Digital Commons at St. Mary's University Faculty Articles School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2012 Allegedly “Biased,” “Intimidating,” and “Incompetent” State Court Judges and the Questionable Removal of State Law Class Actions to Purportedly “Impartial” and “Competent” Federal Courts—A Historical Perspective and an Empirical Analysis of Class Action Dispositions in Federal and State Courts, 1925-2011 Willy E. Rice St. Mary's University School of Law,
[email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/facarticles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Willy E. Rice, Allegedly “Biased,” “Intimidating,” and “Incompetent” State Court Judges and the Questionable Removal of State Law Class Actions to Purportedly “Impartial” and “Competent” Federal Courts—A Historical Perspective and an Empirical Analysis of Class Action Dispositions in Federal and State Courts, 1925-2011, 3 Wm. & Mary Bus. L. Rev. 419 (2012). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. For more information, please contact
[email protected]. ALLEGEDLY “BIASED,” “INTIMIDATING,” AND “INCOMPETENT” STATE COURT JUDGES AND THE QUESTIONABLE REMOVAL OF STATE LAW CLASS ACTIONS TO PURPORTEDLY “IMPARTIAL” AND “COMPETENT” FEDERAL COURTS—A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE AND AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF CLASS ACTION DISPOSITIONS IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS, 1925–2011 WILLY E. RICE ABSTRACT Judges as well as members of plaintiffs’ and defense bars agree: a class action is a superior, efficient, and inexpensive procedural tool to litigate disputes that present similar questions of fact and law.