Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Law
De-Frauding The System: Sham Plaintiffs And The Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine, Matthew C. Monahan
De-Frauding The System: Sham Plaintiffs And The Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine, Matthew C. Monahan
Michigan Law Review
Playing off the strict requirements of federal diversity jurisdiction, plaintiffs can structure their suits to prevent removal to federal court. A common way to preclude removability is to join a nondiverse party. Although plaintiffs have a great deal of flexibility, they may include only those parties that have a stake in the lawsuit. Put another way, a court will not permit a plaintiff to join a party to a lawsuit when that party is being joined solely to prevent removal. The most useful tool federal courts employ to prevent this form of jurisdictional manipulation is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure …
Structure And Precedent, Jeffrey C. Dobbins
Structure And Precedent, Jeffrey C. Dobbins
Michigan Law Review
The standard model of vertical precedent is part of the deep structure of our legal system. Under this model, we rarely struggle with whether a given decision of a court within a particular hierarchy is potentially binding at all. When Congress or the courts alter the standard structure and process offederal appellate review, however, that standard model of precedent breaks down. This Article examines several of these unusual appellate structures and highlights the difficulties associated with evaluating the precedential effect of decisions issued within them. For instance, when Congress consolidates challenges to agency decision making in a single federal circuit, …
A Call For The End Of The Doctrine Of Realignment, Jacob S. Sherkow
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
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
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.
Removal And The Eleventh Amendment: The Case For District Court Remand Discretion To Avoid A Bifurcated Suit, Mitchell N. Berman
Removal And The Eleventh Amendment: The Case For District Court Remand Discretion To Avoid A Bifurcated Suit, Mitchell N. Berman
Michigan Law Review
This Note concludes that the Sixth Circuit was half right: when a civil action names both state and private defendants - what this Note terms a "mixed case" - and when the claims against private defendants arise under federal law, the district court must grant removal of the case8 and must remand the claims against the state defendant. However, this Note also observes that the Fifth Circuit probably achieved the better result. After defendants have removed a mixed case to federal court and the district court has remanded the barred claims, the dual court systems and the parties will usually …
The Federal Courts In The Political Order: Judicial Jurisdiction And American Political Theory, James Hopenfeld
The Federal Courts In The Political Order: Judicial Jurisdiction And American Political Theory, James Hopenfeld
Michigan Law Review
A Review of The Federal Courts in the Political Order: Judicial Jurisdiction and American Political Theory by Martin H. Redish
Treatise Writing And Federal Jurisdiction Scholarship: Does Doctrine Matter When Law Is Politics?, Richard A. Matasar
Treatise Writing And Federal Jurisdiction Scholarship: Does Doctrine Matter When Law Is Politics?, Richard A. Matasar
Michigan Law Review
A Review of Federal Jurisdiction by Erwin Chemerinsky and Federal Jurisdiction 1990 Supplement by Erwin Chemerinsky
Federal Jurisdiction: The Perils And Rewards Of Pulling Things Together, Gene R. Shreve
Federal Jurisdiction: The Perils And Rewards Of Pulling Things Together, Gene R. Shreve
Michigan Law Review
A Review of Federal Jurisdiction: Tensions in the Allocation of Judicial Power by Martin H. Redish
Admiralty Procedure And Jurisdiction After The 1966 Unification, David W. Robertson
Admiralty Procedure And Jurisdiction After The 1966 Unification, David W. Robertson
Michigan Law Review
From the nation's beginning, the federal district courts have been vested with jurisdiction in cases "of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction." Like its predecessor statute, section 1333 of the present Judicial Code asserts that the jurisdiction is "exclusive of the courts of the states," but the infamous "saving clause" goes on to negate that exclusivity in the bulk of maritime cases by giving the plaintiff the option of maintaining his action in any other court having jurisdiction over it. In "saving clause" cases--that is, cases that could have been brought in federal court under the admiralty jurisdiction, but which were maintained, …
Federal Jurisdiction--Pendent Claims--Doctrine Of Pendent Jurisdiction Applies To Claim Of Second Plaintiff--Wilson V. American Chain & Cable Co.; Newman V. Freeman, Michigan Law Review
Federal Jurisdiction--Pendent Claims--Doctrine Of Pendent Jurisdiction Applies To Claim Of Second Plaintiff--Wilson V. American Chain & Cable Co.; Newman V. Freeman, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
In Wilson v. American Chain & Cable Co., plaintiff, whose son was injured by a defective lawnmower, brought a diversity action in federal district court on behalf of his son against the manufacturer, alleging damages in excess of the $10,000 jurisdictional minimum. Simultaneously, plaintiff sought recovery in his own name for medical bills and the expense of orthopedic shoes resulting from the injury. Because the latter claim was for less than $10,000, it was dismissed by the district court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal to the Third Circuit, held, inter alia, the claim of the …
Limitation Of Diversity Jurisdiction In Cases Affecting Foreign Corporations, Gustavus Ohlinger
Limitation Of Diversity Jurisdiction In Cases Affecting Foreign Corporations, Gustavus Ohlinger
Michigan Law Review
On February 29, 1932, President Hoover sent to the Senate and House of Representatives a message recommending that the jurisdiction of federal courts based on diversity of citizenship be modified by "providing that where a corporation, organized under the laws of one State, carries on business in another State it shall be treated as a citizen of the State wherein it carries on business as respects suits brought within that State between it and the residents thereof arising out of the business carried on in such State."