Federal Courts. Rules of Civil Procedure. Local Rule Barring Communication with Absent Class Members Held beyond Rulemaking Authority of District Courts. Rodgers v. United States Steel Corp., 508 F. 2d 152 (3d Cir. 1975)

1975 ◽  
Vol 88 (8) ◽  
pp. 1911 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Local Rule ◽  
Steel Corp ◽  
United States Steel Corp

Rules for Courts: The Role of Lawyers, Judges, Professors and Government

1978 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 459-473
Author(s):  
Jack B. Weinstein
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The United States ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
The Supreme Court

This discussion covers some methods and institutions for changing procedures in the courts. More particularly, I refer to procedures for conducting litigations in courts of general jurisdiction, that is to say, civil procedure, criminal procedure and evidence.Since criminal procedure and evidence are controlled here by statutes, I realize that when the terms “rules” or “regulations” are used you would normally think only of civil procedure. I use the term “rules” in a broader sense since in federal courts in the United States, most procedure governing civil and criminal trials and appeals, including evidence, stems from rules promulgated by the Supreme Court of the United States, subject to modification by Congress.I shall describe briefly the history and present situation in the United States, making some reference to the British method, touch on the Israeli method, and then draw some general conclusions, raising some questions about the Israeli pattern as I understand it. These countries are comparable since each has a strong, independent judiciary and a tradition of freedom and the rule of law.

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (U.S. Sup. Ct.)

2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 966-984 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chimène I. Keitner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal District ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Civil Action ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
Federal District Courts ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum is the United States Supreme Court’s second decision interpreting the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, which was enacted by the First Congress as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The ATS provides that federal district courts “shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” Absent the ATS, such claims could only be brought in state, not federal, courts.

U.S. Regulation on Notarial and Related Services

1967 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 1231-1232
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Foreign Country ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Related Services ◽  
Private Person

(a) Customary practice. Under Federal law (Rule 28(b), Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts of the United States) and under the laws of some of the States, a commission to take depositions can be issued to a foreign official or to a private person in a foreign country. However, this method Is rarely used; commissions are generally issued to U.S. consular officers. In those countries where American consular officers are not permitted to take testimony (see 192.55(c)) and where depositions must be taken before a foreign authority, letters rogatory are usually issued to a foreign court.

Congress and the Political Expansion of the United States District Courts

2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M.P. de Figueiredo ◽  
Gerald S. Gryski ◽  
Emerson H. Tiller ◽  
Gary Zuk
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Political ◽  
District Courts
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document