Digital Commons Network^™

The Rise Of General Jurisdiction Over Out-Of-State Enterprises In The United States, Peter Hay

Emory International Law Review

In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court continued its revision of personal jurisdiction law, in this case by refining, thereby perhaps expanding, the law of when a court may exercise general personal jurisdiction – that is, jurisdiction over all claims – over a non-resident person or an out-of-state enterprise. In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., it held in a 4+1:4 decision that, when a state requires a non-resident company to register to do business in the state and such registration constitutes consent to jurisdiction over all claims against it, such exercise is permitted. In reaching its conclusion, the Court …

Case Law On American Indians: October 2022 - August 2023, Thomas P. Schlosser

American Indian Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Ford V. Where Are We?: The Revival Of The Sliding Scale To Govern The Supreme Court's New "Relating To" Personal Jurisdiction, Zois Manaris

William & Mary Law Review

This Note proposes a test to govern “relating to” specific jurisdiction, a variation on a theme to those familiar with the doctrine: a “sliding scale” approach to contacts and relatedness, accompanied by a separate assessment of reasonableness factors the Supreme Court has outlined in previous cases to serve as a check on the sliding scale. Part I of this Note explains the “sliding scale” approach, its unpleasant first interaction with the Court, and its revival by the Ford majority. Part II defines this Note’s proposed test and demonstrates its consistency with Supreme Court precedent. Finally, Part III applies this Note’s …

Categorical Confusion In Personal Jurisdiction Law, Todd Peterson

Washington and Lee Law Review

In Part I, the Article discusses the history of the U.S. Supreme Court’s substantive due process limitations on personal jurisdiction and, in particular, the standards for corporate-activities-based jurisdiction before the Court’s recent cases on that issue. Part II discusses the Court’s failure to provide a convincing theoretical justification for imposing substantive due process limitations on personal jurisdiction. It also discusses the consequences of that failure in three doctrinal areas of personal jurisdiction law, the traditional basis of service on an individual in the forum state, specific jurisdiction and corporate-activities-based jurisdiction. Part III then analyzes in detail the four recent Supreme …

Sticks, Stones, And So-Called Judges: Why The Era Of Trump Necessitates Revisiting Presidential Influence On The Courts, Quinn W. Crowley

Indiana Law Journal

This Note will be primarily divided into three main sections. Part I of this Note will begin by discussing the importance of judicial independence in modern society and the role of elected officials in shaping the public perception of the courts. Additionally, as problems of judicial legitimacy are age-old and date back to America’s founding, Part I will include a brief discussion of an early clash between President Thomas Jefferson and the courts.

Parts II and III of this Note will seek to place President Trump’s conduct towards the judicial branch within the proper historical context. Part II examines the …

The Uncertain Status Of The Manifest Disregard Standard One Decade After Hall Street, Stuart M. Boyarsky

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) enables parties to obtain quick and final resolution to disputes without incurring the costs, delays, and occasional publicity of litigation. Indeed, section 10 of the FAA enumerates four specific grounds on which courts may vacate arbitral awards: corruption, fraud, impartiality, and misconduct or incompetence. Yet over the past 60 years, a debate has raged over the existence of an additional ground: the arbitrator’s manifest disregard of the law.

The Supreme Court first enounced this standard in dicta in its 1953 decision in Wilko v. Swan. Over next four decades, every federal circuit court slowly …

National Association Of Manufacturers V. Department Of Defense, Summer L. Carmack

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In an attempt to provide consistency to the interpretation and application of the statutory phrase “waters of the United States,” as used in the Clean Water Act, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers together passed the WOTUS Rule. Unfortunately, the Rule has created more confusion than clarity, resulting in a number of lawsuits challenging substantive portions of the Rule’s language. National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense did not address those substantive challenges, but instead determined whether those claims challenging the Rule must be filed in federal district courts or federal courts of appeals. In its decision, the …

Intergovernmental Federalism Disputes, Lochlan F. Shelfer

Georgia Law Review

Constitutional litigation is increasingly being waged
between governments, in both suits between a state and
the United States, and suits between two or more states.
The jurisdictionof the Federalcourts to hear such suits,
however, is disputed. The Supreme Court's cases are
famously difficult to reconcile, with some denying
jurisdiction and other seemingly identical cases
addressing the merits without discussing jurisdiction.
Some scholars have argued that intergovernmental
disputes over political jurisdiction historically are not
justiciableand that it is constitutionally illegitimate for
the Court to hear them. Recently, some scholars have
argued that the Court should hear such cases, but have
assumed …

The Cessation Of Innovation: An Inquiry Into Whether Congress Can And Should Strip The Supreme Court Of Its Appellate Jurisdiction To Entertain Patent Cases, Catherine Taylor

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Is It Necessary For Corporations To Be Essentially At Home?: An Exploration Of Exceptional Cases, Priscilla Heinz

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Original Intent: Understanding The Supreme Court's Original Jurisdiction In Controversies Between States, Kristen A. Linsley

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Undemocratic Restraint, Fred O. Smith, Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

For almost two hundred years, a basic tenet of American law has been that federal courts must generally exercise jurisdiction when they possess it. And yet, self-imposed prudential limits on judicial power have, at least until recently, roared on despite these pronouncements. The judicial branch's avowedly self-invented doctrines include some (though not all) aspects of standing, ripeness, abstention, and the political question doctrine. The Supreme Court recently, and unanimously, concluded that prudential limits are in severe tension with our system of representative democracy because they invite policy determinations from unelected judges. Even with these pronouncements, however, the Court has not …

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

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court’S Quiet Revolution: Redefining The Meaning Of Jurisdiction, Erin Morrow Hawley

William & Mary Law Review

Over the last three decades, the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have carried out a quiet revolution in the nature and meaning of jurisdiction. Historically, federal courts generally treated procedural requirements, like filing deadlines and exhaustion prerequisites, as presumptively “jurisdictional.” In case after case, the modern Court has reversed course. The result has been an unobtrusive but seminal redefinition of what jurisdiction means to begin with: the adjudicatory authority of the federal courts. This shift is momentous, but it has been obscured by the Court’s erstwhile imposition of a clear statement requirement. For courts to find a statutory requirement jurisdictional, Congress …

The Demise Of "Drive-By Jurisdictional Rulings", Howard M. Wasserman

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Formalism And Judicial Supremacy In Federal Indian Law, Alex Tallchief Skibine

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Potential Passage Of Proposed Senate Bill 578 And Its Implication On Hicks V. Nevada And Twenty Years Of Supreme Court Jurisprudence, Richard L. Warren

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Tribal Court General Civil Jurisdiction Over Actions Between Non-Indian Plaintiffs And Defendants: Strate V. A-1 Contractors, Jamelle King

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Employees: Show Us Your Paycheck, Dina Mastellone

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court's Land Use Decisions, Hon. Leon D. Lazer

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Erisa And The Bankruptcy Code: Stepping Into Quicksand Or Something Else, Post Mackey, Maria A. Di Pippo, Gerald P. Wolf

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Trial By Jury

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Jurisdiction

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Environmental Law, Honorable Leon D. Lazer

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jurisdiction Of The County Court

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jurisdiction Of The Supreme Court

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Trial By Jury

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jurisdiction By Necessity: Examining One Proposal For Unbarring The Doors Of Our Courts, Tracy L. Troutman

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Although the usually proclaimed goals of the United States legal system are "fair play and justice," a person who is injured in some way, who feels that he has had his rights violated, or who seeks to enforce a business agreement, may not necessarily have a remedy in its judicial system. Often a court may claim it lacks power to hear a case because it does not have jurisdiction over the defendant or the subject matter of the suit. Another motive of a court for refusing to hear the case may be simply the necessity to clear its docket. One …

The State Of New York's State Federal-Judicial Council, Hon. George C. Pratt

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Can Mental Health Professionals Predict Judicial Decisionmaking? Constitutional And Tort Liability Aspects Of The Right Of The Institutionalized Mentally Disabled To Refuse Treatment: On The Cutting Edge, Michael L. Perlin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.