Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
Rule 4(K), Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction, And The Civil Rules Advisory Committee: Lessons From Attempted Reform, A. Benjamin Spencer
Rule 4(K), Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction, And The Civil Rules Advisory Committee: Lessons From Attempted Reform, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
On multiple occasions, I have advocated for a revision to Rule 4(k) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that would disconnect personal jurisdiction in federal courts from the jurisdictional limits of their respective host states—to no avail. In this Essay, I will review—one final time—my argument for nationwide personal jurisdiction in the federal courts, recount my (failed) attempt to persuade the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to embrace my view, and reflect on what lessons may be drawn from the experience regarding the civil rulemaking process. My aim is to prompt discussion around potential rulemaking reforms and to equip …
The Territorial Reach Of Federal Courts, A. Benjamin Spencer
The Territorial Reach Of Federal Courts, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Federal courts exercise the sovereign authority of the United States when they assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant. As components of the national sovereign, federal courts' maximum territorial reach is determined by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which permits jurisdiction over persons with sufficient minimum contacts with the United States and over property located therein. Why, then, are federal courts limited to the territorial reach of the states in which they sit when they exercise personal jurisdiction in most cases? There is no constitutional or statutory mandate that so constrains the federal judicial reach. Rather, it is by operation …
Scott V. Harris And The Future Of Summary Judgment, Tobias Barrington Wolff
Scott V. Harris And The Future Of Summary Judgment, Tobias Barrington Wolff
All Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court’s decision in Scott v. Harris has quickly become a staple in many Civil Procedure courses, and small wonder. The cinematic high-speed car chase complete with dash-cam video and the Court’s controversial treatment of that video evidence seem tailor-made for classroom discussion. As is often true with instant classics, however, splashy first impressions can mask a more complex state of affairs. At the heart of Scott v. Harris lies the potential for a radical doctrinal reformation: a shift in the core summary judgment standard undertaken to justify a massive expansion of interlocutory appellate jurisdiction in qualified immunity cases. …
In Defense Of The Substance-Procedure Dichotomy, Jennifer S. Hendricks
In Defense Of The Substance-Procedure Dichotomy, Jennifer S. Hendricks
Publications
John Hart Ely famously observed, "We were all brought up on sophisticated talk about the fluidity of the line between substance and procedure," but for most of Erie's history, the Supreme Court has answered the question "Does this state law govern in federal court? " with a "yes" or a "no." Beginning, however, with Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, and continuing with Semtek v. Lockheed Martin and the dissenting opinion in Shady Grove v. Allstate, a shifting coalition of justices has pursued a third path. Instead of declaring state law applicable or inapplicable, they have claimed for …
Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction For Our Federal Courts, A. Benjamin Spencer
Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction For Our Federal Courts, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limits the territorial jurisdiction of federal district courts to that of the courts of their host states.T his limitation is a voluntary rather than obligatory restriction, given district courts' status as courts of the national sovereign. Although there are sound policy reasons for limiting the jurisdictional reach of our federal courts in this manner, the limitation delivers little benefit from a judicial administration or even a fairness perspective, and ultimately costs more to implement than is gained in return. The rule should be amended to provide that district courts have personal …
The Consumer Class Action, Arthur H. Travers Jr., Jonathan M. Landers
The Consumer Class Action, Arthur H. Travers Jr., Jonathan M. Landers
Publications
No abstract provided.
The Modern Utility Of Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction, Paul D. Carrington
The Modern Utility Of Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction, Paul D. Carrington
Articles by Maurer Faculty
Professor Carrington examines the proposed amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that would confer quasi in rem jurisdiction on the federal courts and concludes that it should be rejected. Arguing that the expansion of the concept of personal jurisdiction has removed most of what justification there once was for quasi in rem jurisdiction, the author maintains that the latter jurisdiction often provides only limited and uncertain judgments for local plaintiffs while compelling nonresident defendants to litigate in an inconvenient forum, and herefore should not be made available in the federal courts merely to bring their practice into conformity …
Compulsory Joinder Of Parties In Civil Actions, John W. Reed
Compulsory Joinder Of Parties In Civil Actions, John W. Reed
Articles
The plaintiff in a civil cause ordinarily is permitted to select the persons with whom he will litigate. The initial designation of parties to an action is made by the plaintiff, and if he chooses to sue B and not A,' that is ordinarily of no concern to B or to A or to the court. So also where the plaintiff without A as co-plaintiff sues B. Not always, however, is the plaintiff permitted unfettered choice in naming the parties to his lawsuit. On the one hand there are persons whose relationship to the situation in litigation is outside the …