The Restrictive Ethos in Civil Procedure

IF 1.6 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW George Washington Law Review Pub Date : 2010-01-11 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.1343129
A. Spencer, A. Spencer
{"title":"The Restrictive Ethos in Civil Procedure","authors":"A. Spencer, A. Spencer","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1343129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Those of us who study civil procedure are familiar with the notion that federal procedure under the 1938 civil rules was generally characterized by a \"liberal ethos,\" meaning that it was originally designed to promote open access to the courts and to facilitate a resolution of disputes on the merits. Most of us are also aware of the fact that the reality of procedure is not always access-promoting or fixated on merits-based resolutions as a priority. Indeed, I would say that a \"restrictive ethos\" characterizes procedure today, with many rules being developed, interpreted, and applied in a manner that frustrates the ability of claimants to prosecute their claims and receive a decision on the merits in federal court. In this brief Essay, after discussing some of the familiar components of the liberal ethos of civil procedure, I hope to set forth some of the aspects of federal civil procedure that reflect the restrictive ethos, following up with some thoughts on whether a dialectical analysis can help us understand the nature of the relationship between procedure's liberal and restrictive components.","PeriodicalId":47068,"journal":{"name":"George Washington Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2010-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"George Washington Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1343129","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Those of us who study civil procedure are familiar with the notion that federal procedure under the 1938 civil rules was generally characterized by a "liberal ethos," meaning that it was originally designed to promote open access to the courts and to facilitate a resolution of disputes on the merits. Most of us are also aware of the fact that the reality of procedure is not always access-promoting or fixated on merits-based resolutions as a priority. Indeed, I would say that a "restrictive ethos" characterizes procedure today, with many rules being developed, interpreted, and applied in a manner that frustrates the ability of claimants to prosecute their claims and receive a decision on the merits in federal court. In this brief Essay, after discussing some of the familiar components of the liberal ethos of civil procedure, I hope to set forth some of the aspects of federal civil procedure that reflect the restrictive ethos, following up with some thoughts on whether a dialectical analysis can help us understand the nature of the relationship between procedure's liberal and restrictive components.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
民事诉讼中的限制性精神
我们中研究民事诉讼程序的人都熟悉这样一个概念,即1938年民事规则下的联邦诉讼程序通常具有“自由主义精神”,这意味着它最初的设计是为了促进向法院申诉的开放,并促进根据案情解决纠纷。我们大多数人也意识到这样一个事实,即程序的现实并不总是促进机会或把基于能力的决议作为优先事项。事实上,我想说的是,一种“限制性精神”是当今诉讼程序的特征,许多规则的制定、解释和应用方式,阻碍了原告起诉他们的索赔并在联邦法院就案情作出裁决的能力。在这篇简短的文章中,在讨论了民事诉讼自由精神的一些常见组成部分之后,我希望阐述联邦民事诉讼中反映限制性精神的一些方面,并接着思考辩证分析是否有助于我们理解程序自由成分与限制性成分之间关系的本质。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
期刊最新文献
The Jurisprudence of Justice Samuel Alito Measuring Computer Use Norms The Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties and the Right to Marry: Why Article 23(2) of the ICCPR Should Be Re-Interpreted to Encompass Same-Sex Marriage Religion, Conscience, and Belief in the European Court of Human Rights Four Challenges Confronting a Moral Conception of Universal Human Rights
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1