Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Jurisdiction

Michigan Law Review

United States Supreme Court

Articles 1 - 8 of 8

Full-Text Articles in Law

Personal Jurisdiction And Aliens, William S. Dodge, Scott Dodson May 2018

Personal Jurisdiction And Aliens, William S. Dodge, Scott Dodson

Michigan Law Review

The increasing prevalence of noncitizens in U.S. civil litigation raises a funda-mental question for the doctrine of personal jurisdiction: How should the alienage status of a defendant affect personal jurisdiction? This fundamental question comes at a time of increasing Supreme Court focus on personal juris-diction, in cases like Bristol–Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, Daimler AG v. Bauman, and J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro. We aim to answer that question by offering a theory of personal jurisdiction over aliens. Under this theory, alienage status broadens the geographic range for mini-mum contacts from a single state to the whole nation. …


Minimum Virtual Contacts: A Framework For Specific Jurisdiction In Cyberspace, Adam R. Kleven Mar 2018

Minimum Virtual Contacts: A Framework For Specific Jurisdiction In Cyberspace, Adam R. Kleven

Michigan Law Review

As the ubiquity and importance of the internet continue to grow, courts will address more cases involving online activity. In doing so, courts will confront the threshold issue of whether a defendant can be subject to specific personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, however, has yet to speak to this internet-jurisdiction issue. Current precedent, when strictly applied to the internet, yields fundamentally unfair results when addressing specific jurisdiction. To better achieve the fairness aim of due process, this must change. This Note argues that, in internet tort cases, the “express aiming” requirement should be discarded from the jurisdictional analysis and that …


A Call For The End Of The Doctrine Of Realignment, Jacob S. Sherkow Jan 2008

A Call For The End Of The Doctrine Of Realignment, Jacob S. Sherkow

Michigan Law Review

In Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank, 1941, the Supreme Court established the doctrine of realignment, requiring federal courts to examine the issues in dispute and realign each party as plaintiff or defendant if necessary. Due to the complete diversity requirement, realignment gave the federal courts the ability to both create and destroy diversity jurisdiction. Since 1941, the federal courts have struggled to interpret the central holding in Indianapolis, and have created several competing "tests" for realignment. This confusion has made the doctrine of realignment unworkable. Realignment along with each of the present tests-encourages jurisdictional abuses by forcing the federal …


Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Claims By Plaintiffs In Diversity Cases: Making Sense Of 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (B), Darren J. Gold Jun 1995

Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Claims By Plaintiffs In Diversity Cases: Making Sense Of 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (B), Darren J. Gold

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines the language and legislative history of section 1367(b) and proposes a uniform test for determining the circumstances in which subsection (b) authorizes the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Part I of this Note explains the doctrines of pendent and ancillary jurisdiction and examines how the Supreme Court's decision in Finley v. United States called these doctrines into question. Part II examines the language and legislative history of section 1367 and concludes that the statute only prohibits the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs in diversity cases when doing so would permit plaintiffs to circumvent the complete …


Transfer And Choice Of Federal Law: The Appellate Model, Robert A. Ragazzo Feb 1995

Transfer And Choice Of Federal Law: The Appellate Model, Robert A. Ragazzo

Michigan Law Review

In light of recent developments, a reexamination of the position that transferee federal law applies regardless of the context is in order. This article argues that the consensus that existed prior to the Marcus article and the Korean Air Lines case, although not based upon the most thorough analysis, comprises the better view: transferee federal law should apply after permanent but not MDL transfers.


From Swift To Erie: An Historical Perspective, Gene R. Shreve Feb 1984

From Swift To Erie: An Historical Perspective, Gene R. Shreve

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Harmony & Dissonance: The Swift & Erie Cases in American Federalism by Tony Freyer


Legitimate Interests In Multistate Problems: As Between State And Federal Law, Lea Brilmayer Jun 1981

Legitimate Interests In Multistate Problems: As Between State And Federal Law, Lea Brilmayer

Michigan Law Review

This Article examines that common ground, analyzing the roles of state policy interests and contacts in defining constitutional limits. It concentrates particularly on one paradoxical aspect of the interaction between federal and state law. While the scope of constitutional limits on application of forum law is necessarily a federal issue, constitutional analysis simultaneously defers in some unspecified way to state policy. This is because federal choice-of-law questions frequently tum on the existence of a state policy interest that legitimizes the application of state law. The resulting interdependence of the federal and state issues would seemingly empower state legislatures and courts …


Personal Jurisdiction And Choice Of Law, James Martin May 1980

Personal Jurisdiction And Choice Of Law, James Martin

Michigan Law Review

The time has come for the Supreme Court to declare that a state may not apply its own law to a case unless it has the "minimum contacts" required by International Shoe for the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Although the present state of the law is less than certain, the Supreme Court has not yet required that a state show it has minimum contacts with a defendant before applying its law. As a result, in some cases where a state has obtained personal jurisdiction because of a defendant's contacts unrelated to the case - contacts such …