Talk:Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dec 1, 2007 changes

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)[reply]

Heh, I just finished my civ pro exam today, otherwise I'd get right on it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the overbearing new "electronic discovery" regime. bd2412 T 05:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It also allows relief in the alternative."

Does anybody understand this sentence? Up to this point, the article is very clearly written. --Northernhenge (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to answerbag, "Modern rules governing PLEADING in courts now specifically permit a party to demand relief in the alternative. This eliminates the harsh consequences of the rule of COMMON-LAW PLEADING that required a party to make one demand for one type of relief and to lose the case if a different remedy were more appropriate. Today, a party can ask for alternative forms of relief and recover what is later proved to be most appropriate at trial." --Northernhenge (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a mess

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)[reply]

There is porn of it.

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)[reply]

Just to clarify on this, it is known as "Rule 34 of the internet". It's probably not notable. 78.151.216.55 (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is due to an unfortunate redirect: Rule 34, which is an Internet meme, redirects here, as a result of a badly-thought out compromise in the AFD for that Article. Someone searching on "Rule 34," looking for an explanation of the Internet meme, will now be redirected to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It was a bad disposition for that AFD, but there you have it. A better solution would be to have deleted Rule 34 and salted the page to prevent its recreation, if necessary. TJRC (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(additional info) I've opened an RFD to either delete the redirect or to point it to Request for production. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 22. TJRC (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pleadings and motions

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)[reply]

Not sure that's a good idea. For one thing, Wikipedia is not a "how to" site. See core policy WP:NOT. Also, prisoners in the U.S. generally can't access the Internet, as far as I am aware of. Unless they're using smuggled mobile phones, which is illegal. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know why "avowed" is used in this sentence?

"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)

@Newyorkbrad: That language was added by User:Newyorkbrad in 2007. One could make the case that it's an attempt to be encylopedic by remaining neutral as to whether the goal was achieved, but it does seem a bit dissonant for the reason you raise. Brad? jhawkinson (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind dropping the word. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]