![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is probably a larger undertaking than I have time for at present (hurray law school exams) but at some point soon the references to the FRCP should be updated to reflect the new "pain language" revisions that took effect Dec 1, 2007. Nskoch ( talk) 02:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody understand this sentence? Up to this point, the article is very clearly written. -- Northernhenge ( talk) 07:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This article, unfortunately, is a classic example of what's wrong with Wikipedia. A true tragedy of the commons problem. When no one owns an article, no one cares for it.
The basic problem is that the article tries to follow a rule-by-rule approach (like Moore's and Wright & Miller) which may be appropriate for a lengthy multi-volume treatise, but not for a brief encyclopedia article. A better approach would be to summarize the phases of American civil procedure (in order to help novices understand how it all fits together) and cite to the relevant rules along the way. That is, each sentence should be structured in terms of what a rule does, with a citation to the rule afterward, rather than Rule 1 does this, Rule 2 does this, etc, which sounds rather juvenile. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or patience or energy to spend five hours rewriting this mess! -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article does it mention the stipulation that on the internet, there is porn for any circumstance you can think of. Can we add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.161.78 ( talk) 08:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking it would be a good idea to include Petitions for writs of Habeas Corpus under pleadings and motions. I'll add a link at the end of the article, in any case. I'm thinking of prisoners who might be looking for guidelines. There are specific rules for amending filings as well, etc. Might be helpful to add those. Malke 2010 ( talk) 22:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
"The FRCP were completely rewritten, effective December 1, 2007 ... for the avowed purpose of making them easier to understand." So this means the rewrite didn't accomplish its purpose?
I'm not a lawyer so have no basis with which to determine (here doing research for a pro se civil suit). Using "avowed" only makes sense if the FRCP isn't any easier to understand since the rewrite. Fiona Marissa 21:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fionaussie ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is probably a larger undertaking than I have time for at present (hurray law school exams) but at some point soon the references to the FRCP should be updated to reflect the new "pain language" revisions that took effect Dec 1, 2007. Nskoch ( talk) 02:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody understand this sentence? Up to this point, the article is very clearly written. -- Northernhenge ( talk) 07:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This article, unfortunately, is a classic example of what's wrong with Wikipedia. A true tragedy of the commons problem. When no one owns an article, no one cares for it.
The basic problem is that the article tries to follow a rule-by-rule approach (like Moore's and Wright & Miller) which may be appropriate for a lengthy multi-volume treatise, but not for a brief encyclopedia article. A better approach would be to summarize the phases of American civil procedure (in order to help novices understand how it all fits together) and cite to the relevant rules along the way. That is, each sentence should be structured in terms of what a rule does, with a citation to the rule afterward, rather than Rule 1 does this, Rule 2 does this, etc, which sounds rather juvenile. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or patience or energy to spend five hours rewriting this mess! -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article does it mention the stipulation that on the internet, there is porn for any circumstance you can think of. Can we add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.161.78 ( talk) 08:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking it would be a good idea to include Petitions for writs of Habeas Corpus under pleadings and motions. I'll add a link at the end of the article, in any case. I'm thinking of prisoners who might be looking for guidelines. There are specific rules for amending filings as well, etc. Might be helpful to add those. Malke 2010 ( talk) 22:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
"The FRCP were completely rewritten, effective December 1, 2007 ... for the avowed purpose of making them easier to understand." So this means the rewrite didn't accomplish its purpose?
I'm not a lawyer so have no basis with which to determine (here doing research for a pro se civil suit). Using "avowed" only makes sense if the FRCP isn't any easier to understand since the rewrite. Fiona Marissa 21:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fionaussie ( talk • contribs)