Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Call Me, Maybe: Missouri’S Approach To Extraterritorial Personal Jurisdiction On The Basis Of Interstate Communications, Caleb Wagner
Call Me, Maybe: Missouri’S Approach To Extraterritorial Personal Jurisdiction On The Basis Of Interstate Communications, Caleb Wagner
Missouri Law Review
This Note discusses the legal doctrine of personal jurisdiction over out of-state parties in Missouri and how the instant case fits within that regime. It also offers guidance for out-of-state parties conducting business in Missouri, as well as Missouri parties dealing with out-of-state corporations, suggesting ways in which businesses can structure their arrangements to ensure specific forums should litigation become necessary.
It's Not Over 'Til It's Over: Mandating Federal Pretrial Jurisdiction And Oversight In Mass Torts, Tanya Pierce
It's Not Over 'Til It's Over: Mandating Federal Pretrial Jurisdiction And Oversight In Mass Torts, Tanya Pierce
Missouri Law Review
Nearly twenty years ago, speaking of the difficulties inherent in managing mass tort cases, Chief Justice William Rehnquist predicted that without coordinated state and federal mechanisms, lawyers would "seek to pursue duplicative and exhaustive litigation." And some courts, "operating under a parochial view of the situation," would allow them to do so. He warned that the result would be "expense, delay, resulting crowding of dockets, divergent decisions on identical factual questions, and sometimes the insolvency of the defendants who are being sued." Despite this and similar warnings, expensive and exhaustive litigation is exactly what has happened in many cases.
Exclusively Confusing: Who Has Jurisdiction To Determine Jurisdiction Under The Missouri Workers' Compensation Law, N. Drew Kemp
Exclusively Confusing: Who Has Jurisdiction To Determine Jurisdiction Under The Missouri Workers' Compensation Law, N. Drew Kemp
Missouri Law Review
In 2011, the Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals summarized and clarified the issue of which court has jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction. After Cooper v. Chrysler Group, LLC, it is clear that a Missouri circuit court must yield to the Commission when the jurisdiction-determining issue is one of fact. However, a circuit court can nevertheless review jurisdictional issues of law. An important question remains, however: will a circuit court distinguish between issues of fact and issues of law if an affirmative defense is not timely raised by the employer?
Circuit Courts With Plenary Jurisdiction And Administrative Agencies With Exclusive Jurisdiction: Can They Peacefully Coexist In Missouri, Paul M. Spinden
Circuit Courts With Plenary Jurisdiction And Administrative Agencies With Exclusive Jurisdiction: Can They Peacefully Coexist In Missouri, Paul M. Spinden
Missouri Law Review
Part II examines this provision, including its impetus. Part III considers J.C.W.’s exposition of jurisdiction and focuses on its contention that the Missouri Constitution necessarily excludes statutory restrictions on the judiciary’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction. Part IV closely examines McCracken’s application of J.C.W.’s analysis to the issue of exclusive administrative remedies and agency jurisdiction. Finally, Part V suggests alternative analyses that maintain exclusive remedies for workers’ compensation and other administrative agencies while preserving the circuit courts’ plenary subject matter jurisdiction.
Dealing With Trans-Territorial Executive Rule-Making , Herwig C.H. Hofmann
Dealing With Trans-Territorial Executive Rule-Making , Herwig C.H. Hofmann
Missouri Law Review
This Article discusses the reality of executive rule-making procedures with trans-territorial effect, with other words, the creation of non-legislative rules which have an effect outside the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of origin. It maps the phenomenon, discusses some of its central challenges for the realization of general principles of law and considers possible legal approaches addressing these. One of the most important issues thereby is to find workable solutions in the context of the pluralism of sources of law – national, supranational and international.
Picking Fights In Missouri: Baldwin's Non-Rule Embraces The Minority Approach To Internet Libel Jurisdiction, Allison Marie Isaak
Picking Fights In Missouri: Baldwin's Non-Rule Embraces The Minority Approach To Internet Libel Jurisdiction, Allison Marie Isaak
Missouri Law Review
The competing standards of Internet libel jurisdiction reflect the tensions between the forum state's interest in providing convenient recovery for its injured residents and the defendant's constitutional right to foresee where he might be subject to jurisdiction. In an effort to pursue these two goals as well as integrate modem Internet-related concerns, lower courts have derived numerous divergent tests for Internet libel jurisdiction, leaving the issue in a state of disorder and ambiguity. To analyze this problem, this Note will first survey the historical background of traditional personal jurisdiction principles, with particular emphasis on the U.S. Supreme Court's Calder "effects" …
Two Heads Are Better Than One: Making A Case For The Either Party Viewpoint For Removal, Greta N. Hininger
Two Heads Are Better Than One: Making A Case For The Either Party Viewpoint For Removal, Greta N. Hininger
Missouri Law Review
Litigation is a game of strategy. Courts that value the amount in controversy solely by the plaintiff’s viewpoint encourage plaintiffs to engage in gamesmanship and forum shopping, which unfairly prejudices defendants. In light of the ambiguity of the removal statutes and the lack of clear precedent, the federal circuits have diverged in the debate over which viewpoints deserve consideration in removal actions. The three general approaches are to consider: (1) only the plaintiff’s viewpoint, (2) the viewpoint of the party seeking federal jurisdiction, and (3) the viewpoint of either party. This Law Summary suggests that the amount in controversy should …
Severing Venue And Personal Jurisdiction In Missouri, Joseph H. Knittig
Severing Venue And Personal Jurisdiction In Missouri, Joseph H. Knittig
Missouri Law Review
The concepts of venue and jurisdiction carry independent and severable meanings. "Venue" means the place where a case is to be tried, while "jurisdiction" speaks to the power of the court to hear and determine a case In Missouri, a "unique melding" of the concepts developed. A line of cases commingling venue and personal jurisdiction yielded strange and often unduly harsh results.' In State ex rel. DePaul Health Center v. Mummert,6 the Missouri Supreme Court attempted to sever venue and jurisdiction, and finally restore some common sense and predictability to sixty plus years of confusion.
Removal, Remands, And Reforming Federal Appellate Review, Michael E. Solimine
Removal, Remands, And Reforming Federal Appellate Review, Michael E. Solimine
Missouri Law Review
That the Supreme Court of necessity largely leaves law development to the federal appellate courts, and state courts, is not particularly noteworthy. Such circumstances, however, make it important for students of federal jurisdiction not to be fixated on Supreme Court decisions, to the exclusion of lower court opinions. This article focuses on lower court interpretation of one statute circumscribing the jurisdiction of the federal appellate courts. Section 1447(d) of the Judicial Code states that an order of a district court remanding a case to a state court from which it was removed "is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise."' Despite …