Digital Commons Network^™

If We Don’T Bring Them To Court, The Terrorists Will Have Won: Reinvigorating The Anti-Terrorist Act And General Jurisdiction In A Post-Daimler Era, Stephen J. Digregoria

Brooklyn Law Review

Prior to the Supreme Court's recent general personal jurisdiction decisions in Daimler AG v. Bauman and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations S.A. v. Brown American terror victims, injured in terror attacks abroad, were able to bring their attackers and those who sponsor them into United States courts for relief. Specifically, groups like the Palestine Liberation Organization (the PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (the PA) had a history of being sued by American victims of terror. In the course of these suits, the PLO and the PA were regularly found subject to the personal jurisdiction of U.S. courts under a theory of …

Foreign Judgments In Florida Bankruptcy Courts: Choice Of Law, Statutes Of Limitations, And Other Unresolved Issues, Michael Raudebaugh

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.

Waiving Jurisdiction, Jessica Berch

Pace Law Review

This Article explains why courts treat subject-matter jurisdiction as sacrosanct, demonstrates why this reaction is unwarranted, and advocates that, in cases like Kroger, a defect in the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction should be deemed waived if not raised before trial begins or any adjudication is made on the merits.

This Article proceeds in four parts. Part I briefly reviews why the current system of strong rhetoric, riddled with myriad exceptions, is cumbersome, confusing, and unnecessary. Part II examines other structural constitutional doctrines that courts have nonetheless deemed waivable: mootness, sovereign immunity, and territorial conceptions of personal jurisdiction. In …

Terra Firma As Open Seas: Interpreting Kiobel In The Failed State Context, Drew F. Waldbeser

Indiana Law Journal

This Note will ultimately argue that, despite the expansive language in Kiobel, the Court’s reasoning does not necessarily foreclose all “foreign-cubed” claims. Suits alleging human rights violations originating from conduct that took place in failed states avoid the concerns the Court emphasized in Kiobel. The Court should allow jurisdiction for human rights offenses in failed states, despite their “foreign-cubed” nature, because the already existing rationale for allowing jurisdiction for international piracy offenses is highly analogous.

Part I of this Note explores the ATS jurisprudence leading up to and including Kiobel. Besides exploring the tensions and policy interests courts are grappling …

Judicial Recusation In The Federal Republic Of Germany, Sigmund A. Cohn

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Effects Of International Judgments Relating To Awards, Maxi Scherer

Pepperdine Law Review

This Article looks at those judgments relating to international arbitral awards (award judgments) and, more precisely, at their extraterritorial effects. It analyzes whether an award judgment rendered in one jurisdiction has effects in other jurisdictions. For instance, if the award has been set aside6 in country A, does the set-aside judgment have effects on enforcement proceedings in country B? Similarly, if country C refuses to enforce an award on the basis that the tribunal has no jurisdiction, does this have a preclusive effect on enforcement proceedings pending in country D? These questions have been addressed in a number of recent …

What Remains Of Vicarious Jurisdiction For Establishing General Jurisdiction Over Corporate Defendants After Daimler Ag V. Bauman?, Keri Martin

Seton Hall Circuit Review

No abstract provided.

A Call For Clarity Resulting From Daimler Ag V. Bauman: Jurisdictional Veil Piercing In The Context Of Parent And Subsidiary Corporations And The Irrelevance Of Fraud Or Injustice, Hays C. Doan

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Analysis Of A Bias-Based Exception To The Doctrine Of Exhaustion In Wilson V. Bull, R. Mitchell Mcgrew

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Necessary Narrowing Of General Personal Jurisdiction, William Grayson Lambert

Marquette Law Review

General personal jurisdiction allows a court to issue a binding judgment against a defendant in any case, even if the facts giving rise to the case are unrelated to that forum. In the six decades after International Shoe v. Washington, courts held that general jurisdiction existed whenever a defendant had substantial continuous and systemic contacts with the forum. This rule was narrowed significantly in 2011, however, when the Supreme Court in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown held that general jurisdiction was properly exercised only when a defendant had sufficient contacts to be “at home” in the forum.

A 21st Century Approach To Personal Jurisdiction, Robert E. Pfeffer

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] "Personal jurisdiction doctrine plays a major role in many civil disputes in the United States. When the defendant resides in, is incorporated or headquartered in (in the case of a corporation or other business), or is otherwise found in the particular state where suit is brought, personal jurisdiction generally is found to exist and is unproblematic. Major personal jurisdiction issues usually arise when a plaintiff sues the defendant in a state other than the one in which the defendant is located.

In many cases involving parties located in different states, where a suit takes place is as extensively litigated …