English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Professor Subrin demonstrates that two of the essential pillars supporting the 1938 Rules were uniformity and simplicity. Just as convincingly, Professor Subrin shows that Rule 83 has injected disuniformity and complications into the procedural order. Like a computer virus of indeterminate origin, Rule 83 has created ripple effects throughout the districts, felt most keenly and unfortunately by litigants and their lawyers. Only a party who has been sent away from the clerk's office without being allowed to file a complaint on the last possible day because it was punched with two holes, not three, can fully appreciate the injustice that supposedly benign local rules can cause. While Professor Subrin has described the infinite variety of local rules as well as the problems caused when local rules vary between state and federal practice, even in the so-called replica states, he has stopped short of prescribing what can be done to relieve the situation. As a litigator in both state and federal courts and as the chair of the local rules subcommittee of the Arizona State Bar Civil Practice and Procedure Committee, I would like to describe what we are doing in Arizona, a state that Professor Subrin has singled out for particular discussion. All rules of civil procedure, including local rules, are given to the State Bar Civil Practice and Procedure Committee for review and comment. The committee's findings are referred to the State Bar Board of Governors and then to the Supreme Court for promulgation, with substantial alteration or outright disapproval occurring at any stage in the process. The local rule subcommittee was formed two years ago, after three or four consecutive meetings when thirty or so committee members went through packets of local rules word by word, comma by comma, without any firm direction or criteria for evaluating those rules. The local rule subcommittee's first task was to develop the criteria

A Comment on Federal Rules, Local Rules, and State Rules: Uniformity, Divergence, and Emerging Procedural Patterns