See above for illustration accompanying an issued patent for A Method of Tilting A Head to Indicate Confusion.
This method is routinely employed and likely infringed by most law students when first confronted with Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a) and 19(b) regarding Joinder of Required Parties, as amply illustrated by the appropriately numbered illustrations above.
Note for example the bugged-out eyes and pupil dilation occurring upon exposure to Rule 19(a) governing necessary and feasible persons to be joined, which leads to an almost canine-like confused tilt of the head upon turning to Rule 19(b), which determines whether the court should dismiss the civil action for non-joinder.
Be warned: it should be noted that the patent’s claims are not limited to law students, or for that matter, humans. It is unlikely, of course, that family members or house pets would be willing to endure explanations of Rule 19; nonetheless, the patent’s claims are sufficiently broad to include grandparents and German Shepherds.
Um, just kidding. Nobody would ever file such an absurd patent.
Graphic via Context-Free Patent Art. Cross-posted to Infoglut Tumblr.
I often remind my Civil Procedure students that the rules of civil procedure are critical tools for the practice of law. Kind of like Batman’s utility belt.
Thus, this wonderful graphic, courtesy of St. Thomas Law 1L Alex Fernandez-Lovo (@afernandezlovo):
Cross-posted to Infoglut Tumblr.
As noted a couple of days ago, I watched an excellent panel at the annual conference of the Association of American Law Schools noting the 75th anniversary of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The panel was chock full of procedural luminaries, from the moderator — Prof. Arthur R. Miller of Harvard — to its attendees, which included Justice Antonin Scalia, Professor Stephen B. Burbank (Penn), and judges Patrick E. Higginbotham (5h Circuit) and Lee H. Rosenthal (Southern District of Texas).
As one would expect, the discussion focused on the Court’s recent and controversial pleading and class-action jurisprudence. As a whole, the panel was unsurprisingly critical of Iqbal v. Ashcroft‘s so-called “plausibility” standard (a case that Scalia joined but did not write), and had somewhat more nuanced criticisms of the Wal-Mart v. Dukes class-action case that Scalia wrote.
I live-tweeted much of the discussion. Below are some pertinent tweets; more can be found at my Twitter feed. As the Tweets suggest, I am not a fan of the Court’s recent pleading decisions.
The panel was stellar, and I think it will be many years before I see such a performance, from Miller’s masterful moderation to the comments of the panelists. As Scalia was on the hot seat, he often seemed quiet, although he did get in a couple of his classic zingers as noted above.
As a side note, I should mention that I’d never met Prof. Miller before. When I caught sight of him at the lunch table, sitting there in silent command without a name tag, I figured he could only be one of two people: an important federal judge or Arthur Miller. (Speaking of legends, I also spotted Sylvester Stallone as I was standing outside of my hotel. Great trip!)
Cross-posted at Infoglut Tumblr.