Session Details

(Program to be published in Akron Law Review)

 

One or more presenters were selected from a call for papers.

 

Over the past forty years, summary judgment has played an increasingly prominent role in federal and state civil litigation.  Some hail the expanded availability of summary judgment as promoting efficiency, preserving judicial resources and relieving pressure on overcrowded dockets.  Others criticize the current state of summary judgment practice as promoting needless pre-trial transaction costs, undermining the role of jury trials, and disadvantaging employment discrimination, civil rights and other plaintiffs.  Recent proposed amendments to Rule 56 have further fueled the debate about the proper role for summary judgment.  In addition, some think the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2009 decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal will impact the future role of summary judgment and accelerate pre-trial dispositive motion practice by increasing the number of cases dismissed at the pre-answer motion stage of litigation.  Speakers will address a range of issues relating to the future of summary judgment, such as the evolution of federal summary judgment law and practice since the 1970s, whether the trans-substantive model for summary judgment remains effective or normatively preferable, the proposed changes to Rule 56, and whether the Iqbal decision will affect the role of summary judgment. 

 

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

Speakers
Ronald G. Aronovsky, Southwestern Law School
Edward J. Brunet, Lewis and Clark Law School
Stephen B. Burbank, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Steven S. Gensler, University of Oklahoma College of Law
Linda S. Mullenix, The University of Texas School of Law
Adam N. Steinman, University of Cincinnati College of Law
Suja A. Thomas, University of Illinois College of Law
Date & Time
Fees
6270 Litigation, Co-Sponsored by Section on Civil Procedure: $0.0000