Structuring Multiclaim Litigation: Should Rule 23 Be Revised?

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is the fountainhead of class-action jurisprudence. The question of whether Rule 23 should be revised is not susceptible to a global answer unless revision is stylistic only, limited to making the text more elegant - and even stylistic revision is likel...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Michigan law review 1996-03, Vol.94 (5), p.1250-1266
1. Verfasser: Schwarzer, William W.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is the fountainhead of class-action jurisprudence. The question of whether Rule 23 should be revised is not susceptible to a global answer unless revision is stylistic only, limited to making the text more elegant - and even stylistic revision is likely to have some substantive impact, even if unintended. If the argument for revision is that the Rule is in some respect deficient and should be made to work better, one must begin by answering the question of how it should work. That in turn depends on defining the Rule's purpose - what it is intended to accomplish. A discussion examines briefly the purposes for which the Rule was adopted in 1966 and the purposes to which it since has been put. It then discusses how different purposes call for different class-action regimes, that is, how the regulation of a class action must reflect the objectives for which it is invoked.
ISSN:0026-2234
1939-8557
DOI:10.2307/1289852