinder do not alter or affect the court’s jurisdictional authority. The following sections will explore the requirements imposed by the rules on party joinder. A more detailed treatment of permissive party joinder may be found in J. Friedenthal, M. Kane & A. Miller,
- The discussion that follows will describe the various types of discovery devices available, using the federal system as the model. The federal procedures have been adopted in whole or in part in most states. However, the reader should be careful to check the specific rules of the jurisdiction in which suit is brought, as the amount of freedom in this area may vary somewhat from forum to forum and many of the states have not yet adopted some of the recent federal discovery rule amendments. For a more complete discussion, see
- The second means of obtaining review is to refuse to obey the court order, be adjudged in contempt, and appeal from the final contempt judgment, challenging the bases on which it was entered. This approach is risky, however. No immediate appeal will be allowed if civil, rather than criminal, contempt is found. On the other hand, if criminal, rather than civil, contempt is involved, the scope of appellate review in some courts is so narrow that the court will not consider the objection to the underlying order which resulted in contempt. Further, in either case, if the appellate court upholds the lower court’s discovery order, the contempt penalty will remain in effect. For these reasons, in most situations the trial court’s discovery orders are final and binding.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9 Other Special Problems in Federal Litigation 18 results (showing 5 best matches)
- common law on a particular issue. The second requires the federal court to decide whether it must follow state law even though there is a federal rule of civil procedure that appears applicable. In the first case, Erie makes it clear that federal courts have no power to create a body of general federal common law to govern substantive rights; that is a power reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment . The only correct constitutional interpretation of the Rules of Decision Act is that state law, whether in statutory or common law form, governs on matters substantive.
- In order not to place too great a burden on state courts having concurrent jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has ruled that the state court may utilize its own procedures for trying the case. The key is that those procedures must be applied nondiscriminatorily to state and federal cases, , and they cannot impinge on the federal substantive rights being asserted.
- , authorizing the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of procedure for the federal courts. The Supreme Court has used this authority to develop the current Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, if a court is confronted with a question whether state law must be applied when a seemingly applicable and contradictory Federal Rule exists, the Rules of Decision Act is no longer relevant. The proper question is whether the rule is within the scope of the Rules Enabling Act. The answer requires an inquiry into whether the rule
- When the question presented is whether a federal statute, rather than a federal rule of civil procedure, or state law should control a particular issue, the courts also apply an Erie analysis. They will look to see whether the statute in fact was designed to address the issue presented and whether it is in conflict with the way in which state law handles the issue. If the answer to those two questions is yes, the federal statute governs under the Supremacy Clause, Art. VI.
- When an action based on a federal statute is brought in state court, the court is faced with a governing law question for any matter that is not explicitly provided for in the federal statute. Can the state court utilize its own procedures and develop common law on the issue or must it be bound by the approach or law developed in the federal courts? While the statement of the problem appears the same as that confronting the federal diversity court, its resolution is somewhat different. The rationale supporting the Erie doctrine is based on the Tenth Amendment’s
- Open Chapter
Title Page 2 results
Center Title 2 results
Chapter 5 The Trial 45 results (showing 5 best matches)
- analysis of what evidence is necessary to prove a particular claim or defense, what are the permissible inferences to draw for gaps in the evidence, who has the burden of proof on the issues presented, and, in some cases, whether questions concerning the credibility of some of the witnesses require denial of the motion or may be evaluated against the background of the other evidence that was introduced. A discussion of these variables may be found in J. Friedenthal, M. Kane & A. Miller,
- The major problems in determining the scope of jury trial rights have been in the constitutional area. It should be noted that the federal constitutional jury provision for civil cases (Seventh Amendment ) is not binding on the states so that states have been free to develop their own scheme of civil jury trial rights for their courts. All but four of the states (Colorado, Utah, Louisiana, and Wyoming) have constitutional provisions similar to the federal and in those four states statutory jury trial rights exist. Further, with the exception of four other states (Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas), which provide a jury trial in equity, all the states appear to interpret their constitutional and statutory provisions similarly to the federal courts in that they determine the right to jury trial based on whether that right would have existed at the time the governing constitutional provision was adopted. Thus, the following discussion will explore civil jury trial rights in...
- Several state and federal courts have modified the original character of the jury to allow juries composed of less than twelve members, as well as the use of non-unanimous verdicts. These changes have been in an effort to reduce the costliness of jury trials. Smaller juries should be selected more rapidly, and their deliberations should be shorter simply because there are fewer individual opinions to consider. Non-unanimous verdicts lessen the possibility of a deadlock, with its attendant need for a new trial. The United States Supreme Court upheld the use of six member juries in civil cases, , against challenges that these changes violated the jury trial guarantee in the Constitution. It has not yet ruled on non-unanimous civil verdicts, but its reasoning in the criminal field suggests that they also would be upheld. The Court ruled that the character of the jury trial was not part of the historic or constitutional right and that, based on the studies to date, it could find no...
- In two Supreme Court cases in which an argument was raised that jury trial was inconsistent with congressional intent in the statutes on which the suits were based, the Court upheld the constitutional right to a jury trial, noting that the actions had common law analogs and the only arguments for non-jury trial were unsupported allegations that the jury would not function so as to do justice and that it was inconsistent with the policies underlying the enactments. See , (claim jury prejudice would undermine enforcement of civil rights act regulating housing discrimination), and (claim congressional intent to provide speedy remedy in landlord-tenant area inconsistent with use of jury trial). In both of these cases the arguments against jury trial rested on implied legislative intent. In contrast, in ...provide for a civil penalty to be assessed for violation of a statute and, although the jury would need to determine whether a penalty should be imposed, the amount of the penalty...
- Given these arguments, it should not be surprising that the historic and most widely followed rule (the Mansfield rule) has been that juror affidavits regarding what occurred during their deliberations cannot be used to impeach the verdict. However, a verdict may be impeached on the basis of juror affidavits regarding misconduct prior to their deliberations, such as if one juror lied during voir dire regarding a prior relationship with one of the parties, or on the basis of evidence from other nonjury sources. For example, a person who observed the jury visiting the scene of the accident could testify to that effect in order to support an argument that the jury relied on evidence not presented at the trial. And the Supreme Court most recently held that if a juror in a criminal case makes a clear statement indicating he relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment . Whether that holding applies in the civil context remains to be seen.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4 Adjudication Without Trial 21 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The denomination of a particular case as falling into one of these three default situations has important consequences on the procedure that is utilized for obtaining the judgment, see § 4–7, below, and on the party’s ability to set aside the judgment, see § 6–1, below. However, all three situations have the same impact on the defendant, insofar as they all treat the default as a concession on liability. The immediate effect of a ruling that a default has occurred typically is to find for the plaintiff on the merits.
- When the defendant defaults at the outset of a case and the plaintiff moves for the entry of a default, the clerk must enter the default on the record. However, one of two procedures applies in converting that entry into a formal judgment. If a sum certain (i.e., liquidated damages) is being sought, the clerk may enter a default judgment. If not, the judge must enter the default judgment and hold a hearing at which plaintiff will be required to prove the amount of damages, not liability. The plaintiff’s ad damnum sets the ceiling on damages, but does not guarantee that that amount will be recovered. The defendant may appear at the damages hearing and may even demand a jury trial on damages. This right is largely chimerical, however, because the defendant is not given any
- Although the exact timing of summary judgment motions varies in each judicial system, a few general observations about the procedure on these motions can be made. Any party may move for summary judgment; cross-motions are possible. In that event, the court decides each motion separately. The fact that both parties are seeking summary judgment does not establish that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact remaining.
- The decision to deny summary judgment when a credibility issue is raised varies from system to system and even from judge to judge, depending, at least in part, on the level of their concern that the procedure not be allowed to impinge on jury trial rights. In some states a specific provision exists in the summary judgment rule granting the court discretion to deny summary judgment whenever “the only proof of a material fact offered in support of the summary judgment is an affidavit or declaration made by an individual who was the sole witness to that fact.” ...courts generally have held that an unsupported allegation that credibility is in dispute will not suffice to overcome summary judgment. The party opposing summary judgment must introduce facts showing why a witness’s credibility is in question. This typically requires evidence that the witness is not disinterested (i.e., is a party) or that the determination of an issue of fact rests on the state of mind or motive of... ...on...
- Summary judgment is a procedure by which a party can obtain a final binding determination on the merits without the necessity of a full trial. It differs from trial motions, such as the directed verdict, which also result in a final judgment, primarily because it is made earlier. A motion for summary judgment is distinguished from other pretrial motions to dismiss, demurrers or motions for judgment on the pleadings, because outside evidence is produced and the court is not limited to the pleadings in making its decision. Indeed, it is common for the rules governing demurrers or motions for failure to state a claim for relief to provide that, if the movant introduces outside matter, the motion automatically is converted into one for summary judgment. A wide variety of outside material may be used, including affidavits, depositions, admissions and even interrogatories. The key in deciding whether the material is properly before the court is whether it would be admissible under the...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6 Judgments and Their Effects 49 results (showing 5 best matches)
- J. Friedenthal, M. Kane & A. Miller, Civil Procedure Ch. 14 (5th ed.2015)
- When an out-of-state judgment is involved, it becomes necessary to reduce the judgment to a local one before execution. This requires the judgment creditor to bring an action on the judgment in the local court, serving process on the debtor and providing an opportunity to respond. In virtually all instances a local judgment will be entered and enforcement will proceed as just described. This is because full faith and credit must be given to sister state judgments under the . Therefore, except for a very limited number of objections, the enforcement court cannot look behind the judgment to reexamine the earlier proceedings. The rationale for requiring the creditor to bring an action on the judgment rather than allowing immediate execution is based on notions of sovereignty. Each state is an independent, sovereign power and cannot directly invade another state’s authority over its own residents by enforcing a judgment there. Thus, the procedure defers to the sovereignty of the...
- The most common procedure for setting aside a judgment is to make a motion for relief from the judgment under the appropriate rule. It typically is totally within the trial court’s discretion whether to grant or deny relief. The court, in addition to considering whether the reasons alleged for setting aside the judgment are permissible grounds for relief under the applicable rule (see § 6–2, below), usually will take into account other equitable concerns. These may include the prejudice to the opposing party—who may have acted in reliance on the judgment—if the motion is granted, whether the movant has proceeded with due diligence in making the motion, or any other matter that might bear on the fairness of reopening the judgment. The court will not determine whether the first judgment is erroneous, although it may take into account whether opening the judgment and ordering a new trial is likely to produce a different result.
- Differences in the burden of proof in the first and second action also may result in a finding that the issues presented in both suits are not identical. This is because if the burden of proof differs, there is no assurance that the result would be the same in both actions and the requirements of collateral estoppel are designed to provide that assurance. The question arises most often when one proceeding is criminal and the other civil. This is because in criminal suits the prosecution must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt, but in civil actions the plaintiff need only establish the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. If an issue is established first under the stricter standard, then it may be given collateral estoppel effect in the later civil proceeding, but the converse is not true.
- Res judicata and collateral estoppel both operate with almost total disregard for what the truth is. They are premised on the beliefs that the judicial system cannot tolerate constant relitigation or it will be overburdened; that judgments must be stable and final so that litigants will be able to rely on them and plan for the future; and that the judicial system must prevent itself from being used as a tool of harassment. Thus, collateral estoppel precludes the relitigation of the same issue on the assumption that even if the issue was wrongly decided in the first action, the parties had a full and fair opportunity to present their case on that issue and systemic concerns must prevail. Res judicata takes this reasoning one step further. It provides that once the parties have been given a hearing on a claim, there can be no relitigation even though there may be some issues that were never introduced or considered in the first action that could have had a substantial impact on the...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8 Specialized Multi-Party—Multi-Claim Proceedings 32 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The debate on whether the benefits of the class action outweigh its burdens and complications undoubtedly will continue and additional rule amendments to deal with some of the problems remain under active consideration. Thus, it is important to realize that an individual court’s application of the rule requirements (either narrowly or liberally) or its willingness to adopt new management procedures often may be influenced by feelings as to whether class action critics or advocates present the more accurate picture.
- . Both procedures have similarities. There are no requirements that the stakeholder be disinterested or not be subject to independent liability. Under the rule, there must be a showing that the stakeholder may be subject to “multiple liability.” The statute refers to “multiple vexation.” The courts have interpreted both phrases in the same way so that a showing of the threat of multiple suits will suffice under either provision. Further, the stakeholder may invoke either procedure on the basis of the possibility of future claims against the property; the stakeholder need not wait until claims have been filed before bringing suit.
- The two procedures designed to meet due process requirements are an appropriate system for notifying the absent members and a careful inquiry by the court into the named representative’s ability to adequately protect those interests. It is not clear whether these requirements are both necessary or if the satisfaction of one may cure a deficiency in the other. The lower courts have split on the question whether some form of notice is constitutionally compelled in all class suits. The Supreme Court’s only decision in this area rested on a rule interpretation, mandating individual notice in actions under Federal Rule 23(b)(3) . Similarly, the Court has not ruled on the question whether actual notice might result in the waiver of a class member’s right later to object to inadequate representation. In ...members were provided an opportunity to opt out, as well, so the Court did not need to rule on whether due process could be satisfied in the absence of one of those protections. Thus,...
- Interpleader is an equitable device by which a person who admits an obligation (the stakeholder) but is unsure to whom it is owed deposits the money or property with the court and serves notice on the possible claimants that they can dispute ownership among themselves. The action proceeds in two stages. First, the court determines if the use of interpleader is proper. If so, the stakeholder is dismissed from the suit. Second, the court will determine the rights to the property. Those persons served with fair notice and given an opportunity to litigate are bound both against the stakeholder and among themselves. In this way, the procedure acts to reduce multiple litigation and to protect the stakeholder from double or multiple liability or even the threat of it.
- It is beyond the scope of this Nutshell to inquire in detail into the various techniques that have been utilized. However, two major developments bear mention. The first is the Manual for Complex Litigation Fourth (2004), produced by the Federal Judicial Center and designed to highlight several problem areas in complex litigation and provide some solutions. It contains important suggestions regarding case management and the scheduling of discovery and the pretrial process, discussions of some major issues that have occurred in the class action context, citations to cases dealing with these issues, and many other useful aids for the courts and attorneys involved in those suits.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7 Appeals 20 results (showing 5 best matches)
- This method most commonly is available when discovery orders are involved. Failure to obey the court’s order may result in the disobedient party being held in contempt. A contempt judgment is a final judgment and may be appealed immediately. This method of appeal necessarily is very risky since if the appellate court affirms the lower court’s discovery order, the contempt judgment will stand. Further, only criminal contempt is immediately appealable so that if the court determines that the party was adjudged in civil contempt, an appeal may not be allowed and the contempt judgment will remain. The difference between civil and criminal contempt is discussed elsewhere. Suffice it to say it depends on the nature of the proceeding and the type of sentence imposed. See D. Dobbs,
- , a general procedure for discretionary interlocutory appeals is provided requiring the trial court and the appellate court both to certify that the order can be appealed immediately. The standard for certification is that the issue involves a “controlling question of law,” that there is “substantial ground for difference of opinion” on that issue, and that an immediate appeal may “materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” The purpose of this appeals route is to allow immediate review of important questions. By requiring certification at both levels, the trial court, which is most familiar with the entire proceeding, can rule on whether the appellant raises a crucial issue or is appealing as a dilatory tactic. The appellate court can estimate better its own burdens and can make its decision on appealability relatively free from pressures by the litigants. The standard rests heavily on the discretion of both courts and there may be considerable differences of...
- As to the second determination, in general, courts are agreed that only the infrequent, harsh case merits a finding that there is no just reason for delay. The court must balance whether the appeal could simplify the trial or whether it would result in a repetitive review of many of the same issues after a judgment is reached on the remaining claims. Similarly, it may weigh the immediate benefit of a recovery to the winning party on an earlier appeal against the possibility that the judgment on one claim should be stayed because it may be set-off by a judgment for the opposing party on the remaining claims.
- Most jurisdictions authorize an appeal only from the entry of a final judgment in the action. The final judgment is defined as that order that leaves nothing to be done in the action except to execute on the judgment. It concludes all the rights that were subject to litigation. For example, an order dismissing a juror for cause, though conclusive on that question, is not a final judgment because the rights that are the subject of the underlying lawsuit have not been decided. If the attorney objects to the ruling, that objection may be raised on appeal, but the attorney must wait to take an appeal until a judgment on the merits is entered. This type of order commonly is described as reviewable, but not appealable. The only exceptions to the final judgment rule are incorporated in specific statutes, see § 7–3, below, or in a few well-recognized judicial doctrines, see § 7–4, below.
- The application of the final judgment rule in multi-claim, multi-party litigation has posed some problems when the trial court reaches a final decision on some of the claims before it is ready to render judgment on the entire action. Postponing an appeal until all the claims have been decided may result in an unnecessary delay on a claim that has been fully and finally determined. Thus, special rules have been developed for identifying those orders in multi-claim, multi-party disputes that determine finally the action as it pertains to a given party or claim in order to allow an immediate appeal in those situations. These provisions are not exceptions to the final judgment rule. Rather, they represent standards for applying that rule in those multi-claim, multi-party contexts.
- Open Chapter
Index 16 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Publication Date: January 17th, 2018
- ISBN: 9781683281115
- Subject: Civil Procedure
- Series: Nutshells
- Type: Overviews
- Description: Rules of civil procedure govern everything that happens outside of criminal proceedings. This Nutshell provides a road map to navigating civil procedure rules and helps build a foundation for understanding the overall picture. Topics discussed include how to choose the proper court, pretrial and trial preparation, adjudication, judgments, appeals, and specialized multi-party/multi-claim proceedings.