Court systems have adopted a variety of mechanisms to narrow the issues in dispute and expedite litigation. This article analyses the largely unsuccessful attempts in two jurisdictions - the United States and Australia - to achieve early and efficient issue identification in civil disputes. Procedures that rely on pleadings to provide focus have failed for centuries, from the common (English) origins of these two systems to their divergent modern paths. Case management practices that are developing in the United States and Australia offer greater promise in the continuing quest for early, efficient dispute definition. Based on a historical and contemporary comparative analysis of the approach to pleadings in the United States and Australia,...
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were promulgated in 1938 to provide the “just, speedy, and inex...
CITATION: De Vos, W. Le R. & Broodryk, T. 2018. Managerial judging and alternative dispute resolutio...
Where does pleading doctrine, at the federal level, stand today? The Supreme Court\u27s revision of ...
Court systems have adopted a variety of mechanisms to narrow the issues in dispute and expedite liti...
The second edition of Dispute Resolution in Australia: Cases, Commentary and Materials reflects the ...
Published in cooperation with the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolutio
The alternative dispute resolution family has experienced a number of changes over the last century....
The rule of law is predicated on the rights of citizens to choose their dispute resolution forum and...
The Iqbal decision confirms the breakdown of contemporary American civil procedure. We know what civ...
This article identifies the basis and limits of the parties\u27 abilities to define and enforce disc...
The American judicial system will face significant challenges in the twenty-first century. One of it...
For thirty years, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have relied on active Judicial case managemen...
The drive for efficiency has caused many legal systems to redesign themselves, creating multiple pat...
This Article develops a model for analyzing legal dispute resolution systems as systems for argument...
This article, which is based on the research conducted for the General Report ‘Relief in Small and S...
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were promulgated in 1938 to provide the “just, speedy, and inex...
CITATION: De Vos, W. Le R. & Broodryk, T. 2018. Managerial judging and alternative dispute resolutio...
Where does pleading doctrine, at the federal level, stand today? The Supreme Court\u27s revision of ...
Court systems have adopted a variety of mechanisms to narrow the issues in dispute and expedite liti...
The second edition of Dispute Resolution in Australia: Cases, Commentary and Materials reflects the ...
Published in cooperation with the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolutio
The alternative dispute resolution family has experienced a number of changes over the last century....
The rule of law is predicated on the rights of citizens to choose their dispute resolution forum and...
The Iqbal decision confirms the breakdown of contemporary American civil procedure. We know what civ...
This article identifies the basis and limits of the parties\u27 abilities to define and enforce disc...
The American judicial system will face significant challenges in the twenty-first century. One of it...
For thirty years, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have relied on active Judicial case managemen...
The drive for efficiency has caused many legal systems to redesign themselves, creating multiple pat...
This Article develops a model for analyzing legal dispute resolution systems as systems for argument...
This article, which is based on the research conducted for the General Report ‘Relief in Small and S...
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were promulgated in 1938 to provide the “just, speedy, and inex...
CITATION: De Vos, W. Le R. & Broodryk, T. 2018. Managerial judging and alternative dispute resolutio...
Where does pleading doctrine, at the federal level, stand today? The Supreme Court\u27s revision of ...