Skip Sub Menu

Civil Justice Repository

This page contains a repository of academic articles and other resources relating to civil justice.

Civil Procedure

Symposium: Through a Glass Starkly: Civil Procedure Re-assessed.  Celebrating the Scholarship of Stephen Subrin, 15 Nev. L. J. 1091 (2015).

  • Thomas O. Main & Jeffrey W. Stempel, Introduction
  • Brooke D. Coleman, Abrogation Magic: The Rules Enabling Act Process, Civil Rule 84, and the Forms
  • Benjamin Spencer, The Forms Had a Function: Rule 84 and the Appendix of Forms as Guardians of the Liberal Ethos in Civil Procedure
  • Suja A. Thomas & Dawson Price, How Atypical Cases Make Bad Rules: A Commentary on the Rulemaking Process
  • Richard D. Freer, Some Specific Concerns with the New General Jurisdiction
  • Mark S. Brodin, Screening Out Unwanted Calls: The Hypocrisy of Standing “Doctrine”
  • Jeffrey W. Stempel, The Irrepressible Myth of Burnham and Its Increasing Indefensibility After Goodyear and Daimler
  • Margaret Y.K. Woo, Manning the Courthouse Gates: Pleadings, Jurisdiction, and the Nation-State
  • Mark W. Bennett, Essay: The Grand Poobah and Gorillas in Our Midst: Enhancing Civil Justice in the Federal Courts—Swapping Discovery Procedures in the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure and Other Reforms Like Trial by Agreement
  • Edward F. Sherman, Amending Complaints to Sue Previously Misnamed or Unidentified Defendants After the Statute of Limitations Has Run: Questions Remaining from the Krupski Decision
  • Tobias Barrington Wolff, Scott v. Harris and the Future of Summary Judgment
  • Elizabeth M. Schneider, Revisiting the Integration of Law and Fact in Contemporary Federal Civil Litigation
  • Doug Rendleman, The Triumph of Equity Revisited: The Stages of Equitable Discretion
  • Linda S. Mullenix, Reflections of a Recovering Aggregationist
  • Bernard H. Mehlman & Jeremy S. Morrison, The Death with Dignity Ballot Initiative: Narrative Tensions and Jewish Legalities
  • Margaret B. Kwoka, Judicial Rejection of Transsubstantivity: The FOIA Example
  • David Marcus, Finding the Civil Trial’s Democratic Future After Its Demise
  • Stephen B. Burbank & Sean Farhang, Federal Court Rulemaking and Litigation Reform: An Institutional Approach
  • Thomas O. Main, Procedural Constants: How Delay Aversion Shapes Reform
  • Judith Resnik, The Contingency of Openness in Courts: Changing the Experiences and Logics of the Public’s Role in Court-Based ADR
  • Steve Subrin, Reflections

Andrew W. Jurs & Scott Devito, An Overreaction to a Nonexistent Problem: Empirical Analysis of Tort Reform from the 1980s to 2000s, 3 Stanford J. Complex Litg. 62 (2015)

Andrew W. Jurs & Scott Devito, Doubling Down for Defendants: The Pernicious Effects of Tort Reform, 118 Penn St. L. Rev. 543 (2014)

Rebecca Love Kourlis & Brittany K.T. Kauffman, The American Civil Justice System: From Recommendations to Reform in the 21st Century, 61 Kan. L. Rev. 877 (2013)

Andrew W. Jurs, Balancing Legal Process with Scientific Expertise: A Comparative Assessment of Expert Witness Methodology in Five Nations, and Suggestions for Reform of Post-Daubert U.S. Reliability Determinations, 95 Marq. L. Rev. 1329 (2012)

Andrew W. Jurs, Science Court: Past Proposals, Current Considerations, and a Suggested Structure, 15 VA. J. L. & Tech 1 (2010)

Special Symposium: 2010 Civil Litigation Review Conference, 60 Duke L.J. 537 (2010)

  • John H. Beisner, Discovering a Better Way: The Need for Effective Civil Litigation Reform
  • Paul D. Carrington, Politics and Civil Procedure Rulemaking: Reflections on Experience
  • Steven S. Gensler, Judicial Case Management: Caught in the Crossfire
  • Patrick E. Higginbotham, The Present Plight of the United States District Courts
  • Emery G. Lee III and Thomas E. Willging, Defining the Problem of Cost in Federal Civil Litigation
  • Dan H. Willoughby Jr., Rose Hunter Jones, and Gregory R. Antine, Sanctions for E-Discovery Violations: By the Numbers

Andrew W. Jurs, Judicial Analysis of Complex & Cutting-Edge Science in the Daubert Era: Epidemiologic Risk Assessment as a Test Case for Reform Strategies, 42 Conn. L. Rev. 49 (2009)

Danielle M. Shelton, Rewriting Rule 68: Realizing the Benefits of the Federal Settlement Rule by Injecting Certainty Into Offers Of Judgment, 91 Minn. L. Rev. 865 (2007)

Discovery

Brittany K.T. Kauffman, Initial Disclosures: The Past, Present, and Future of Discovery, 51 Akron L. Rev. 783 (2018)

Craig B. Schafer, Deconstructing “Discovery About Discovery,” 19 Sedona Conf. J. 215 (2018)

Carlos R. Soltero, Less May be More: Discovery in 2018—Focus on Efficiency and Limiting Costs, 82 The Advoc. (Texas) 53 (2018)

Diego A. Zambrano, Judicial Mistakes in Discovery, 112 NW. U.L. Rev Online 217 (2018)

Brook D. Coleman, Discovering Innovation: Discovery Reform and Federal Civil Rulemaking, 51 Akron L. Rev. 765 (2017)

Steven S. Gensler & Lee H. Rosenthal, Breaking the Boilerplate Habit in Civil Discovery, 51 Akron L Rev. 683 (2017)

Paul W. Grimm, Are We Insane? The Quest for Proportionality in the Discovery Rules of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 36 Rev. Litig 117 (2017)

Amir Shachmurove, Policing Boilerplate: Reckoning and Reforming Rule 34’s Popular—Yet Problematic—Construction, 37 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 203 (2017)

George Shepherd, Still a Failure: Broad Pretrial Discovery and The Superficial 2015 Amendments, 51 Akron L. Rev. 817 (2017)

Gregory L. Waterworth, Proportional Discovery's Anticipated Impact and Unanticipated Obstacle, 47 U. Balt. L. Rev. 139 (2017)

Brook D. Coleman, One Percent Procedure, 91 Wash. L. Rev. 1005 (2016)

Sara Metzler, Moving Discovery Forward in the Technology Age, 29 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 1153 (2016)

Michael Thomas Murphy, Occam's Phaser: Making Proportional Discovery (Finally) Work in Litigation by Requiring Phased Discovery, 4 Stan. J. Complex Litig. 89 (2016)

George Shepherd, Failed Experiment: Twombly, Iqbal, and Why Broad Pretrial Discovery Should be Further Eliminated, 49 Ind. L. Rev. 465 (2016)

Mark W. Bennett, The Grand Poobah and Gorillas in our Midst: Enhancing Justice in the Federal Courts - Swapping Discovery Procedures in the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure, 15 Nev. L. J. 1293 (2015)

Robert K. Wise, Ending Evasive Responses to Written Discovery: A Guide for Properly Responding (and Objecting) to Interrogatories and Document Requests Under the Texas Discovery Rules, 65 Baylor L. Rev. 510 (2013)

The American College of Trial Lawyers Task Force on Discovery & the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, Final Report (2009)

Jeffrey W. Stempel, Ulysses Tied to the Generic, Whipping Post: The Continuing Odyssey of Discovery “Reform”, 64 Law & Contemp. Probs. 197, 198 (2001)

Expedited Jury Trials

D. Greg Sakalla & Julie A. Pack, Short Trials: An Appropriate Replacement for Compulsory Arbitration in Arizona?, 59 Ariz. L. Rev. 485 (2017)

Laurie Doré, If You Build It, Will They Come? Designing Iowa’s New Expedited Civil Action Rule and Related Civil Justice Reforms, 63 Drake L. Rev. 401 (2015)

IAALS, A Summary Of Short, Summary, And Expedited Trial Programs Around The Country In 2014, at 13

N.J. Supreme Court, Report of The Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Expedited Civil Actions 4 (2014)

Stephen N. Subrin, The Limitations of Transsubstantive Procedure: An Essay on Adjusting the “One Size Fits All” Assumption, 87 Denv. U. L. Rev. 377 (2010)

General

Richard L. Jolly, Customized Litigation Strategies: A Review of Controversial Jury Trial Innovations, 82 The Advoc. (Texas) 63 (2018)

Stephen D. Susman, What Judges Can Do to Preserve Jury Trials, 57 No. 2 Judge’s J. 22 (2018)

Mark W. Bennett, Reinvigorating and Enhancing Jury Trials Through an Overdue Juror Bill of Rights: A Federal Trial Judge’s View, 48 Ariz. St. L. J. 481 (2016)

Paula Hannaford-Agor, But Have We Made Any Progress? An Update on the Status of Jury Improvement Efforts in State and Federal Courts, 6 (April 27, 2015 National Center for State Courts Center for Jury Studies)

Scott Donaldson, Improving Jury Service, 73 Ala. Law. 190 (2012)

Timothy G. Hicks, The Jury Reform Pilot Project—The Envelope Please, 90 Mich. B.J. 40 (2011)

Gregory E. Mize & Paula Hannaford-Agor, Jury Trial Innovations Across America: How We are Teaching and Learning from Each Other, 1 J. Ct. Innovation 189 (2008)

Kirk W. Schuler, In the Vanguard of the American Jury: A Case Study of Juror Innovations in the Northern District of Iowa, 28 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 453 (2008)

American Jury Project Comm’n, Seventh Circuit Bar Ass’n, Seventh Circuit American Jury Project: Final Report (Sept. 2008)

B. Michael Dann & Valerie P. Hans, Recent Evaluative Research on Jury Trial Innovations, 14 (Cornell Law Faculty Publications, Paper 402 2004)

Shari Seidman Diamond, et al., Juror Discussion During Civil Trials: Studying an Arizona Innovation, 45 Ariz. L. Rev. 1 (2003)

Tom M Dees, III, Juries: On the Verge of Extinction? A Discussion of Jury Reform, 54 SMU L. Rev. 1755 (2001)

B. Michael Dann & George Logan III, Jury Reform: The Arizona Experience, 79 Judicature 280 (1996)

Ariz. Supreme Court Comm. On More Effective Use Of Juries, Jurors:  The Power Of 12, 9 (1994)

Juror Bill of Rights

Mark W. Bennett, Reinvigorating and Enhancing Jury Trials Through an Overdue Juror Bill of Rights: A Federal Trial Judge’s View, 48 Ariz. St. L. J. 481 (2016)

Jury Trial Innovations

Interim Arguments

Richard L. Jolly, Customized Litigation Strategies: A Review Of Controversial Jury Trial Innovations, 82 The Advoc. (Texas) 63 (2018)

Stephen D. Susman & Thomas M. Melsheimer, Trial by Agreement: How Trial Lawyers Hold the Key to Improving Jury Trials in Civil Cases, 32 Rev. Litig. 431, 456 (2013)

Tom M Dees, III, Juries: On the Verge of Extinction? A Discussion of Jury Reform, 54 SMU L. Rev. 1755, 1778 (2001)

Juror Pre-deliberation Discussions 

Richard L. Jolly, Customized Litigation Strategies: A Review of Controversial Jury Trial Innovations, 82 The Advoc. (Texas) 63 (2018)

Stephen D. Susman & Thomas M. Melsheimer, Trial by Agreement: How Trial Lawyers Hold the Key to Improving Jury Trials in Civil Cases, 32 Rev. Litig. 431, 459 (2013)

Jessica L. Bregant, Let’s Give Them Something to Talk About: An Empirical Evaluation of Predeliberation Discussions, 4 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1213 (2009)

David A. Anderson, Let Jurors Talk: Authorizing Pre-deliberation Discussion of the Evidence During Trial, 174 Mil. L. Rev. 92 (2002)

Natasha A. Lakamp, Deliberating Juror Predeliberation Discussions: Should California Follow the Arizona Model?, 45 UCLA L. Rev. 845 (1998)

Juror Questions and Notetaking

Thomas D. Waterman, Mark W. Bennett & David C. Waterman, A Fresh Look at Jurors Questioning Witnesses: A Review of Eighth Circuit and Iowa Appellate Precedents and an Empirical Analysis of Federal and State Trial Judges and Trial Lawyers, 64 Drake L. Rev.101 (2016)

Stephen Kaufmann & Michael P. Murphy, Juror Questions During Trial: An Idea Whose Time Has Come Again, 99 Ill. B.J. 294 (2011)

Nancy S. Marder, Answering Jurors’ Questions: Next Steps in Illinois, 41 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 727 (2010)

Shari Seidman Diamond, et al., Juror Questions During Trial: A Window into Juror Thinking, 59 Vand. L. Rev. 1927 (2006)

Shari Seidman Diamond et al., Jurors’ Unanswered Questions, 41 Ct. Rev. 20 (Spring 2004)

John R. Stegner, Why I Let Jurors Ask Questions in Criminal Trials, 40 Idaho L Rev. 541 (2004) and N. Randy Smith, Why I do Not Let Jurors Ask Questions In Trials, 40 Idaho L. Rev. 553 (2004)

Nicole L. Mott, The Current Debate on Juror Questions: “To Ask or Not to Ask, That is the Question,” 78 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 1099 (2003)

Laurie Forbes Neff, The Propriety of Jury Questioning: A Remedy for Perceived Harmless Error, 28 Pepp. L. Rev. 437 (2001)

A. Barry Cappello & G. James Strenio, Juror Questioning: The Verdict is in After Years of Debate, Courts are Increasingly Allowing Jurors to Question Witnesses, Following Procedural Safeguards, 36 Trial 44 (June 2000)

Larry Heuer & Steven Penrod, Juror Notetaking and Question Asking During Trials: A National Field Experiment, 18 Law & Hum. Behav. 121 (1994)

Larry Heuer & Steven Penrod, Increasing Jurors’ Participation in Trials: A Field Experiment with Jury Notetaking and Question Asking, 12 L. & Hum. Behav. 231 (1988)

Opening Statements to the Entire Venire

Richard L. Jolly, Customized Litigation Strategies: A Review of Controversial Jury Trial Innovations, 82 The Advoc. (Texas) 63 (2018)

Richard L. Jolly, Questionnaire Results: Opening Statements Before Entire Venire, Civil Jury Project NYU Law School (2016)

Hon. J. Thomas Marten, Some Thoughts on Jury Trials, SM055 ALI-ABA 359 (2006)

Trial Time Limits

Nora Freemen Engstrom, The Trouble with Trial Time Limits, 106 Geo. L.J. 933 (2018)

Richard L. Jolly, Customized Litigation Strategies: A Review of Controversial Jury Trial Innovations, 82 The Advoc. (Texas) 63 (2018)

Stephen D. Susman & Thomas M. Melsheimer, Trial by Agreement: How Trial Lawyers Hold the Key to Improving Jury Trials in Civil Cases, 32 Rev. Litig. 431, 441 (2013)

Andrew L. Goldman & J. Walter Sinclair, Advisability and Practical Considerations of Court-Imposed Time Limits on Trial, 79 Def. Counsel J. 387 (2012)

Patrick E. Longan, The Shot Clock Comes to Trial: Time Limits for Federal Civil Trials, 35 Ariz. L. Rev. 663 (1993)

John E. Rumel, The Hourglass and Due Process: The Propriety of Time Limits on Civil Trials, 26 U.S.F. L. Rev. 237 (1992)

Summary Judgement

Shaun B. Spencer & Adam Feldman, Words Count: The Empirical Relationship Between Brief Writing and Summary Judgment Success, 22 Legal Writing J. Legal Writing Inst. 61 (2018)

Suja A. Thomas, Reforming the Summary Judgment Problem: The Consensus Requirement, 86 Fordham L. Rev. 2241 (2018)

Michael W. Pfautz, Note, What Would a Reasonable Jury Do? Jury Verdicts Following Summary Judgment Reversals, 115 Colum. L. Rev. 1255 (2015)

Suja A. Thomas, Summary Judgment and the Reasonable Jury Standard: A Proxy for a Judge’s Own View of the Sufficiency of the Evidence?, 97 Judicature 222 (2014)

Mark W. Bennett, Essay: From the “No Spittin’, No Cussin’ and No Summary Judgment” Days of Employment Discrimination Litigation to the “Defendant’s Summary Judgment Affirmed Without Comment” Days: One Judge’s Four Decade Perspective, 57 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 653 (2013)

Brooke D. Coleman, Summary Judgment: What We Think We Know Versus What We Ought to Know, 43 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 705 (2012)

Diane P. Wood, Summary Judgment and the Law of Unintended Consequences, 36 Okla. City U. L. Rev. 231 (2011)

Craig M. Reiser, The Unconstitutional Application of Summary Judgment in Factually Intensive Inquiries, 12 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 195 (2009)

Suja A. Thomas, The Fallacy of Dispositive Procedure, 50 B.C. L. Rev. 759 (2009)

John Bronsteen, Against Summary Judgment, 75 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 522 (2007)

Elizabeth M. Schneider, The Dangers of Summary Judgment: Gender and Federal Civil Litigation, 59 Rutgers L. Rev. 705 (2007)

Martin H. Redish, Summary Judgment and the Vanishing Trial: Implications of the Litigation Matrix, 57 Stan. L. Rev. 1329 (2005)

Paul W. Mollica, Federal Summary Judgment at High Tide, 81 Marq. L. Rev. 141 (2000)

Trial by Agreement

Stephen D. Susman & Thomas M. Melsheimer, Trial by Agreement: How Trial Lawyers Hold the Key to Improving Jury Trials in Civil Cases, 32 Rev. Litig. 431 (2013)

Trial Lawyers

Mark W. Bennett, The Eight Traits of Great Trial Lawyers: A Federal Judge's View on How to Shed the Moniker: "I am a Litigator," 33 Rev. Litig. 1 (2014)

Mark W. Bennett, Obituary: The American Trial Lawyer; Born 1641-Died 20??, Litig., Spring 2013, at 5

Vanishing Jury Trials

Graham K. Bryant & Kristopher R. McClellan, The Disappearing Civil Trial: Implications for The Future of Law Practice, 30 Regent U. L. Rev. 287 (2018)

Robert J. Conrad, Jr. & Katy L. Clements, The Vanishing Criminal Jury Trial: From Trial Judges to Sentencing Judges, 86 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 99 (2018)

Nora F. Engstrom, The Diminished Trial, 86 Fordham L. Rev. 2131 (2018)

Richard L. Jolly, Expanding the Search for America’s Missing Jury, 116 Mich. L. Rev. 925 (2018)

Stephen Susman, What Judges Can Do to Preserve Jury Trials, 57 No. 2 Judges’ J. 22 (2018)

Mark W. Bennett, Going, Going, Gone: The Missing American Jury, 69 Ala. L. Rev. 247(2017) (reviewing Suja A. Thomas, The Missing American Jury – Restoring The Fundamental Constitutional Role Of The Criminal, Civil, And Grand (2016))

Stephen Daniels & Joanne Martin, Where Have All the Cases Gone? The Strange Success of Tort Reform Revisited, 65 Emory L. J. 1445 (2016)

Stephen D. Easton, Why Teach Trial Practice . . . When There Are “No” Trials?, 50 U.S.F. L. Rev. 1 (2016)

William Pizzi, The Effects of the “Vanishing Trial” on Our Incarceration Rate, 28 Fed. Sent’g. R. 330 (2016)

Suja A. Thomas, The Missing Branch of the Jury, 77 Ohio St. L. J. 1261 (2016)

Xavier Rodriguez, The Decline of Civil Jury Trials: A Positive Development, Myth, or the End of Justice as We Know It?, 45 St. Mary’s L.J. 333 (2014)

John H. Langbein, The Disappearance of Civil Trial in the United States, 122 Yale L.J. 522 (2012)

Wood R. Foster, Jr., How “Trial Lawyer” Became an Oxymoron, 74 Bench & B. Minn. 16 (2008)

William Young, Vanishing Trials, Vanishing Juries, Vanishing Constitution, 40 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 67 (2006)

Mark W. Bennett, Judges’ Views on Vanishing Civil Trials, 88 Judicature 306 (2005)

Marc Galanter, The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and State Courts, 1 J. Of Empirical Legal Stud. 459 (2001)

Links to organizations

American Association for Justice

American Bar Association

American Tort Reform Association 

Civil Jury Project at NYU School of Law  

Defense Research Institute

National Center for State Courts 

Pound Civil Justice Institute

The Federalist Society

U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform

 
Law School News
October 18, 2018
Drake Law School received an A+ ranking for family law by preLaw magazine, placing Drake among the top three law schools in the nation for this field.