Adam N. Steinman

Professor of Law and Michael J. Zimmer Fellow

Adam N. Steinman

Adam N. Steinman

Professor of Law and Michael J. Zimmer Fellow

Professor Steinman joined the Seton Hall Law School faculty in 2010. He is an award-winning teacher and one of the nation’s most prolific scholars in the area of civil procedure and federal courts. He also teaches in the international law area. Professor Steinman’s writing has won awards for scholarly achievement and appeared in many top law reviews. His articles have been cited frequently by judges, prominent scholars in the field, and leading casebooks and treatises. Professor Steinman is also an elected member of the American Law Institute and an author on the Wright & Miller Federal Practice & Procedure treatise. In addition, he has written a number of amicus curiae briefs in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, including most recently Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and J. McIntyre Machinery Ltd. v. Nicastro.

Professor Steinman earned his law degree (JD) from Yale Law School and his bachelor's degree (BA) from Yale University. After law school, he served as a law clerk to federal judges at both the trial and appellate levels — Judge Emilio M. Garza of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and Chief Judge Jerry Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Following his clerkships, Professor Steinman spent two years as a teaching fellow and supervising attorney in the Appellate Litigation Program at Georgetown University Law Center, earning a Master of Laws degree (LLM). Professor Steinman then practiced at the law firm of Perkins Coie LLP in Seattle, Washington, focusing on complex civil litigation (principally product liability, commercial and international matters) and appellate litigation. Prior to joining the Seton Hall faculty, he was a Professor of Law at the University of Cincinnati.



To Say What the Law Is: Rules, Results, and the Dangers of Inferential Stare Decisis, 99 Va. L. Rev. 1737 (2013)

The Lay of the Land: Examining the Three Opinions in J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro, 63 S. C. L. Rev. 481 (2012) (invited symposium article)

Our Class Action Federalism: Erie and the Rules Enabling Act after Shady Grove, 86 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1131 (2011)

The Pleading Problem, 62 Stanford L. Rev. 1293 (2010)

What is the Erie Doctrine? (And What Does it Mean for the Contemporary Politics of Judicial Federalism?), 84 Notre Dame L. Rev. 245 (2008)

An Ounce of Prevention: Solving Some Unforeseen Problems with the Proposed Amendments to Rule 56 and the Federal Summary Judgment Process, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 230 (2008)

Reinventing Appellate Jurisdiction, 48 Boston College L. Rev. 1237 (2007)

"Less" is "More"? Textualism, Intentionalism, and a Better Solution to the Class Action Fairness Act's Appellate Deadline Riddle, 92 Iowa L. Rev. 1183 (2007)

The Irrepressible Myth of Celotex: Reconsidering Summary Judgment Burdens Twenty Years after the Trilogy, 63 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 81 (2006)

Sausage-Making, Pigs' Ears, and Congressional Expansions of Federal Jurisdiction: Exxon Mobil v. Allapattah and its Lessons for the Class Action Fairness Act, 81 Wash. L. Rev. 279 (2006)

A Constitution for Judicial Lawmaking, 65 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 545 (2004)

Reconceptualizing Federal Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners: How Should AEDPA's Standard of Review Operate After Wiliams v. Taylor?, Wis. L. Rev. 1493 (2001)


Kryptonite for CAFA, 32 REV. LITIG. ___ (forthcoming symposium)

Magic Words and the Erie Doctrine, 65 FLORIDA L. REV. FORUM 1 (2013)

The Meaning of McIntyre, 18 SOUTHWESTERN J. INT’L L. 417 (2012 Symposium)