Civil Procedure in a Nutshell
Authors:
Miller, Arthur R. / Steinman, Adam
Edition:
9th
Copyright Date:
2022
19 chapters
have results for civil procedure in a nutshell
Preface 4 results
- With great sadness, we must begin by acknowledging the passing of our friend, professional colleague, and co-author, Mary Kay Kane. She was a true giant in the field of civil procedure and in the legal academy. We owe her an enormous debt of gratitude, and we are honored to join her in authoring this edition of the Nutshell.
- 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 our Hornbook on this same topic, J. Friedenthal, M. Kane, A. Miller & A. Steinman,
- As has been the case for some eighty years, many of the most significant procedural changes arise first, and sometimes exclusively, in the federal court system. With respect to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this edition addresses the 2018 amendment to Rule 23 regarding class action settlements. This edition also includes important recent Supreme Court decisions on civil procedure—including , which is a particularly significant decision on personal jurisdiction—as well as other developments on standing, appellate procedure, multidistrict litigation, and arbitration. Indeed, we have added a new section to Chapter 9 that covers arbitration, especially the Supreme Court’s recent line of important decisions on the Federal Arbitration Act.
- This edition follows the same format and approach of those that preceded it. The primary revisions have been to update the work in light of important procedural developments that have occurred since the Eighth Edition was published in 2018.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2. Choosing the Proper Court 152 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 J. Friedenthal, M. Kane, A. Miller & A. Steinman,
- A brief introduction to the main types of federal subject-matter jurisdiction and its restraints follows. Readers interested in a more detailed review should refer to J. Friedenthal, M. Kane, A. Miller & A. Steinman,
- The development of state statutes and of the constitutional standard applied to extraterritorial assertions of personal jurisdiction has undergone several twists and turns, including a line of Supreme Court cases beginning with , that continues to evolve to this day. 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.
- Removal jurisdiction raises serious federalism concerns as it presents a situation in which the federal court is taking a case away from a state court, albeit at the request of a party. This fact is emphasized by the removal procedure itself. The defendant in the state court action files a notice of removal, containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, in the federal court. See
- There are certain circumstances when service of process cannot be effectuated on a potential defendant who is physically present in the state. In order to encourage active participation in judicial proceedings so as to have full and fair trials, courts typically have granted immunity from process to all trial participants who otherwise would be outside the court’s jurisdictional reach. The one exception to this rule is in the case of counterclaims against a nonresident plaintiff. Immunity is not given in that situation because, by instituting the action, the plaintiff has submitted to the court’s jurisdiction. Immunity protects nonresident attorneys, parties, and witnesses from being served with process in an unrelated action while in attendance or in transit to a trial—criminal or civil—within the state. It also has been extended to cover persons who were within the state for the sole purpose of discussing an outofcourt settlement.
- Open Chapter
Copyright Page 6 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Nutshell Series, In a Nutshell
- The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice, and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other professional.
- Printed in the United States of America
- © West, a Thomson business, 2003, 2007
- © 2018 LEG, Inc. d/b/a West Academic
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1. Introduction 7 results (showing 5 best matches)
- 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. This purpose may not always be met. Indeed, some of the existing procedures have been used by attorneys to thwart this goal. Nonetheless, the desire to achieve justice, efficiency, and economy in our civil dispute resolution process underlies the way courts apply and interpret the governing rules.
- 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 separate courts were established—e.g., law, equity, ecclesiastical—to dispense certain types of relief or to hear certain types of disputes. Modern court systems are not so designed. Typically, any civil court is authorized to dispense whatever remedy is appropriate. Thus, the problem of framing a remedy, although an essential step in preparing the case, is not necessarily relevant in the...
- The basic law school 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 an examination of various rules and statutes governing the operation and process of the civil courts. At times it will raise questions that are theoretical or constitutional; at other times issues of careful or strict rule interpretation will be paramount.
- 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 and in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Many larger states are divided into two, three, or even four judicial districts, depending on population, geography and caseload. There are 94 districts in the United States and each district court has one judge, or more commonly two or more. After an adverse judgment in the district court, a litigant may appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the district court is located. There are eleven...
- 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. By and large, 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 and managing the litigation before them, it still remains true that the ultimate responsibility for each case rests with the litigants and their attorneys.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7. Appeals 27 results (showing 5 best matches)
- A brief examination of the federal interlocutory appeals statutes provides a good illustration of the types of exceptions that typically are recognized in systems observing the final judgment rule. For a more extended discussion, see J. Friedenthal, M. Kane, A. Miller & A. Steinman,
- 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 is very risky because if the appellate court affirms the lower court’s discovery order, the contempt judgment will stand. Further, only criminal contempt is immediately appealable; if the court determines that the party was adjudged in civil contempt, an appeal may not be allowed. The difference between civil and criminal contempt depends on the nature of the proceeding and the type of sentence imposed. See D. Dobbs & C. Roberts, 140–147 (3d ed.2018). Despite these risks, in some cases litigants have used this method to avoid the delay that otherwise would result in obtaining review because of adherence to the final judgment rule in the main action. See, e.g.,
- 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(b)
- The rationale supporting the final judgment rule are severalfold. In part the rule stems from a desire to obtain judicial economy—a single appeal in which all objections to the trial court’s rulings are raised should be more efficient than several appeals, each requiring its own set of briefs, records, oral argument, and opinions. Indeed, the need for an appeal on a given ruling may be avoided totally if the losing party on that issue ultimately prevails in the trial court. Appeals from final judgments also avoid the problem of delaying the trial in order to decide interlocutory matters. In this way, the final judgment rule protects against the possibility that an appeal may be used to harass the opposing party.
- 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
Chapter 3. Pretrial: Framing the Litigation 143 results (showing 5 best matches)
- 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 J. Friedenthal, M. Kane, A. Miller & A. Steinman,
- 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 jurisdictional 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 may be found in J. Friedenthal, M. Kane, A. Miller & A. Steinman,
- The pleadings are the papers by which the litigants first set the case before the court. A thorough study of the art of pleading embraces both procedural and substantive concerns. 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 required 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 be prejudiced or be unable 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 persons, from piecemeal or harmful litigation. For a more complete exploration of the various rules surrounding mandatory party joinder, see J. Friedenthal, M. Kane, A. Miller & A. Steinman,
- The utilization of this new pleading standard, which the Court stated applied in all federal actions, suggests that careful attorneys should provide as much detail as possible and not simply rely on giving the defendant general notice of what is being claimed in order to survive dismissal. It is unclear, however, whether Twombly and Iqbal entail a full rejection of notice pleading. The decisions disavowed some of the Supreme Court’s earlier reasoning in Conley, but they did not directly reject Conley’s “fair notice” standard. Questions remain regarding what kind of allegations can be disregarded as merely “conclusory.” And what constitutes a “plausible” statement of a claim as opposed to one that is “implausible” or “inconceivable”? Ultimately, courts retain considerable discretion when applying the federal pleading standard to particular cases. As the Iqbal decision stated, deciding “whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief” is “a context-specific task that requires...a
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9. Other Special Problems in Federal Litigation 34 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The question of what law governs in a federal court sitting in a case that is not based on a specific federal law (most commonly, when federal jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship) has posed one of the most difficult problems in federal court litigation. It goes to the heart of the relationship between the federal and state governments. It is a problem studied intensively in advanced courses in conflicts or federal jurisdiction. A more detailed treatment may be found in J. Friedenthal, M. Kane, A. Miller & A. Steinman,
- There are two situations that should be distinguished. The first is when the federal court is deciding whether it has the authority to create 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 or statute or important federal interest that appears applicable. In the first, 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 interpretation of the Rules of Decision Act is that state law, whether in statutory or common law form, governs on substantive matters.
- When a federal procedural rule is involved, however, the federal government has a legitimate interest in having federal law govern because part of the process of establishing the federal court system authorized by the , includes prescribing procedural rules to regulate the processing of cases in those courts. Congress recognized this need and, utilizing its authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause (
- However, if the federal rule conflicts with the state law, then the inquiry becomes whether the federal rule is valid. For a federal rule adopted pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, as described above, it must control as long as it is truly a rule of procedure and does not abridge, enlarge, or modify a substantive right. A conflict may be found, for example, if the federal rule is discretionary but the state rule sets out mandatory requirements, because the notion of mandatory requisites would be inconsistent with the federal court’s ability to exercise its discretion and to decide each case on the basis of its facts. . If the court determines that a particular federal rule is not within the enabling legislation, then it again must refer to the four-part analysis described above to determine whether it must follow the state law under the Rules of Decision Act. To date, no federal rule of civil procedure has been found to violate the Rules ...Act; therefore, as a practical matter,...
- When the question presented is whether a federal statute, rather than a federal rule of civil procedure, should displace state law on a particular issue, the federal court will also apply an Erie analysis. It will look to see whether the federal statute was designed to address the issue presented and whether it is in conflict with the way in which state law handles the matter. If the answer to those two questions is yes, the federal statute governs under the Supremacy Clause. See . If the federal statute does not cover the issue, is not in conflict with state law, or is unconstitutional, then the federal court must ascertain whether it must defer to state law under the Rules of Decision Act by balancing the four factors described above.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5. The Trial 60 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The application of either the scintilla or substantial evidence test involves a complex 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 & A. Steinman,
- Focusing on the issue rather than the action as a whole and ordering the trial court to permit a jury trial on any common factual issues prior to deciding the equitable claims represents a definite departure from history. Traditionally, the equity clean-up doctrine provided that in suits first properly lodged in equity, the judge would determine any incidental legal issues. The Supreme Court has specifically rejected the clean-up doctrine, exhibiting a definite preference for jury trial. Not all the states have followed this approach in interpreting their own provisions. The basis for this movement away from a rigid historical test is the Court’s belief that the availability of new legal remedies and procedures necessarily reduces the scope of equity, which historically was developed to apply only when there were no adequate legal remedies. Under the current standard, history alone does not reveal whether an action will be deemed a “suit at common law” for Seventh Amendment ...in...
- 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 (the 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 states (Colorado, Utah, Louisiana, and Wyoming) have constitutional provisions similar to the federal and even 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
- The right to a jury trial in a civil action may derive from one of three sources. The first, and broadest, is constitutional. Federal and state constitutions set the minimal standards for jury trial in their respective judicial systems. The legislature has the power to authorize jury trial in cases not within the constitutional guarantee. Thus, the second jury trial source is statutory and represents those situations in which the legislature in establishing a particular cause of action has granted a right to a jury trial. Finally, the trial court always has the equitable power to impanel a jury, although in those instances the jury will be advisory only and the judge may accept or disregard its findings.
- 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, , and non-unanimous verdicts in criminal cases, , against challenges that these changes violated the jury trial guarantee in the Constitution. But in , the Court changed course with respect to criminal juries, which are governed by the Sixth Amendment, holding that a unanimous verdict is required for felony convictions. It has not yet ruled on non-unanimous civil verdicts. Thus, the lower...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6. Judgments and Their Effects 80 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Differences between the burden of proof in the first and second action also may result in a finding that the issues presented in both 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 proceedings the prosecution must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt, but in civil actions the plaintiff need only establish the matter by a preponderance of the evidence. If an issue is established first under the stricter criminal 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 are judicial doctrines and their scope varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Consequently, it is necessary to examine the precedents in the jurisdiction where suit is brought to determine exactly what binding effect is likely to attach to a particular judgment or issue. There is considerable variation. A general description follows. The reader is advised for more comprehensive treatment to refer to
- When judicial proceedings follow an agency decision, the general rule now is that a court will recognize the preclusive effect of administrative adjudications subject to two qualifications. First, the administrative decisions must result from a procedure that is an adequate substitute for the procedure one would expect in a court. The agency must act in a judicial capacity to resolve factual issues and provide the parties with an adequate opportunity to litigate them. Second, particular regulatory schemes, unique to each agency, may intend that administrative decisions have more or less preclusive effect in federal courts.
- All judicial systems, however, provide some limited means by which a party may seek to set aside a judgment and obtain a new trial after the time for moving for a new trial or appealing has passed. There are essentially four methods for seeking relief from a trial court judgment: (1) special statutes may authorize specific procedures for seeking relief from certain types of judgments; (2) contemporary rules of procedure usually provide that a party may make a motion in the original trial court for relief based on certain listed grounds; (3) a party may be allowed to bring an independent action challenging a judgment on grounds long recognized in equity; and (4) a party may apply to set a judgment aside for fraud, appealing to the court’s inherent equity powers.
- Like administrative agencies, arbitral tribunals serve as nonjudicial forums for certain kinds of disputes. Arbitration, however, raises additional complications. First, administrative adjudication falls on a spectrum between highly informal proceedings and formal hearings. Arbitration, by contrast, is much more likely to depart from the procedure one sees in an ordinary court.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8. Specialized Multi-Party—Multi-Claim Proceedings 51 results (showing 5 best matches)
- are stated pragmatically and are discussed in some detail in J. Friedenthal, M. Kane, A. Miller & A. Steinman, Civil Procedure §§ 16.2–16.3 (6th ed. 2021). The party seeking class certification must show that the action meets the requirements set out in 23(a) . In addition, courts have recognized two implied prerequisites—there must be a defined class with ascertainable members and the proposed class representatives must be members of that class. Moreover, every class member must have standing under Article III of the Constitution to recover individual damages. See . The basic requirements in (a) are the same as those just described under the 1938 rule. One of the requirements is that the class members share common questions of law or fact. Fed.Rule 23(a)(2)In 2011, the Supreme Court gave new content to that requirement, holding that it was not sufficient merely to find that some common questions existed. Rather, the inquiry is into whether the class claims share a common question...in
- The class action allows one or more persons to sue or be sued on behalf of themselves and other individuals who allegedly possess similar grievances or have been harmed in a similar way. The action is permitted to be brought in a representative fashion in order to allow the determination of legal rights in situations in which the number of people involved and, in some instances, the small individual amounts involved, otherwise effectively would prevent the vindication of those rights. The procedure also is an efficient and economical means for the courts and the parties to try a case in which there are common interests, rather than having to resort to multiple, duplicative lawsuits. Thus, class suits serve several important objectives.
- There are two different means of invoking interpleader in the federal courts: one is Federal Rule 22
- It is beyond the scope of this Nutshell to explore in detail 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 analyze several problem areas in complex litigation and to suggest some practices as possible solutions. It contains important guidance regarding case management and the scheduling of discovery and the pretrial process, discussions of some major issues that have occurred in class actions and other forms of aggregate litigation, citations to cases dealing with these issues, and many other useful aids for the courts and attorneys involved in those suits.
- 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 protect those interests adequately. 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 , a purely monetary action discussed in the preceding section, both adequate ...and class members were provided an opportunity to opt out, as well, so the Court did not need to rule on...
- Open Chapter
Title Page 2 results
Center Title 2 results
Chapter 4. Adjudication Without Trial 29 results (showing 5 best matches)
- 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 there is a specific provision 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.” . This type of provision tips the balance in favor of a full trial. There is no comparable provision in the federal rules and the federal 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...
- 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 can be presented in a form that...
- 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.
- When the defendant defaults at the outset of a case and the plaintiff moves for the entry of a default, the clerk must enter it 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 after holding 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 formal notice of the damages hearing and thus typically will not appear.
- 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.
- Open Chapter
Index 28 results (showing 5 best matches)
Outline 34 results (showing 5 best matches)
Table of Rules 33 results (showing 5 best matches)
Table of Statutes 48 results (showing 5 best matches)
Table of Cases 8 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Publication Date: August 8th, 2022
- ISBN: 9781685610142
- 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: jurisdiction, venue, and other court-selection issues; pleading, discovery, summary judgment, and other pretrial matters; adjudication, judgments, and appeals; multi-party/multi-claim proceedings, including class actions and multidistrict litigation; plus standing, the Erie doctrine, arbitration, and other important procedural issues. The new edition covers all the subjects dealt with in today's civil procedure courses, whether four or five or six hours in length.
