Temple Law Review » Commentary Post Test 2

Commentary Post Test 2

By TLR Editors

The Costs of Litigation: A proposal to Amend Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

The U.S. Supreme Court was silent on the issue, and the applicable Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure-Rule 39(a)(4)-merely directed the judges to award costs “only as the court orders.” The result: an angry dialogue between the majority, which thought each party should shoulder its own costs, and the dissent, which would have the plaintiffs pay most of Exxon’s costs.

Commentary by: Yvette Joy | Download PDF

Amend Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

the applicable Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure-Rule 39(a)(4)-merely directed the judges to award costs “only as the court orders.” The result: an angry dialogue between the majority, which thought each party should shoulder its own costs, and the dissent, which would have the plaintiffs pay most of Exxon’s costs.

Commentary by: Yvette Joy | Download PDF

Appellate Procedure

the applicable Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure-Rule 39(a)(4)-merely directed the judges to award costs “only as the court orders.” The result: an angry dialogue between the majority, which thought each party should shoulder its own costs, and the dissent, which would have the plaintiffs pay most of Exxon’s costs.

* Brynn C. Chafin, Temple University Beasley School of Law, 2024. Introduction On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump was sworn into office for his second term as President of the United States of America.[1] Although his administration has and will continue to affect all parts of American life, it will impact the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act […]

By Fiona Burke, Temple Law Review Volume 96 Staff Editor Liberals have, as exit polls and Bernie Sanders point out, largely lost the working class and, in fact, most of America. There are many reasons for this, all of which have been dissected and analyzed ad nauseum in the past few weeks and likely will be for even years. One such […]

Author: Jasnoor Hundal In early August 2023, the Supreme Court stayed the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision, In re Purdue Pharma L.P., and granted certiorari to hear oral argument in December of 2023. The parties were asked to brief and argue “[w]hether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve, as part of a […]