Litigation
Cal. Litig. 2019, Volume 32, Number 3
Content
- A Journey to a Paramount Moment in International Dispute Resolution: the Singapore Convention
- An Honorarium to Stan Bachrack
- Choosing and Using Case Authority: Tips and Ethics for Litigators
- Climate Change Comes to the Ninth Circuit: Juliana v. U.S. Tests a Novel Due Process Claim with Far-Reaching Implications for Environmental Litigation
- Editor's Foreword Still Flying High
- From the Section Chair 2019 Was Great; Let's Make 2020 Better
- Is It Time for a Major Shift in Thinking About Under-Publication of Court of Appeal Opinions in California?
- Letters To the Editor
- Masthead
- Out with the Old, in with the New - Try an Updated Approach to Jury Selection
- Roberts Rules: the Census and Gerrymandering Cases
- Table of Contents
- The Browns of California: the Family Dynasty That Transformed a State and Shaped a Nation
- The California Supreme Court, 2018-2019: the Rise of the Brown Court?
- California-Federal Procedural Contrast: Conjecture About Selected Differences
California-Federal Procedural Contrast: Conjecture About Selected Differences
By Bill Slomanson
Professor Slomanson is an Instructor, San Diego State University Osher Institute, and Professor Emeritus, Thomas Jefferson School of Law. BillS@tjsl.edu
Introduction
Numerous revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to California’s procedural rules have made it difficult to absorb just the intra-system changes one must keep track of to manage a busy law practice or judicial calendar. Litigators and judges simply have no time to focus on the inter-system procedural differences between California’s two judicial systems. That is seemingly the job of the horde of state and federal reform entities. Yet there is no "go to" institution with the resources to routinely identify and track these systemic mismatches.