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

How are we to judge a system of procedure? Fifty years ago, the framers of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure measured those Rules against a now-familiar criterion: they asked, what procedure will most efficiently foster decisions on the merits?' Thus, Judge Clark called the Rules "but means to an end, means to the enforcement of substantive justice."2 Attorney General Homer Cummings told the House Judiciary Committee that "[tihe courts are established to administer justice, and you cannot have justice if justice is constantly being thwarted and turned aside or delayed by a labyrinth of technicality."3 William D. Mitchell, Chairman of the Advisory Committee, told that same House Committee that "these rules attempt . . . to get rid of technicalities and simplify procedure and get to the merits."4 In short, it is fair to say that the Rules reflect an attempt to "devise standards that efficiently tend the gates of the federal court system without excluding claims for merely technical reasons."' The success of the attempt may be judged by the Rules' effect of "permitt[ing] the federal courts to open their doors to a new host of rights seekers,"' and in particular those proceeding on novel grounds. The Rules themselves

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a Vindicator of Civil Rights