Law Commons^™

Surprises In The Skies: Resolving The Circuit Split On How Courts Should Determine Whether An "Accident" Is "Unexpected Or Unusual" Under The Montreal Convention, Ashley Tang

Washington Law Review

Article 17 of both the Montreal Convention and its predecessor, the Warsaw Convention, imposes liability onto air carriers for certain injuries and damages from “accidents” incurred by passengers during international air carriage. However, neither Convention defines the term “accident.” While the United States Supreme Court opined that, for the purposes of Article 17, an air carrier’s liability “arises only if a passenger’s injury is caused by an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger,” it did not explain what standards lower courts should employ to discern whether an event is “unexpected or unusual.” In 2004, …

Fugitive Pull: Applying The Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine To Foreign Defendants, Zachary Z. Schroeder

Washington Law Review

Defendants force courts to decide whether to use judicial time and resources to hear a case when they either flee or refuse to submit to jurisdiction. Judges in the United States possess an exceptional discretionary power to deny access to the courts in these circumstances through the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. The fugitive disentitlement doctrine developed as federal common law and permits courts to exercise discretion in declining to hear appeals or motions from defendants classified as fugitives from justice.

Historically, the fugitive disentitlement doctrine was intended to prevent courts from wasting resources adjudicating cases when a defendant has fled and …

Gone Fishing: Casting A Wide Net Using Geofence Warrants, Ryan Tursi

Washington Law Review

Technology companies across the country receive requests from law enforcement agencies for cell phone location information near the scenes of crimes. These requests rely on the traditional warrant process and are known as geofence warrants, or reverse location search warrants. By obtaining location information, law enforcement can identify potential suspects or persons of interest who were near the scene of a crime when they have no leads. But the use of this investigative technique is controversial, as it threatens to intrude upon the privacy of innocent bystanders who had the misfortune of being nearby when the crime took place. Innocent …

Race And Washington’S Criminal Justice System: 2021 Report To The Washington Supreme Court, Task Force 2.0

Washington Law Review

RACE & WASHINGTON’S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM:

EDITOR’S NOTE

As Editors-in-Chief of the Washington Law Review, Gonzaga Law Review, and Seattle University Law Review, we represent the flagship legal academic publications of each law school in Washington State. Our publications last joined together to publish the findings of the first Task Force on Race and the Criminal Justice System in 2011/12. A decade later, we are honored to join once again to present the findings of Task Force 2.0. Law journals have enabled generations of legal professionals to introduce, vet, and distribute new ideas, critiques of existing legal structures, and reflections …

Autonomous Corporate Personhood, Carla L. Reyes

Washington Law Review

Several states have recently changed their business organization law to accommodate autonomous businesses—businesses operated entirely through computer code. A variety of international civil society groups are also actively developing new frameworks— and a model law—for enabling decentralized, autonomous businesses to achieve a corporate or corporate-like status that bestows legal personhood. Meanwhile, various jurisdictions, including the European Union, have considered whether and to what extent artificial intelligence (AI) more broadly should be endowed with personhood to respond to AI’s increasing presence in society. Despite the fairly obvious overlap between the two sets of inquiries, the legal and policy discussions between the …

The Implausibility Standard For Environmental Plaintiffs: The Twiqbal Plausibility Pleading Standard And Affirmative Defenses, Celeste Anquonette Ajayi

Washington Law Review

Environmental plaintiffs often face challenges when pleading their claims. This is due to difficulty in obtaining the particular facts needed to establish causation, and thus liability. In turn, this difficulty inhibits their ability to vindicate their rights. Prior to the shift in pleading standards created by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, often informally referred to as “Twiqbal,” plaintiffs could assert their claims through the simplified notice pleading standard articulated in Conley v. Gibson. This allowed plaintiffs to gain access to discovery, which aided in proving their claims.

The current heightened pleading standard …

The Canons Of Construction For Choice-Of-Law Clauses, John F. Coyle

Washington Law Review

Over the past half-century, courts in the United States have developed canons of construction that they use exclusively to construe choice-of-law clauses. These canons are consistently applied by state and federal courts. They play an important role in determining the meaning of choice-of-law clauses and, by extension, the law that will be applied to resolve disputes that come before the courts. To date, however, these canons have attracted relatively little attention in the academic literature. This Article aspires to fill that gap. It develops the first taxonomy of these canons, which fall into one of two families. The first consists …

Judicial Lobbying, J. Jonas Anderson

Washington Law Review

Judges who lobby Congress for legal reform tread into an ethical gray area: lobbying is legally permissible, but generally frowned upon. Currently, there are no legal or ethical constraints on judges speaking publicly regarding proposed legislative changes, only an ill-defined norm against the practice. Scholars have largely dismissed judicial lobbying efforts as the result of haphazard, one-off events, driven by the unique interests, expertise, or ideology of the individual judge involved. According to scholars, there is nothing that should be done—not to mention little that could be done—to restrict judges from lobbying. Judicial lobbying occurs, in large part, when Congress …

Judicial Lobbying, J. Jonas Anderson

Washington Law Review

Judges who lobby Congress for legal reform tread into an ethical gray area: lobbying is legally permissible, but generally frowned upon. Currently, there are no legal or ethical constraints on judges speaking publicly regarding proposed legislative changes, only an ill-defined norm against the practice. Scholars have largely dismissed judicial lobbying efforts as the result of haphazard, one-off events, driven by the unique interests, expertise, or ideology of the individual judge involved. According to scholars, there is nothing that should be done—not to mention little that could be done—to restrict judges from lobbying. Judicial lobbying occurs, in large part, when Congress …

Removal Jurisdiction Over Mass Actions, Mallory A. Gitt

Washington Law Review

The mass action provision in the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 provides a federal forum for certain state court litigation that resembles class actions but otherwise could not be removed. The provision is triggered when state court plaintiffs propose a joint trial of common legal or factual issues. But defining what constitutes that triggering event has proved difficult for federal courts. They have not used a uniform framework to determine when they have subject matter jurisdiction over the purported mass action, and have lacked a common interpretation of the statutory language to begin the inquiry. That lack of coherence …

Solving Jurisdiction's Social Cost, Dustin E. Buehler

Washington Law Review

Federal court subject-matter jurisdiction rules incur a significant social cost—when jurisdiction is found lacking, courts must dismiss, no matter how many years and resources the parties have spent on the case. Indeed, hundreds of belated jurisdictional dismissals occur each year after parties have already engaged in discovery, dispositive motions, or even trial. Federal judges tolerate this waste largely because they view nonwaivable jurisdictional rules as a function of structural values rooted in the Constitution, rather than efficiency concerns. In contrast, scholars tend to focus primarily on efficiency arguments while discussing jurisdictional nonwaivability, de-emphasizing important structural interests. Both theories are overly …

The Claim-Centered Approach To Arising-Under Jurisdiction: A Brief Rejoinder To Professor Mulligan, Simona Grossi

Washington Law Review

My claim-centered approach to arising-under jurisdiction fully embraces the three subcategories of jurisdiction that Professor Mulligan identifies. My essential point is that the bifurcation (or trifurcation as Professor Mulligan suggests) into separate doctrines has led to a mechanical jurisprudence that is sometimes inconsistent with the fundamental principles that ought to animate § 1331 jurisdictional analysis. In my view, Gully v. First National Bank illuminates those fundamental principles by focusing on the role of the federal issue in the case before the court. That does not mean that Gully provides an easy answer for all applications of arising-under jurisdiction; it does …

Gully And The Failure To Stake A 28 U.S.C. § 1331 "Claim", Lumen N. Mulligan

Washington Law Review

In this piece, I argue that a return to Gully v. First National Bank in Meridian as an approach to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 jurisdiction is ill-conceived. In a recent thoughtful article, Professor Simona Grossi draws heavily upon the traditions of the legal process school’s approach to federal courts jurisprudence to support just such a resurrection of Gully as the lodestar for § 1331 doctrine. While embracing a return to the legal process school, I argue first that the Gully view—read as a call for judges simply to select sufficiently important matters, in relation to plaintiff’s case in chief, for …

Gully And The Failure To Stake A 28 U.S.C. § 1331 "Claim", Lumen N. Mulligan

Washington Law Review

In this piece, I argue that a return to Gully v. First National Bank in Meridian as an approach to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 jurisdiction is ill-conceived. In a recent thoughtful article, Professor Simona Grossi draws heavily upon the traditions of the legal process school’s approach to federal courts jurisprudence to support just such a resurrection of Gully as the lodestar for § 1331 doctrine. While embracing a return to the legal process school, I argue first that the Gully view—read as a call for judges simply to select sufficiently important matters, in relation to plaintiff’s case in chief, for …

The Claim-Centered Approach To Arising-Under Jurisdiction: A Brief Rejoinder To Professor Mulligan, Simona Grossi

Washington Law Review

My claim-centered approach to arising-under jurisdiction fully embraces the three subcategories of jurisdiction that Professor Mulligan identifies. My essential point is that the bifurcation (or trifurcation as Professor Mulligan suggests) into separate doctrines has led to a mechanical jurisprudence that is sometimes inconsistent with the fundamental principles that ought to animate § 1331 jurisdictional analysis. In my view, Gully v. First National Bank illuminates those fundamental principles by focusing on the role of the federal issue in the case before the court. That does not mean that Gully provides an easy answer for all applications of arising-under jurisdiction; it does …

Distinct Sources Of Law And Distinct Doctrines: Federal Jurisdiction And Prudential Standing, William James Goodling

Washington Law Review

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Their jurisdiction is limited by subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and, to an uncertain extent, standing. While it is well established that Article III standing is jurisdictional, the federal circuit courts are divided on whether judge-made prudential standing is jurisdictional, and the Supreme Court has not directly weighed in. The jurisdictional status of a doctrine has two important procedural consequences. First, litigants cannot forfeit a defense for lack of jurisdiction, meaning that such a defense can be raised for the first time on appeal. Second, federal courts have a sua sponte obligation to ensure …

Negotiating Jurisdiction: Retroceding State Authority Over Indian Country Granted By Public Law 280, Robert T. Anderson

Washington Law Review

This Article canvasses the jurisdictional rules applicable in American Indian tribal territories—“Indian country.” The focus is on a federal law passed in the 1950s, which granted some states a measure of jurisdiction over Indian country without tribal consent. The law is an aberration. Since the adoption of the Constitution, federal law preempted state authority over Indians in their territory. The federal law permitting some state jurisdiction, Public Law 280, is a relic of a policy repudiated by every President and Congress since 1970. States have authority to surrender, or retrocede, the authority granted by Public Law 280, but Indian tribal …

The Exercise Of Personal Jurisdiction Over Some Foreign State Instrumentalities Must Be Consistent With Due Process, Gosia Spangenberg

Washington Law Review

The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause places limitations on courts' judicial power. Due process concerns arise when a forum exercises personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant for actions carried on outside the forum's territory. Those concerns are alleviated when the defendant has adequate "minimum contacts" with the forum. Although foreign states are presumed to be immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) grants U.S. courts jurisdiction over foreign states under certain circumstances. Several FSIA exceptions to foreign state immunity extend to conduct that occurs outside of the U.S. Moreover, the jurisdictional nexus requirements associated …

In Rem Jurisdiction In Cyberspace, Thomas R. Lee

Washington Law Review

"Cyberpirates" incorporating variations on famous trademarks in Internet domain names often attempt to insulate themselves from service of process by providing false and incomplete information in registration materials. Holders of prominent trademarks are often left without an effective remedy because of the logistical difficulty of identifying cyberpirates and personally serving a multitude of complaints in far-flung jurisdictions. This Article examines a potential solution to the problem, whereby the trademark holder files an in rem action against the Internet domain names themselves on the theory that domain names incorporating their famous trademarks violate the Lanham Act and are subject to cancellation …

Forum Selection Agreements In The Federal Courts After Carnival Cruise: A Proposal For Congressional Reform, Patrick J. Borchers

Washington Law Review

Once the object of American judicial loathing, forum selection agreements recently have enjoyed a far more favored status. Forum selection agreements promote certainty in commercial relationships and reduce transaction costs arising from litigation of threshold issues such as personal jurisdiction and venue. In 1988, in Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh, the Supreme Court confused several central issues, including whether state or federal law governs enforcement in diversity actions, the mechanism for enforcing forum selection agreements, and the consequences of seeking to enforce an agreement by transferring the matter from one federal court to another. More recently, in Carnival Cruise Lines, …

Is 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A) A Federal Forum-Shopping Statute?, Michaael B. Rodden

Washington Law Review

In 1948, Congress enacted section 1404(a) of Tit;e 28 to allow transfers between federal district courts. Congress intended the statute to promote convenience in the federal courts. The statute does not specify which state's law applies following a transfer, but in 1964, in Van Dusen v. Barrack, the Supreme Court determined that the state law of the transferor court must apply following defendant-initiated transfers. The Van Dusen Court reasoned that application of the statute should promote convenience and uniformity and discourage forum-shopping in the federal courts. In 1990, in Ferens v. John Deere Co., the Supreme Court held that the …

An Easy Case Makes Bad Law—Burnham V. Superior Court Of California, 110 S. Ct. 2105 (1990), Robert Taylor-Manning

Washington Law Review

In Burnham v. Superior Court of California, the United States Supreme Court considered the continued vitality of transient jurisdiction. Although the Court unanimously held that the defendant was subject to state court jurisdiction, it failed to agree on the issue of transient jurisdiction, issuing three plurality opinions. This Note examines Burnham and concludes that the Court should invalidate transient jurisdiction as a violation of due process rights. It proposes that the Court evaluate all state court assertions of jurisdiction against a minimum contacts standard.

Forum-Selection Clauses: Should State Or Federal Law Determine Validity In Diversity Actions?—Stewart Organization, Inc. V. Ricoh Corp., 108 S. Ct. 2239 (1998), Eric Fahlman

Washington Law Review

Forum-selection clauses are contractual provisions that confine future litigation to particular courts. Such clauses are common in interstate contracts despite uncertainty concerning their validity. Before Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., the circuit courts were divided as to whether federal courts with diversity jurisdiction were compelled to determine forum-selection clause validity in accordance with state law, as directed by Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins. In Stewart, the United States Supreme Court ruled that federal courts did not have to apply state law. Instead, the court held that the federal transfer statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), governed forum-selection clause validity. A …

Supreme Court Voting Patterns Related To Jurisdictional Issues, John R. Leathers

Washington Law Review

The past decade of development by the United States Supreme Court of constitutional law related to jurisdiction has been one of amazingly swift occurrences. Although progress in the area has traditionally been glacial, the Court has produced a consistent flow of opinions over the last ten years. With the flow has come a virtual flood of commentary. A consensus is emerging among scholars, perhaps shared by some members of the Court, that the current developmental framework for judicial jurisdiction dating from International Shoe Co. v. Washington may be ripe for revamping, and that the process may produce a new framework. …

The Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act: Is There An Enforcement Role For The Federal Courts?, Ann T. Wilson

Washington Law Review

The number of divorced parents has increased dramatically since 1970. Consequently, the number of custody disputes has risen. In our increasingly mobile society, it is not surprising that many of these disputes occur across state lines. Extended litigation creates additional uncertainty and instability for children involved in these disputes. In response to this growing problem, Congress enacted the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (PKPA). The PKPA requires that state courts enforce and not modify the child custody determinations of other states. The duty to enforce arises if the initial custody determination meets certain conditions. 6 Despite the existence of …

Sin, Scandal, And Substantive Due Process: Personal Jurisdiction And Pennoyer Reconsidered, Wendy Collins Perdue

Washington Law Review

As part of the attempt to understand modem doctrine, this article first reexamines Pennoyer v. Neff. This reexamination goes beyond the Supreme Court opinion and looks both at the underlying story of the case and the lower court opinion. The story of Pennoyer v. Neff is of considerable interest in and of itself. The cast of characters includes a bigamous United States Senator who was elected under an alias, a governor of Oregon who used his inauguration as a platform to decry his loss in the case, and an illiterate but litigious settler. In addition, the lower court opinion, all …

Rethinking The Act Of State Doctrine: An Analysis In Terms Of Jurisdiction To Prescribe, David C.K. Chow

Washington Law Review

This article proposes a new conception of the act of state doctrine. The basic approach of this new conception is that the act of state doctrine should be analyzed in terms of international law principles governing a sovereign state's jurisdiction to prescribe rules of law. As used here, jurisdiction to prescribe refers to the appropriate authority of a state "to make its law applicable to the activities, relations, or status of persons, or the interests of persons in things." In analyzing questions of prescriptive jurisdiction, this article employs the useful and important approach set forth by the recently adopted Restatement …

Quest For A Bright Line Personal Jurisdiction Rule In Contract Disputes—Burger King Corp. V. Rudzewicz, 105 S. Ct. 2174 (1985), Paul Eric Clay

Washington Law Review

The United States Supreme Court has returned to a personal jurisdiction methodology similar to that used a century ago. Under the traditional nineteenth century doctrine, the Court applied concrete and mechanical rules in jurisdiction disputes. With increased social mobility and technological advancements, however, these rules became inadequate. Responding to the deficiencies of its doctrine, the Supreme Court formulated a flexible test for personal jurisdiction in International Shoe Co. v. Washington. Gradually, the Court's flexible test turned into a vague doctrine, incapable of consistent application by lower courts. The inconsistency caused by the Court's rule also affected businesses that desired predictability …

Personal Jurisdiction In The Post-World-Wide Volkswagen Era—Using A Market Analysis To Determine The Reach Of Jurisdiction, Gregory Trautman

Washington Law Review

This Comment proposes that courts should apply a market analysis to all "stream of commerce" cases. The proper question in such cases is whether the market for the defendant manufacturer's or dealer's products includes the forum state. If so, the defendant should be subject to jurisdiction in the forum state. The Comment begins with a look at the recent history of the doctrine of personal jurisdiction. It then proposes a market analysis approach as an alternative to the rigid unilateral contacts test, and discusses the market analysis approach in the context of several recent consumer-based contact cases. Finally, the Comment …

Implied Limitation On The Jurisdiction Of Indian Tribes, Richard B. Collins

Washington Law Review

In 1978 the Supreme Court in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe held that the retained sovereignty of Indian tribes over tribal reservations does not include the power to punish non-Indians who commit offenses against tribal law.' Based on a number of facts and premises, the Court concluded that it had been assumed from the beginning that the tribes lack this authority except where expressly recognized or conferred by treaty provision or act of Congress. The Court also relied on the fact that during the formative years few Indian tribes had the governmental structure necessary to comply with Anglo-American requirements of …