The Oyez Project: Judicial Power Issues - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Arguments

Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor - Oral Argument

Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:00:00 -0500

The volume and complexity of asbestos litigation led the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation to transfer all asbestos claims filed in federal courts, but not yet on trial, to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. After this consolidation, counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendant manufacturers reached a partial global settlement: a class consisting of all individuals with potential asbestos claims who had not yet filed lawsuits would be certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(b)(3) (FRCP) for purposes of settlement only. The proposed settlement created an administrative structure which provided set compensation for certain asbestos-related diseases. The District Court approved the plan, and certified the proposed class. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the lower court's order, finding that the requirements of class certification had not been met. Specifically, the Third Circuit held that while a class may be certified for the sole purpose of settlement, the certification requirements of FRCP 23 must still be met as though the case were going to trial. In this instance, the class failed to demonstrate that common issues predominated over other questions, FRCP 23(b)(3), or that the named plaintiffs would "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class."

Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis - Oral Argument

Wed, 30 Nov 1977 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey - Oral Argument

Tue, 04 Oct 1988 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. - Oral Argument

Tue, 08 Nov 1983 12:00:00 -0500

Bose Corporation, a loudspeaker manufacturer, brought a product disparagement action against Consumer Union for publishing a negative review of Bose products. Among other comments, Consumer Union's article mistakenly said that Bose loudspeakers caused sounds of individual musical instruments to wander "about the room" when they in fact merely wondered "along the wall[s]." Ruling in favor of Bose, the District Court found that the article's statements were factually wrong and made with "actual malice." On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed as it found the lower court's ruling to be clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court granted Bose certiorari.

Browder v. Director, Ill. Dept. Of Corrections - Oral Argument

Mon, 31 Oct 1977 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Woods - Oral Argument

Tue, 04 Nov 1986 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Business Guides v. Chromatic Comm. Enterprises - Oral Argument

Mon, 26 Nov 1990 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. - Oral Argument

Tue, 20 Feb 1990 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc. - Oral Argument

Wed, 29 Apr 1987 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker - Oral Argument

Mon, 18 Apr 1983 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August - Oral Argument

Wed, 12 Nov 1980 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Devlin v. Scardelletti - Oral Argument

Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:00:00 -0500

Robert Devlin, a retired worker represented by the Transportation Communications International Union, participates in a defined benefits pension plan (Plan) administered by the Union. In 1991, the Plan was amended to add a cost of living increase (COLA). In 1997, the Plan's trustees eliminated the COLA because the Plan could not support such a large benefits increase. The trustees also filed a class action in federal court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the 1997 elimination was binding on all Plan members or that the 1991 COLA was void. After the District Court conditionally certified a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and the trustees asked the court to approve their settlement with the class representatives, Devlin moved to intervene. The court denied his motion as untimely. The court then heard objections to the settlement, including those advanced by Devlin, and approved the settlement. In affirming the District Court's denial of Devlins's intervention, the Court of Appeals held that, because Devlin was not a named class representative and because he had been properly denied the right to intervene, he lacked standing to challenge the settlement.

GE v. Joiner - Oral Argument

Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:00:00 -0500

In 1992, Robert Joiner, after being diagnosed with small-cell lung cancer, sued General Electric Co. in Georgia state court, alleging that his disease was promoted by workplace exposure to chemical "PCBs" and their derivatives, including polychlorinated dibenzofurans (furans) and polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (dioxins). Ultimately, Joiner provided the District Court with expert witnesses' depositions that testified that PCBs, furans, and dioxins can promote cancer and that this was the likely cause of his cancer. The court granted GE summary judgment, reasoning that there was no genuine issue as to whether Joiner had been exposed to furans and dioxins and that his experts' testimony had failed to show that there was a link between exposure to PCBs and small-cell lung cancer. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that the District Court erred in excluding the testimony of Joiner's expert witnesses. The appellate court applied a stringent standard of review to reach its conclusion.

Gonzalez v. Crosby - Oral Argument

Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:00:00 -0500

In Artuz v. Bennett (2000) the U.S. Supreme Court held that state petitions for postconviction relief could toll the federal statute of limitations even if those petitions were ultimately dismissed as procedurally barred. Gonzalez, whose federal habeas petition had been dismissed as time barred, filed a new petition (a Rule 60[b] petition) in light of the Artuz ruling. The district court denied Gonzalez's new motion. The 11th Circuit affirmed the denial, holding that Gonzalez's latest motion amounted to a second or succcessive habeas petition which could not be filed without precertification by the court of appeals.

Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co. - Oral Argument

Wed, 18 Jan 1989 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard - Oral Argument

Mon, 30 Mar 1981 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Henderson v. United States - Oral Argument

Tue, 19 Mar 1996 12:00:00 -0500

Lloyd Henderson, a merchant mariner, was injured while working aboard a United States vessel. After exhausting administrative remedies, Henderson filed a seaman's personal injury action against the United States under the Suits in Admiralty Act. Henderson's complaint was filed close to, but within, the two-year limit set on complaints by the Act. Henderson then followed the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the service of the summons and complaint, or service of process, to the proper authorities. The United States argued that Henderson failed to serve the complaint "forthwith," or without delay. This deprived the court of jurisdiction because "forthwith" service is a prerequisite for the government's waiver of sovereign immunity under the Act. The government's argument prevailed and the federal District Court dismissed Henderson's suit. Henderson lost on appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Ingalls Shipbuilding v. Office of Worker's Comp. Prog. - Oral Argument

Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:00:00 -0500

After being exposed to asbestos while working for Ingalls Shipbuilding as a shipfitter, Jefferson Yates filed a claim for disability benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). While Ingalls and Yates settled, Yates also sued the manufacturers and suppliers of the asbestos products that were allegedly present in his workplace when he contracted asbestosis. Yates also settled with some of the manufacturers and suppliers he sued, each of whom required releases from Yates and his wife. Ingalls did not approve of any releases. When Yates died, his wife then filed for benefits under the LHWCA, which provides, "If the person entitled to compensation... enters into a settlement with a third person... for an amount less than the compensation to which the person... would be entitled under this [Act], the employer shall be liable for compensation only if written approval of the settlement is obtained from the employer before the settlement is executed." Ultimately, the Court of Appeals affirmed that at the time Mrs. Yates executed the predeath settlements, she was not a "person entitled to compensation" because her husband was still alive, thus her right to death benefits had not yet vested.

Jaffee v. Redmond - Oral Argument

Mon, 26 Feb 1996 12:00:00 -0500

Mary Lu Redmond, a former police officer, received extensive counseling from a licensed clinical social worker after she shot and killed Ricky Allen. Carrie Jaffee, special administrator for Allen, filed suit in federal District Court alleging that Redmond had violated Allen's constitutional rights by using excessive force in the encounter. During the trial, Jaffee sought access to the notes from Redmond's counseling. Redmond's counsel resisted asserting the conversations were protected against involuntary disclosure by a psychotherapist-patient privilege. The District Court judge rejected the argument, but the notes were not released. The judge instructed the jury that they could presume that the contents could have been unfavorable to Redmond. The jury awarded monetary damages. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision. It found that Federal Rule of Evidence 501 prompted the recognition of a psychotherapist-patient privilege.

Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael - Oral Argument

Mon, 07 Dec 1998 12:00:00 -0500

In 1993, the right rear tire of a minivan driven by Patrick Carmichael blew out and the vehicle overturned. One passenger died in the accident and several others were severely injured. Subsequently, the Carmichaels brought a diversity suit against the Kumho Tire Company and others, claiming that the tire was defective. A significant part of the Carmichaels' case turned on the testimony of Dennis Carlson, Jr., an expert in tire failure analysis. Carlson intended to testify to support the Carmichaels' conclusion that a defect in the tire's manufacture or design caused the blow out. To support this conclusion, Carlson used a methodology that was partly disputed. Kumho moved to exclude Carlson's testimony on the ground that his methodology failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which provides: "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact..., a witness qualified as an expert...may testify thereto in the form of an opinion." The Federal District Court granted the motion, excluded Carlson's testimony, and entered summary judgment for Kumho. The court found that Carlson's methodology was insufficiently reliable. In reversing, the Court of Appeals concluded that a federal trial judge's "gatekeeping" obligations under the Federal Rules of Evidence were limited to scientific context, and not Carlson's testimony, which the court characterized as skill- or experience-based.

Marino v. Ortiz - Oral Argument

Mon, 30 Nov 1987 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp. - Oral Argument

Tue, 08 Dec 1998 12:00:00 -0500

After decades of litigation, Fibreboard Corporation and a group of plaintiffs' lawyers reached a "Global Settlement Agreement" of its asbestos personal-injury liability. Subsequently, a group of named plaintiffs filed the present action in Federal District Court, seeking certification for settlement purposes of a mandatory class that comprised three certain groups. Intervening objectors argued that the absence of a "limited fund" precluded Rule 23(b)(1)(B) certification. Rule 23(b)(1)(B) provides that "an action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition: (1) the prosecution of separate actions by or against individual members of the class would create a risk of... (B) adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests." The court ruled that both the disputed insurance asset liquidated by the global settlement, and, alternatively, the sum of the value of Fibreboard plus the value of its insurance coverage, as measured by the insurance funds' settlement value, were relevant "limited funds." The Court of Appeals affirmed both the class certification and the adequacy of the settlement. The appellate court approved the class certification, under Rule 23(b)(1)(B), on a limited fund rationale based on the threat to other class members' ability to receive full payment from the manufacturer's limited assets.

Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney - Oral Argument

Tue, 29 Nov 1988 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment - Oral Argument

Mon, 02 Oct 1989 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Schiavone v. Fortune - Oral Argument

Wed, 26 Feb 1986 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Smith v. Barry - Oral Argument

Mon, 02 Dec 1991 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. - Oral Argument

Tue, 23 Feb 1988 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

United Airlines, Inc. v. Mcdonald - Oral Argument

Tue, 29 Mar 1977 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Willy v. Coastal Corp. - Oral Argument

Tue, 03 Dec 1991 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.