About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

50 U. Miami L. Rev. 267 (1995-1996)
Shopping for a Venue: The Need for More Limits on Choice

handle is hein.journals/umialr50 and id is 277 raw text is: Shopping for a Venue: The Need for More Limits on Choice KIMBERLY JADE NORWOOD* I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 268 II. SHOPPING FOR LAWS AND JURIES ........................................... 270 A. Examples of Venue-Shopping .......................................... 270 1. USING VENUE RULES AND TRANSFER STATUTES TO SECURE BOTH MORE FAVORABLE LAWS AND MORE FAVORABLE GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS .......... 272 2. JOINING PARTIES TO LITIGATION TO SECURE FAVORABLE JURIES ........... 276 3. UTILIZING PROCEDURAL RULES TO SECURE THE LAWS OF CHOICE .......... 281 4. LACK OF UNIFORMITY AND ITS ROLE IN KEEPING THE SEARCH ALIVE ....... 287 B. A Comparison to Judge-Shopping ...................................... 292 C. Why The Difference? ................................................. 299 III. REEVALUATING THE CURRENT APPROACH TO VENUE .......................... 305 A. For the Sake of Public Confidence .................................. 305 B. Through the Prism of Convenience to All ................................ 308 IV . CONCLUSION ............................................................ 333 In an earlier article,1 Professor Norwood questioned the wis- dom of the Supreme Court's decision in Ferens v. John Deere Co.,2 which allows plaintiffs to double forum-shop, i.e., to file a lawsuit in one jurisdiction and then, while retaining the advantages of that jurisdiction's laws, to transfer the lawsuit to the geographically pre- ferred jurisdiction. There, Professor Norwood assumed that having choices about where to file lawsuits was a necessary component of America's judicial system. Below, however, Professor Norwood explores that assumption and concludes that parties should not have the unrestricted choices seemingly provided by most venue laws. * Professor of Law, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. I thank, first and foremost, Teri Doyle, my secretary, and Peggy McDermott, the assistant librarian for the Washington University School of Law, both of whom have been indispensable, efficient, and gracious assistants. Second, I thank my colleagues at Washington University and elsewhere- Susan Appleton, David Becker, Kathleen Brickey, Kathleen Clark, Clark Cunningham, John Drobak, Barbara Flagg, Katherine Goldwasser, Carol Needham, Daniel Keating, Richard Lazarus, Ronald Levin, Harold S. Lewis, Jr., Lynn LoPucki, Ronald Mann, Taylor Mattis, Frank Miller, Robert Thompson, Karen Tokarz and a half dozen anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier drafts of this Article. Third, I thank my research assistants-Joel Samson and Keisha Lightboume (both class of '97)-for their diligence, despite impossible research requests. Finally, I thank my husband, Ronald Alan Norwood, Esq., for providing the foundation for Futrell, discussed in part I. 1. Kimberly Jade Norwood, Double Forum Shopping and the Extension of Ferens to Federal Claims that Borrow State Limitation Periods, 44 EMORY L.J. 501 (1995). 2. 494 U.S. 516 (1990).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most