Assumptions about Civil Procedure teaching and scholarship may depend on perspective. Should it matter if federal court procedure, cases with many parties or large damages, or only certain topics appear to define much of the scope of Civil Procedure?

Prominence of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a basis for a uniform, national curriculum and a model for state law.

Certain issues are governed by decisions of the United States Supreme Court that have interpreted the United States Constitution.

Novel issues or changing doctrine can outshine settled areas.

1.   The Federal Rules as Source

Does an assumption that the Federal Rules are or should be the place for procedural change and that the federal model will be followed in state procedure produce a top-down approach to questions about Civil Procedure?

2.    Attention and Importance

Do constitutional issues receive attention disproportionate to the importance of the topic in the practice of Civil Procedure? Is an example the relative attention devoted to long-arm jurisdiction as an issue of constitutional law and methods of service as an issue of state law?

1.   State Procedure not governed by a Federal Rules model

• Venue

• Interlocutory Appeals

• Right to Jury Trial and the roles of Judge and Jury

2.   Using State Procedure Law for an alternative perspective on Federal Rules

• Document Discovery from a Nonparty without a Deposition [See Roger W. Kirst, Filling the Gaps in Federal Rule 45 Procedure for Nonparty Nondeposition Document Discovery, 205 F.R.D. 638 (2002)].

• Mandatory Disclosure prior to Discovery [Have States followed, rejected or adapted Federal Rule 26(a)?]

• Notice Pleading and the Managerial Judicial Role [Have States followed, rejected or adapted Federal Rule 16?]

3.   Federal Rules that refer to and rely on State Procedure

• Service of Process