Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Who's Afraid Of Henry Hart?, Michael Wells
Who's Afraid Of Henry Hart?, Michael Wells
Scholarly Works
No law book has enjoyed greater acclaim from distinguished commentators over a sustained period than has Hart & Wechsler's The Federal Courts and the Federal System. Indeed, the praise seems to escalate from one edition to the next. Reviewing the first edition, published forty-three years ago, Philip Kurland called it "the definitive text on the subject of federal jurisdiction." Paul Mishkin added that "the analysis is of an order difficult to match anywhere." In his review of the second edition, published in 1973, Henry Monaghan began by praising the first for having "deservedly achieved a reputation that is extraordinary among …
International Law Principles Governing The Extraterritorial Application Of Criminal Law, Christopher L. Blakesley
International Law Principles Governing The Extraterritorial Application Of Criminal Law, Christopher L. Blakesley
Scholarly Works
In this piece Professor Blakesley provides remarks on the differences and similarities between Germany and the United States on international principles of jurisdiction over extraterritorial crime.
Major Contemporary Issues In Extradition Law, Christopher L. Blakesley
Major Contemporary Issues In Extradition Law, Christopher L. Blakesley
Scholarly Works
In this piece Professor Blakesley provides remarks on high crimes in international law, and the ability to extradite state and high government officials for committing them.
The Impact Of Substantive Interests On The Law Of Federal Courts, Michael L. Wells
The Impact Of Substantive Interests On The Law Of Federal Courts, Michael L. Wells
Scholarly Works
The thesis of this Article is that substantive factors exert a powerful and often unrecognized influence over the resolution of jurisdictional issues, and have done so throughout our history. The chief substantive factors at issue are the government's interest iin regulating behavior on the one hand, and the individual's interest in enforcing constitutional restraints upon government on the other. Part I of this Article examines the relationship between jurisdictional rules and substantive consequences, Part II describes the Court's conventional account of federal courts doctrine in terms of jurisdictional policy and institutional roles, and Part III shows that the reasons set …
Child Custody - Jurisdiction And Procedure, Christopher L. Blakesley
Child Custody - Jurisdiction And Procedure, Christopher L. Blakesley
Scholarly Works
Custody determinations traditionally have comprised a subcategory of litigation under the Pennoyer v. Neff exception for proceedings relating to status. Of course, states have the power to decide the status of their domiciliaries. It was natural, therefore, for the courts and scholars of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to consider domicile the sole basis of jurisdiction in custody matters. Gradually, judges and scholars began to challenge the notion that domicile was the sole basis and courts began to apply other bases, such as the child's presence in the state or personal jurisdiction over both parents. One commentator suggests that …
The Role Of Comity In The Law Of Federal Courts, Michael L. Wells
The Role Of Comity In The Law Of Federal Courts, Michael L. Wells
Scholarly Works
Considerations of comity often require federal courts to defer to state courts when federal issues could be raised in state proceedings. Contexts in which such deference is required include Younger abstention, habeus corpus exhaustion and procedural default, and Pullman and Burford abstention. In this Article, Professor Wells demonstrates that the Supreme Court's opinions fail to make a distinction between cases where comity requires restraint and those where it does not. The Court's motive in invoking comity is not to decrease access to federal courts, but instead to strike a compromise between the individual's interest in a federal forum and the …
The Federal Anti-Injunction Statute In The Aftermath Of Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, John Daniel Reaves, David S. Golden
The Federal Anti-Injunction Statute In The Aftermath Of Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, John Daniel Reaves, David S. Golden
Scholarly Works
Last Term the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. This case involved the present anti-injunction statute, section 2283 of Title 28, which forbids federal court injunction of state court proceedings. Mr. Justice Black, writing for the majority, traced the roots of the statute's predecessor into the "fundamental constitutional independence of the states and their courts." He hinted that the act grew out of concern for constitutional inviolability of a state court's adjudicative process. Mr. Justice Black went on to announce that the anti-injunction statute is absolute; no judicially created exceptions …