Law Commons^™

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 …

Absurd Overlap: Snap Removal And The Rule Of Unanimity, Travis Temple

William & Mary Law Review

Snap removal employs “a literalist approach” to the statute governing the procedural mechanism for removing cases from state court to federal court. In a typical removal scenario, defendants sued in state court would have the option to be heard in federal court instead, given that certain conditions are satisfied. [S]nap removal essentially allows the defendants to forego a condition that would bar removal if they can file before the plaintiff formally notifies them of the lawsuit. This practice of removing a case before being served with formal process—essentially an act of gamesmanship of the civil procedure system—has gained appellate support …

Pereira's Aftershocks, Lonny Hoffman

William & Mary Law Review

At the end of the 2017 term, the Supreme Court decided not to stop time. Nonpermanent residents who have been placed in removal proceedings may apply for a discretionary form of relief from the Attorney General known as “cancellation of removal.” To be eligible, an applicant must show (in addition to meeting other requirements) that she has been in the United States for at least ten consecutive years. The period of continuous physical presence is interrupted when the government serves the noncitizen with a notice to appear at a removal hearing. However, in Pereira v. Sessions, the Court held that …

Why Rape Should Be A Federal Crime, Donald A. Dripps

William & Mary Law Review

Sexual assault remains at high levels despite decades of legal reforms. The recent wave of accusations against public figures signals both the persistence of the problem and a new political climate for addressing it. The Article argues that Congress should make forcible rape a federal crime, to the limits of the Commerce Clause. This would bring federal assets to the fight against rape by redirecting them from enforcement of possessory crimes. The simple statutory proposal might be accompanied by a more ambitious reorganization of the Justice Department to include a Bureau of Violent Crimes. Replies are offered to objections based …

Enforcing Principled Constitutional Limits On Federal Power: A Neo-Federalist Refinement Of Justice Cardozo's Jurisprudence, Robert J. Pushaw Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

Since the New Deal of the mid-1930s, Congress has asserted virtually absolute power to (1) “regulate Commerce ... among the States,” (2) tax and spend for the “general Welfare,” and (3) delegate “legislative Power[ ]” to the executive branch. From 1937 until 1994, the Supreme Court rejected every claim that such statutes had exceeded Congress’s Article I authority and usurped the states’ reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment. Over the past quarter century, conservative Justices have tried, and failed, to develop principled constitutional limits on the federal government while keeping the modern administrative and social welfare state largely intact.

The …

Jurisdictional Idealism And Positivism, John F. Preis

William & Mary Law Review

“If I should call a sheep’s tail a leg, how many legs would it have? Four, because calling a tail a leg would not make it so.” This old quip, often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, captures an issue at the heart of the modern law of subject matter jurisdiction. Some believe that there is a Platonic ideal of jurisdiction that cannot be changed by judicial or legislative fiat. Others take a positivist approach and assert that jurisdiction is nothing more than whatever a legislature says it is. Who is right?

Neither and both. Although neither idealism nor positivism is the …

The Long Arm Of Multidistrict Litigation, Andrew D. Bradt

William & Mary Law Review

Nearly 40 percent of the civil cases currently pending in federal court—now over 130,000—are part of a multidistrict litigation, or MDL. In MDL, all cases pending in federal district courts around the country sharing a common question of fact, such as the defectiveness of a product or drug, are transferred to a single district judge for consolidated pretrial proceedings, after which they are supposed to be remanded for trial. But the reality is that less than 3 percent are ever sent back because the cases are resolved in the MDL court, either through dispositive motion or mass settlement. Surprisingly, despite …

Personal Jurisdiction Based On The Local Effects Of Intentional Misconduct, Allan Erbsen

William & Mary Law Review

Intentional misconduct frequently has extraterritorial consequences. Terrorist attacks, toxic pollution, civil rights violations, and other intentional torts can cause harm within a state despite originating outside the state. Those harms raise a vexing constitutional question: when do the local effects of intentional wrongdoing authorize personal jurisdiction over a defendant whose conduct occurred outside the forum? The answer has several significant implications. Granting or denying jurisdiction can support or undermine regulatory interests by allocating power between states, imposes burdens on the parties that can impede access to justice, and alters risk assessments that shape both socially desirable and socially destructive behavior.

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 …

Rethinking Legal Globalization: The Case Of Transnational Personal Jurisdiction, Donald Earl Childress Iii

William & Mary Law Review

Under what circumstances may a United States court exercise personal jurisdiction over alien defendants? Courts and commentators have yet to offer a coherent response to this question. That is surprising given that scholars have been calling for the globalization of U.S. law since the late 1980s as part of a transnational litigation narrative.

Through doctrinal and empirical analysis, this Article argues that a U.S. court should have power to exercise personal jurisdiction over an alien defendant not served with process within a state’s borders when (1) the defendant has received constitutionally adequate notice, (2) the state has a constitutionally sufficient …

Parens Patriae: A Flawed Strategy For State-Initiated Obesity Litigation, John B. Hoke

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Can Erie Survive As Federal Common Law?, Craig Green

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Why Jurisprudence Doesn't Matter For Customary International Law, Steven Walt

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Untethered Norms After Erie Railroad Co. V. Tompkins: Positivism, International Law, And The Return Of The "Brooding Omnipresence", Lea Brilmayer

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

General Law In Federal Court, Anthony J. Bellia Jr., Bradford R. Clark

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Critical Guide To Erie Railroad Co. V. Tompkins, Caleb Nelson

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Federal Common Law Of Statutory Interpretation: Erie For The Age Of Statutes, Abbe R. Gluck

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Law's Dark Matter, Michael S. Green

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jurisdictional Procedure, Justin Pidot

William & Mary Law Review

Scholars have lavished attention on the substance of jurisdictional doctrines such as standing, mootness, diversity, and federal question. They have left largely unexamined, however, the procedures courts use to address these doctrines; collectively, I refer to these procedures as “jurisdictional procedure.” A paramount feature of jurisdictional procedure is the unique and virtually unqualified obligation federal courts possess to identify and decide issues of subject matter jurisdiction even if the parties and lower courts overlook these issues. Courts have reached no consensus about how to identify the facts necessary to effectuate this obligation. The confluence of court-initiated legal inquiry and unpredictable …

Erie, The Class Action Fairness Act, And Some Federalism Implications Of Diversity Jurisdiction, David Marcus

William & Mary Law Review

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) expands diversity jurisdiction to allow most significant class actions based on state law to proceed in federal court. Hoping to limit the application of state law through class actions, CAFA's supporters believe that federal judges harbor a collective animosity toward the large, multistate class actions the statute targets. CAFA has no substantive component, and it does not tighten Rule 23's certification requirements. Nonetheless, if supporters are right about judicial preferences and their likely impact on certification decisions, CAFA will weaken the regulatory reach of state law.

Arguments about diversity jurisdiction and judicial …

Admiralty And Federalism In The Wake Of Yamaha Motor Corp., Usa V. Calhoun: Is Yamaha A Cry By The Judiciary For Legislative Action In State Territorial Waters?, David R. Lapp

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Defensively Invoking Treaties In American Courts - Jurisdictional Challenges Under The U.N. Drug Traficking Convention By Foreign Defendants Kidnapped Abroad By U.S. Agents, Thomas Michael Mcdonnell

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Constitutional Charge And A Comparative Vision To Substantially Expand And Subject Matter Specialize The Federal Judiciary: A Preliminary Blueprint For Remodeling Our National Houses Of Justice And Establishing A Separate System Of Federal Criminal Courts, Victor Williams

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Exclusive Or Concurrent Jurisdiction Over Private Civil Rico Actions: Finding The Appropriate Reference, Kimberly O'D. Thompson

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Single Contract As Minimum Contacts: Justice Brennan "Has It His Way", Pamela J. Stephens

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Lessons Of Lumpkin: A Review Of Recent Literature On Law, Comity, And The Impending Crisis, John Phillip Reid

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

State Courts And Federalism In The 1980'S: Comment, Robert J. Sheran

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Toward Procedural Parity In Constitutional Litigation, Burt Neuborne

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Introduction To The Symposium "State Courts And Federalism In The 1980'S", John R. Pagan

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Uncertain Nature Of Federal Jurisdiction, Martha A. Field

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.