Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
In Search Of Removal Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson
In Search Of Removal Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson
Scott Dodson
The ubiquitous and somewhat careless use of the term “jurisdictional” by courts has spawned confusion over what is and is not jurisdictional in a variety of contexts, including removal. The issue has critical implications for litigants. Yet it lacks scholarly coverage and is the subject of deep divisions in the lower courts. In this Article, I develop an initial framework for characterizing provisions of the removal statute as jurisdictional or procedural. I build upon the groundwork laid by prior precedent and modify it to account for the quasi-jurisdictional nature of removal and its impact on the federal-state balance of power. …
Mandatory Rules, Scott Dodson
Mandatory Rules, Scott Dodson
Scott Dodson
Whether a limitation is jurisdictional or not is an important but often obscure question. In an Article forthcoming in Northwestern University Law Review, I proposed a framework for courts to resolve the issue in a principled way, but I left open the next logical question: what does it mean if a rule is characterized as nonjurisdictional? Jurisdictional rules generally have a clearly defined set of traits: they are not subject to equitable exceptions, consent, waiver, or forfeiture; they can be raised at any time; and they can be raised by any party or the court sua sponte. This jurisdictional rigidity …
Appreciating Mandatory Rules: A Reply To Critics, Scott Dodson
Appreciating Mandatory Rules: A Reply To Critics, Scott Dodson
Scott Dodson
This short essay, replying to the responses of Professors Burch and Dane and Mr. Poor, address their critiques of my original essay, "Jurisdictionality and Bowles v. Russell."
The Failure Of Bowles V. Russell, Scott Dodson
The Failure Of Bowles V. Russell, Scott Dodson
Scott Dodson
Last term, the Supreme Court decided Bowles v. Russell—perhaps the year’s most underrated case—which characterized the time to file a civil notice of appeal as jurisdictional and therefore not subject to equitable excuses for noncompliance. In so holding, the Court overstated the supporting precedent, inflated the jurisdictional importance of statutes, and undermined an important recent movement to clarify when a rule is jurisdictional and when it is not. This did not have to be. The Court missed a golden opportunity to chart a middle course—holding the rule mandatory but nonjurisdictional—that would have been more consistent with precedent while resolving the …