Court rule affected - 2.412 (new)
Admin no. - 2010-30
Proposed - 11-23-10
Adopted - 4-5-11
Effective - 9-1-11
The court previously proposed a Rule 2.412 on October 28, 2009. This proposal does not mention the previous proposal or explain why it has been reissued.
Link
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Proposed changes - jury instructions
The Committee is considering modifications to the Model Civil Jury Instructions as follows. All proposals solicit comments by May 31, 2011. All links are to PDF files.
Product liability - Implied Warranty (two instructions - 25.21 and .22)
Medical Malpractice - the proposal is to delete 30.20, loss of a chance, in its entirety
Auto cases - 36.11, serious impairment - amendments to conform to McCormick
Trust contests - a new Chapter 179
Product liability - Implied Warranty (two instructions - 25.21 and .22)
Medical Malpractice - the proposal is to delete 30.20, loss of a chance, in its entirety
Auto cases - 36.11, serious impairment - amendments to conform to McCormick
Trust contests - a new Chapter 179
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Headlee challenges
Court rule affected - 2.112, 7.206, 7.213
Admin no. - 2010-05
Issued - 12-21-10
Comments open to - 4-1-2011
Would change references in three rules to pleading under the Headlee Amendment. The proposed amendment to 7.206 would authorize appointment of a special master. As the AG's comment points out, this is something that is done on occasion without the need for a provision in the rules.
Link
Admin no. - 2010-05
Issued - 12-21-10
Comments open to - 4-1-2011
Would change references in three rules to pleading under the Headlee Amendment. The proposed amendment to 7.206 would authorize appointment of a special master. As the AG's comment points out, this is something that is done on occasion without the need for a provision in the rules.
Link
Summons
Court rule affected - 2.203
Admin no. - 2008-32
Issued - 11-23-10
Declined to adopt, file closed - April 2011
Would require the issuance of a summons when a counterclaim or cross-claim is filed.
Note: this is unnecessary. A summons is intended to require a person to appear in court. A counterclaim or cross-claim by definition affects someone who is already involved in the action.
Admin no. - 2008-32
Issued - 11-23-10
Declined to adopt, file closed - April 2011
Would require the issuance of a summons when a counterclaim or cross-claim is filed.
Note: this is unnecessary. A summons is intended to require a person to appear in court. A counterclaim or cross-claim by definition affects someone who is already involved in the action.
Class actions - certification
Court rule affected - 3.501
Admin no. - 2008-18
Issued - 12-21-10
Comments open to - 4-1-2011
Two alternative proposals on supplemental motions for certification of a class in class actions, based on changed factual circumstances.
Admin no. - 2008-18
Issued - 12-21-10
Comments open to - 4-1-2011
Two alternative proposals on supplemental motions for certification of a class in class actions, based on changed factual circumstances.
Settlement agreements
Court rule affected - 2.507
Admin no. - 2008-11
Issued - 4-5-11
Effective - 9-1-11
Deletes the reference to later denials of an oral settlement agreement, thus tightening the requirement that settlement agreements be in writing.
Admin no. - 2008-11
Issued - 4-5-11
Effective - 9-1-11
Deletes the reference to later denials of an oral settlement agreement, thus tightening the requirement that settlement agreements be in writing.
Attorneys' fees in no-fault cases
Court rule affected - 8.121
Admin no. - 2007-17
Issued - 10-26-10
Would add claims for no-fault benefits to the rule governing contingent fees.
Several groups have posted comments in opposition on the grounds that the amendment might prohibit the award of attorneys fees based on an hourly rate. They argue that the court should have the discretion to award an attorney fee that exceeds 1/3 of the amount recovered, as a penalty for unreasonable denial or delay in payment.
Link
Admin no. - 2007-17
Issued - 10-26-10
Would add claims for no-fault benefits to the rule governing contingent fees.
Several groups have posted comments in opposition on the grounds that the amendment might prohibit the award of attorneys fees based on an hourly rate. They argue that the court should have the discretion to award an attorney fee that exceeds 1/3 of the amount recovered, as a penalty for unreasonable denial or delay in payment.
Link
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)