This Note addresses the applicability of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to cases pending on the Act\u27s date of enactment. Part I discusses current Supreme Court doctrine on the issue. This Part finds that the Court has endorsed two conflicting views on retroactively applying statutes to pending cases and that the lower federal courts consequently lack a principled framework for dealing with retroactivity issues in the 1991 Act. Part II describes the battle over the Civil Rights Acts of 1990 and 1991 and the subsequent confusion over the enacted statute\u27s reach. This Part finds that Congress provided conflicting textual guidance and useless legislative history, both of which fail to resolve the retroactivity issue. Part III rejects the us...
The Advisory Committee on the Civil Rules amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule 11) in Augus...
This Note will examine the potential utility of a tentative settlement class (TSC) in suits initiate...
This Note analyzes the controversy and concludes that courts must apply an impact standard in title ...
This Note addresses the applicability of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to cases pending on the Act\u2...
On November 21, 1991, President Bush signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (the Act ) into law. The A...
The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (the Act) made significant changes to the major employment discriminati...
This Comment discusses how and when federal civil laws are applied retroactively, the proper mode of...
Part I of this Note discusses the history and purpose of section 1983 and identifies the danger unma...
The United States Supreme Court promulgated the 1983 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Proced...
May an overruling decision be applied to ascertain the legal effect of prior conduct? In cases arisi...
During the period covered by this survey, most of the constitutional law and civil rights cases cons...
Prior to the 1964 Supreme Court Term, decisions promulgating new constitutional rules were applied r...
In 1940 defendant, a state judge, granted an ex parte order transferring plaintiff, then a voluntary...
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that the Younger abstention doctri...
The judicial creation of a new rule of law raises the essential question whether that rule is to be ...
The Advisory Committee on the Civil Rules amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule 11) in Augus...
This Note will examine the potential utility of a tentative settlement class (TSC) in suits initiate...
This Note analyzes the controversy and concludes that courts must apply an impact standard in title ...
This Note addresses the applicability of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to cases pending on the Act\u2...
On November 21, 1991, President Bush signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (the Act ) into law. The A...
The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (the Act) made significant changes to the major employment discriminati...
This Comment discusses how and when federal civil laws are applied retroactively, the proper mode of...
Part I of this Note discusses the history and purpose of section 1983 and identifies the danger unma...
The United States Supreme Court promulgated the 1983 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Proced...
May an overruling decision be applied to ascertain the legal effect of prior conduct? In cases arisi...
During the period covered by this survey, most of the constitutional law and civil rights cases cons...
Prior to the 1964 Supreme Court Term, decisions promulgating new constitutional rules were applied r...
In 1940 defendant, a state judge, granted an ex parte order transferring plaintiff, then a voluntary...
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that the Younger abstention doctri...
The judicial creation of a new rule of law raises the essential question whether that rule is to be ...
The Advisory Committee on the Civil Rules amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule 11) in Augus...
This Note will examine the potential utility of a tentative settlement class (TSC) in suits initiate...
This Note analyzes the controversy and concludes that courts must apply an impact standard in title ...