Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
A Unified Theory Of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Jurisdiction, Lumen N. Mulligan
A Unified Theory Of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Jurisdiction, Lumen N. Mulligan
Lumen N. Mulligan
Title 28, section 1331 of the United States Code provides the jurisdictional grounding for the majority of cases heard in the federal courts, yet it is not well understood. The predominant view holds that section 1331 doctrine both lacks a focus upon congressional intent and is internally inconsistent. I seek to counter both these assumptions by re-contextualizing the Court’s section 1331 jurisprudence in terms of the contemporary judicial usage of “right” (i.e., clear, mandatory obligations capable of judicial enforcement) and cause of action (i.e., permission to vindicate a right in court). In conducting this reinterpretation, I argue that section 1331 …
A Unified Theory Of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Jurisdiction, Lumen N. Mulligan
A Unified Theory Of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Jurisdiction, Lumen N. Mulligan
Vanderbilt Law Review
Section 1331, Title 28 of the United States Code is the general federal question jurisdictional statute, which grants federal district courts with original subject matter jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."' This statute grounds the majority of civil actions heard in federal court. Given the weighty doctrinal3 and pragmatic consequences that flow from determining whether a claim falls within the scope of § 1331, it is surprising to learn that we lack a coherent view of what statutory federal question jurisdiction entails. Professor Mishkin famously forwarded the classic theory that …
A Unified Theory Of 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 Jurisdiction, Lumen N. Mulligan
A Unified Theory Of 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 Jurisdiction, Lumen N. Mulligan
Faculty Works
Title 28, section 1331 of the United States Code provides the jurisdictional grounding for the majority of cases heard in the federal courts, yet it is not well understood. The predominant view holds that section 1331 doctrine both lacks a focus upon congressional intent and is internally inconsistent. I seek to counter both these assumptions by re-contextualizing the Court's section 1331 jurisprudence in terms of the contemporary judicial usage of right (i.e., clear, mandatory obligations capable of judicial enforcement) and cause of action (i.e., permission to vindicate a right in court). In conducting this reinterpretation, I argue that section 1331 …
This Is The End… My Friend: Disgorgement, Dissolution And Sequestration As Remedies Under State Udap Statutes, Michael Flynn
This Is The End… My Friend: Disgorgement, Dissolution And Sequestration As Remedies Under State Udap Statutes, Michael Flynn
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.