Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Forum-Defendant Rule, The Mischief Rule, And Snap Removal, Howard M. Wasserman
The Forum-Defendant Rule, The Mischief Rule, And Snap Removal, Howard M. Wasserman
William & Mary Law Review Online
Samuel Bray’s The Mischief Rule reconceptualizes and revitalizes that venerable canon of statutory interpretation. Bray’s new approach to the mischief rule offers a textual solution to an ongoing civil procedure puzzle—forum defendants and “snap removal.” The forum-defendant rule provides that a diversity case is not removable from state to federal court when a properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the forum state. Snap removal occurs whena defendant removes before the forum defendant has been properly served, “snapping” the case into federal court. Three courts of appeals and a majority of district courts have endorsed this practice, concluding …
Jurisdiction And "Definitional Law", John F. Preis
Jurisdiction And "Definitional Law", John F. Preis
William & Mary Law Review Online
Professor Scott Dodson and I agree that the law of federal jurisdiction needs improvement. We disagree, however, on Congress’s power to make that happen. In an article published in 2017, Dodson argued that “jurisdiction” has an “inherent identity” that “[n]either Congress nor the courts can change.” In an article published the following year, I critiqued this claim. There, I argued that Congress is not obliged to respect jurisdiction’s inherent identity (to the extent it might have one). Rather, Congress need only respect the identity of jurisdiction contained in the United States Constitution. Professor Dodson recently published a rejoinder to my …
Defending Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson
Defending Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson
William & Mary Law Review Online
In an article entitled Jurisdiction and Its Effects, I argued that jurisdiction has inherent descriptive meaning but mutable effects. In response, Professor John Preis challenges my framework on a number of grounds and offers his own presumption-based approach. In this reply, I defend my original framework and register my own skepticism of his alternative approach.