United States Federal civil procedure doctrines
Justiciability
Advisory opinions
Standing · Ripeness · Mootness
Political questions
Jurisdiction
Subject-matter jurisdiction:
Federal question jurisdiction
Diversity jurisdiction
Supplemental jurisdiction
Removal jurisdiction
Amount in controversy
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
Personal jurisdiction:
Jurisdiction in rem
Minimum contacts
Federalism
Erie doctrine · Abstention
Sovereign immunity · Abrogation
Rooker-Feldman doctrine
Adequate and independent state ground
edit this template

Civil procedure doctrines are rules developed by case law as opposed to being set down in codes or legislation, which, together with court rules and codes, define the steps that a person involved in a civil lawsuit can (or can not) take.

[edit] Purpose

In the United States Federal jurisdiction, these doctrines have developed to comprehensively deal with certain common issues that arise when a person is involved in bringing, or contemplating bringing a civil lawsuit.

[edit] Other Jurisdictions

Similar doctrines exist In other jurisdictions, (however they are sometimes referred to under names other than 'Doctrines of Civil Procedure'), although often they have much less importance.

For example, in England and Wales, all civil procedure is covered by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, which according to Part 1 of those rules are a 'new procedural code', and have therefore largely replaced any pre-existing doctrines.

[edit] See also

• Civil Procedure

This law-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. v • d • e