Federal Bar Update: John Maley

Federal Bar Update: Removal and venue changes are on the horizon

December 21, 2011
John Maley
With the recent passage of the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011, key statutory changes to removal and venue are on the horizon.
More

Federal Bar Update: Comments sought for changes to local rules

November 9, 2011
John Maley
John Maley writes about changes coming to local rules in each District Court.
More

Federal Bar Update: Comments accepted on Rule 45 amendments

September 14, 2011
John Maley
John Maley discusses proposed rule amendments and a study on 12(b)(6) motions.
More

Editorial: Personal jurisdiction theories still evolving

August 3, 2011
John Maley
As most litigators know, in Asahi Metal v. Superior Court of Cal., 480 U.S. 102 (1987), a plurality of the Supreme Court embraced the stream-of-commerce theory of personal jurisdiction, which generally holds that if a manufacturer or distributor has sufficient knowledge and control of its distribution system, it can be sued in a state in which its products cause injury. Since Asahi Metal, the theory has evolved somewhat in federal and state appellate courts but had not been revisited by the Supreme Court.
More

Federal Bar Update: Avoid multiple summary judgment motions

June 8, 2011
John Maley
The Southern District of Indiana has amended its Uniform Case Management Plan to include new language regarding summary judgment motions.
More

Federal Bar Update: Confidentiality not always enforceable

April 13, 2011
John Maley
As federal practitioners know, the 7th Circuit is particularly strict about protecting public access to federal court filings.
More

Federal Bar Update: Southern District amends civil and criminal rules

January 19, 2011
John Maley
Effective Jan. 1, the Southern District of Indiana amended three local rules affecting civil practice, plus Local Criminal Rule 13.1 affecting criminal practice and sentencing (see the court’s website for the text of all rule changes).
More

Federal Bar Update: Dec. 1 rule changes now in effect

December 22, 2010
John Maley
As previewed in prior columns, effective Dec. 1 various amendments took effect to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (as well as appellate, criminal, and evidence rules).
More

Federal Bar Update: Client representative at settlement conferences

September 29, 2010
John Maley
In the Southern District of Indiana, settlement conferences are routinely held in most civil cases before the assigned magistrate judge.
More

Federal Bar Update: More federal rule changes on horizon

August 18, 2010
John Maley
For 2010, the Supreme Court approved a package of amendments in late April that will amend several appellate rules, bankruptcy rules, criminal rules, civil rules, and an evidence rule.
More

Federal Bar Update: Permissible fishing in discovery process

July 7, 2010
John Maley
John Maley writes about how one recent discovery order is interesting and has potential broader significance beyond the dispute between the parties.
More

Federal Bar Update: New FRCP 15(a) is a little-noticed rules amendment

May 26, 2010
John Maley
As federal practitioners well know by now, sweeping changes to the federal rules took effect Dec. 1, with most of those changes incorporating the “days are days” time computation amendments.
More

Federal Bar Update: Diversity test for corporations now settled

March 31, 2010
John Maley
For diversity jurisdiction purposes, one area of uncertainty for many years has been how to determine the citizenship of a corporation.
More
Page  << 1 2 pager
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT