Response to Prof. John B. Oakley's writings comparing state court procedural rules with the Federal Rules of Civil procedure.
Professor Oakley's substantial contribution to the Nevada Law Journal dispute resolution symposium neither accords much treatment to how or why the earlier uniformity between state and federal procedural regimes changed so dramatically over such a brief period nor proffers very many suggestions for the future. My response aspires primarily to scrutinize how federal-state consistency deteriorated and secondarily to consider what, if any, measures should be instituted to change the present condition of state civil procedure in the fifty jurisdictions comprising the United States.
Carl Tobias, The Past and Future of the Federal Rules in State Courts, 3 Nev. L.J. 400 (2003)