Institutional practice, procedural uniformity, and as-applied challenges under the rules enabling act

Notre Dame Law Review

Volumn 86, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 1181-1239

  Struve, Catherine T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053393606     PISSN: 07453515     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. See Stephen B. Burbank & Tobias Barrington Wolff, Redeeming the Missed Opportunities of Shady Grove, 159 U. PA. L. REV. 17, 25 (2010);
2. Kevin M. Clermont, The Repressible Myth of Shady Grove, 86 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 987, 991 (2011).
3. See Allan Ides, The Standard for Measuring the Validity of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure: The Shady Grove Debate Between Justices Scalia and Stevens, 86 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1041 (2011).
4. See also Thomas D. Rowe, Jr., Sonia, What's a Nice Person Like You Doing in Company Like That?, 44 CREIGHTON L. REV. 107, 110 (2010)
5. See Stephen B. Burbank, The Rules Enabling Act of 1934, 130 U. PA. L. REV. 1015, 1106 (1982).
6. See Edward A. Purcell, Jr., The Story of Erie: How Litigants, Lawyers, Judges, Politics, and Social Change Reshape the Law, in CIVIL PROCEDURE STORIES 21, 22-23 (Kevin M. Clermont ed., 2d ed. 2008).
7. Cf. Debra J. Gross, Comment, Mandatory Notice and Defendant Class Actions: Resolving the Paradox of Identity Between Plaintiffs and Defendants, 40 EMORY LJ. 611, 621 (1991).
8. See Richard H. Fallon, Jr., As-Applied and Facial Challenges and Third-Party Standing, 113 HARV. L. REV. 1321, 1325-26 (2000).
9. See, e.g., Stephen C. Yeazell, Judging Rules, Ruling Judges, 61 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 229, 246 (1998).
10. See Catherine T. Struve, Shifting Burdens: Discrimination Law Through the Lens of Jury Instructions, 51 B.C. L. REV. 279, 282 (2010)
11. See Stephen B. Burbank, Interjurisdictional Preclusion, Full Faith and Credit and Federal Common Law: A General Approach, 71 CORNELL L. REV. 733, 772 (1986)
12. See, e.g., Matthew D. Adler, Rights, Rules, and the Structure of Constitutional Adjudication: A Response to Professor Fallon, 113 HARV. L. REV. 1371, 1390 (2000);
13. Edward A. Hartnett, Modest Hope for a Modest Roberts Court: Deference, Facial Challenges, and the Comparative Competence of Courts, 59 SMU L. REV. 1735, 1749 (2006)
14. See, e.g., Marc E. Isserles, Overcoming Overbreadth: Facial Challenges and the Valid Rule Requirement, 48 AM. U. L. REV. 359, 376 (1998)
15. Gillian E. Metzger, Facial Challenges and Federalism, 105 COLUM. L. REV. 873 (2005).
16. See, e.g., Matthew D. Adler, Rights Against Rules: The Moral Structure of American Constitutional Law, 97 MICH. L. REV. 1, 127 (1998)
17. Michael C. Dorf, Facial Challenges to State and Federal Statutes, 46 STAN. L. REV. 235, 294 (1994) (Pubitemid 24774887)
18. See Samuel Estreicher & John E. Sexton, A Managerial Theory of the Supreme Court's Responsibilities: An Empirical Study, 59 N.Y.U. L. REV. 681, 729 (1984).
19. Catherine T. Struve, Direct and Collateral Federal Court Review of the Adequacy of State Procedural Rules, 103 COLUM. L. REV. 243, 254 (2003).
20. See generally Catherine T. Struve, The Paradox of Delegation: Interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 150 U. PA. L. REV. 1099, 1108-09 (2002)
21. (citing Peter Westen & Jeffrey S. Lehman, Is There Life for Erie After the Death of Diversity?, 78 MICH. L. REV. 311, 364 (1980)).
22. see also Joseph P. Bauer, Shedding Light on Shady Grove: Further Reflections on the Erie Doctrine from a Conflicts Perspective, 86 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 939, 955 (2011)
23. For a discussion of interpretive methods employed by the New York Court of Appeals, see Eric Lane, How to Read a Statute in New York: A Response to Judge Kaye and Some More, 28 HOFSTRA L. REV. 85 (1999).
24. Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Making Sense of Overbreadth, 100 YALE L.J. 853, 861 (1991).
25. Stephen B. Burbank, The Bitter with the Sweet: Tradition, History, and Limitations on Federal Judicial Power - A Case Study, 75 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1291, 1331 (2000);
26. See Richard A. Nagareda, The Litigation-Arbitration Dichotomy Meets the Class Action, 86 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1069, 1085 (2011)
27. Stephen B. Burbank, Of Rules and Discretion: The Supreme Court, Federal Rules and Common Law, 63 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 693, 716 (1998).
28. Stephen N. Subrin, Federal Rules, Local Rules, and Slate Rules: Uniformity, Divergence, and Emerging Procedural Patterns, 137 U. PA. L. REV. 1999, 2047-48 (1989).
29. JOE CECIL & GEORGE CORT, REPORT ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRACTICE ACROSS DISTRICTS WITH VARIATIONS IN LOCAL RULES 1 & app. A (2008), available at http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/sujulrs2.pdf.
30. See, e.g., Erwin Chemerinsky & Barry Friedman, The Fragmentation of the Federal Rules, 46 MERCER L. REV. 757, 763 (1995)
31. See Joseph P. Bauer, The Erie Doctrine Revisited: How a Conflicts Perspective Can Aid the Analysis, 74 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1235, 1293-94 (1999)
32. See Stephen B. Burbank, Aggregation on the Couch: The Strategic Uses of Ambiguity and Hypocrisy, 106 COLUM. L. REV. 1924, 1949 (2006)
33. For an illuminating discussion of the connections between the Erie and reverse-Erie doctrines, see Kevin M. Clermont, Reverse-Erie, 82 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1 (2006).
34. See generally Daniel J. Meltzer, State Court Forfeitures of Federal Rights, 99 HARV. L. REV. 1128, 1137-45 (1986)