Abstract
Professor Linda Mullenix and Professor Gene Shreve have recently ventilated two intertwined issues at the core of modern federal civil procedure. They questioned scholars' growing criticism of the idea that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are trans-substantive. Both writers also asked about the increased emphasis that commentators have accorded procedure's detrimental effects on specific rights, such as civil rights, and on particular groups or litigants, such as minorities. The preferable response to these plaints is a single word: Congress. Because the issues that Professors Mullenix and Shreve raise are thought-provoking, however, they deserve elaboration.
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
1992
Recommended Citation
Carl Tobias, The Transformation of Trans-Substantivitiy, 49 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1501 (1992)
Comments
Response to Linda S. Mullenix, Hope Over Experience: Mandatory Informal Discovery and the Politics of Rulemaking, 69 N.C.L. Rev. 795 (1991) and Gene R. Shreve, Eighteen Feet of Clay: Thoughts on Phantom Rule 4(m), 67 Ins. L.J. 85 (1991)