You are here
Materials About the Federal Rules
The materials listed below, produced or made available by the Center, are related to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure (appellate, bankruptcy, civil, criminal, and evidence).
Click here for curated content on Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Displaying 51 - 60 of 237
Title | Rule(s) | Date |
---|---|---|
Attorney Choice of Forum in Class Action Litigation: What Difference Does It Make? This article presents a post-Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) discussion and analysis of data presented previously in An Empirical Examination of Attorneys' Choice of Forum in Class Action Litigation (FJC 2005). Data originated from a national random survey of 728 attorneys who represented plaintiffs and defendants in 621 closed class action cases. New discussion centers on the assumptions underlying CAFA about differences in federal and state court treatment of class actions. New data are presented on the types of cases (nature of suit) and the state of filing for survey cases that were originally filed in state court. From 81 Notre Dame Law Review 591 (January 2006). |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 23 | January 1, 2006 |
Attorney Reports on the Impact of Amchem and Ortiz on Choice of a Federal or State Forum in Class Action Litigation: A Report to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules Regarding a Case-based Survey of Attorneys While considering a proposal to amend Fed. R. Civil P. 23 to create new certification standards that would apply only to settlement class actions, the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules sought this empirical research from the Center to help it decide how to proceed. This report is the second phase. For the first phase see Effects of Amchem/Ortiz on the Filing of Federal Class Actions: Report to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (2002). |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 23 | April 1, 2004 |
Attorney Satisfaction with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—Report to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules This report compares selected questions from opinion surveys regarding civil litigation completed by members of the American College of Trial Lawyers, ABA Section of Litigation, and National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA). |
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | March 1, 2010 |
Attorneys' Fees in Class Actions A circuit-by-circuit review of case law governing award of attorneys' fees in class actions and an examination of abuses in fee requests. The report also includes a discussion of judges' and attorneys' attitudes toward fee computation. Recommendations focus on procedures, implemented early in litigation, designed to avoid problems when fee requests are submitted. |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 23 | January 1, 1980 |
Auctioning the Role of Class Counsel in Class Action Cases: A Descriptive Study A study conducted by the Center to provide the Third Circuit Task Force on Selection of Class Counsel information on judges who have employed an auction or bidding method to select class counsel. The report describes in detail the auctioning procedures used by the judges, including the process of evaluating bids and selecting the winning bidder. This report is also reprinted at 209 Federal Rules Decisions 519 (2002). |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 23 | August 29, 2001 |
Bankruptcy Court Rules and Procedures Regarding Electronic Signatures of Persons Other than Filing Attorneys At the request of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the Center collected and reviewed local bankruptcy rules regarding signatures of non-registrants of CM/ECF (e.g., debtors) and requirements for retention of documents bearing original handwritten signatures of non-registrants. Staff also reviewed district court rules regarding signatures and retention, reviewed an OMB document on the use of electronic signatures in federal transactions, and solicited the views of interested parties regarding potential rules changes in these areas. |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure | February 22, 2013 |
Brady v. Maryland Material in the United States District Courts: Rules, Orders, and Policies An update of Treatment of Brady v. Maryland Material in United States District and State Courts' Rules, Orders, and Policies, the October 2004 report to the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules as it and the Standing Committee on the Rules of Practice and Procedure consider proposed amendments to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. |
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 | May 31, 2007 |
Case Commentary: Saada v. Golan, 833 Fed. App'x 829 (2d Cir. 2021) Motion to Set Aside In this case, a motion to set aside judgment under Rule 60(b) was denied for failure to raise material disputed fact. The party must show evidence of a disputed material to support a motion to set aside a judgment based on newly discovered evidence. Holding The appellate court affirmed district court’s denial of motion to set aside judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) without holding evidentiary hearing. Facts In Saada I,[1] the district court found that the mother removed the parties’ child from the child’s habitual residence in Italy. That decision was affirmed in part and vacated in part by the Second Circuit in Saada II.[2] The Second Circuit found that the performance of the undertakings by the father could not be guaranteed. The case was remanded for the district court to conduct further proceedings and determine whether alternative ameliorative measures could be adopted to ensure the child’s safety upon return to Italy. On remand in Saada III[3] the district court again ordered the child returned to Italy, based upon rulings by an Italian court including a stay-away order, mandatory psychological evaluations, and providing the mother compensation for expenses incurred because of the need to relocate to Italy. The Second Circuit affirmed (Saada IV).[4] Shortly thereafter the mother filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) to set aside the judgment based upon evidence that the father did not intend to comply with the Italian court’s orders—the basis for the district court’s ameliorative measures for the child’s return. The district court denied the mother’s motion without granting her request for an evidentiary hearing. Discussion The Second Circuit held that a party is not automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a motion to set aside a judgment. The district court was well within its discretion to deny the motion because there was insufficient evidence raising a dispute concerning a material fact. In addition, the district court noted that even if the grounds for the motion were known at the time of trial, these facts would not have changed the court’s judgment. The Second Circuit stayed the judgment denying the Rule 60(b) motion pending a decision on the mother’s petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.[5] [1]. Saada v. Golan, No. 18-CV-5292(AMD)(LB), 2019 WL 1317868 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2019). |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civil P. 60 | November 17, 2022 |
Case Commentary: West v. Dobrev, 735 F.3d 921 (10th Cir. 2013) Summary Judgment | Sua Sponte Orders This case touches on motions for summary judgment in connection with Hague Convention cases. Because of the emphasis on expedited proceedings, many courts have used summary judgment procedures to eliminate unmeritorious cases and narrow issues to those where there is a real and material dispute. Rule 56 sets out considerations and procedures for summary judgments, and provides that a court may grant a summary judgment where there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Facts Mother petitioned the district court for the return of her two children to Belgium; they were being retained in Utah by their father after the conclusion of their vacation with him. The district court held a preliminary hearing six days after the petition was filed, during which time the parties provided documentation to support their claims. Mother presented evidence that established a prima facie case for the return of the children—that the children’s habitual residence was Belgium, that she had enforceable custody rights, and that father had wrongfully retained the children. Father asserted an Article 13(b) defense that the children would be exposed to a grave risk if returned to Belgium, but he had no actual evidence that he could present that such a grave risk existed. What father really wanted was additional time to be able to investigate whether there was abuse. Based upon the oral and written submissions of the parties, the district court issued a brief written decision granting mother’s petition and ordered the children returned to Belgium. Discussion Summary Judgment Procedure. The Tenth Circuit recognized that Article 11 of the Convention exhorts court to act expeditiously to determine petitions made for return of children. The court noted that a district court has a great deal of discretion to determine the procedures necessary to resolve a Hague case. Quoting March v. Levine,[1] the court observed that neither the Convention, nor ICARA, nor any constitutional provisions require that an evidentiary hearing or discovery be allowed, as a matter of right, in Hague Convention proceedings. In this case, mother had easily made out a prima facie case for return, and father was unable to provide any credible evidence that supported his claim of a grave risk under Article 13. At most, his submissions amounted to a “fishing expedition.” Rejecting father’s claims that he had been denied due process by the lack of an evidentiary hearing, the court held that the father had a meaningful opportunity to be heard and no denial of due process occurred. [1]. 249 F.3d 462, 474 (6th Cir. 2001). This document is part of The 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction: A Resource for Judges, a Special Topic Webpage. |
Fed. R. Civil P. 56 | March 5, 2016 |
Case Law Divergence from the Federal Rules of Evidence This report is an effort to increase the awareness of counsel practicing in federal courts, as well as judges, about the possibility that case law has diverged from the text of some of the Federal Rules of Evidence. At the request of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Rules of Evidence, Professor Daniel Capra, committee reporter, highlights the major instances in which case law has diverged from an applicable Rule. This divergence comes in two forms: (1) where the case law (defined as case law in at least one circuit) is flatly inconsistent with the text of the Rule, the Committee Note explaining the text, or both; and (2) where the case law has provided significant development on a point that is not addressed by either the text of the Rule or the Committee Note. This report is reprinted at 197 Federal Rules Decisions 531 (2001). |
Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence | October 3, 2000 |