Original sin and the transaction in Federal Civil Procedure

Texas Law Review

Volumn 76, Issue 7, 1998, Pages

  Kane, Mary Kay ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0042706744     PISSN: 00404411     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (3)

1. Walter Wheeler Cook, "Substance" and "Procedure" in the Conflict of Laws, 42 YALE L.J. 333, 337 (1933).
2. As recognized by Professor Wright, no really serious attempts have been made to define the term "transaction," noting the general futility of all definitions. See Charles Alan Wright, Estoppel by Rule: The Compulsory Counterclaim Under Modern Pleading, 39 IOWA L. REV. 255, 270 (1954). Rather, courts have preferred to suggest tests or factors that serve as guidelines to aid in determining whether a given set of claims should or should not be joined because they satisfy the transaction standard. See id.
3. An exception may be in cases dealing with the joinder rules and the development of ancillary (now called supplemental) jurisdiction. But there the interplay and related purposes of the two procedural developments make such exchanges understandable, if not almost necessary. See infra text accompanying notes 98-101. Thus, for example, Professor Wright, in a presentation examining the 1966 amendments to the federal rules, discussed the question whether a third-party plaintiff should be able to join to an impleader claim some other claim that he might have against the third-party defendant. See Recent Changes in the Federal Rules of Procedure, in Proceedings of the 29th Judicial Conference of the Third Circuit, 42 F.R.D. 552 (1966) (reporting remarks of Charles Alan Wright).