Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 13 of 13
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Judicial Power And The Inferior Federal Courts: Exploring The Constitutional Vesting Thesis, A. Benjamin Spencer
The Judicial Power And The Inferior Federal Courts: Exploring The Constitutional Vesting Thesis, A. Benjamin Spencer
Scholarly Articles
The third branch of our federal government has traditionally been viewed as the least of the three in terms of the scope of its power and authority. This view finds validation when one considers the extensive authority that Congress has been permitted to exercise over the Federal Judiciary. From the beginning, Congress has understood itself to possess the authority to limit the jurisdiction of inferior federal courts. The Supreme Court has acquiesced to this understanding of congressional authority without much thought or explanation.
It may be possible, however, to imagine a more robust vision of the Judicial Power through closer …
Hybridizing Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson
Hybridizing Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson
Faculty Publications
Federal jurisdiction – the “power” of the court – is seen as something separate and unique. As such, it has a litany of special effects that define jurisdictionality as the antipode of nonjurisdictionality. The resulting conceptualization is that jurisdictionality and nonjurisdictionality occupy mutually exclusive theoretical and doctrinal space. In a recent Article in Stanford Law Review, I refuted this rigid dichotomy of jurisdictionality and nonjurisdictionality by explaining that nonjurisdictional rules can be “hybridized” with any – or even all – of the attributes of jurisdictionality.
This Article drops the other shoe. Jurisdictional rules can be hybridized, too, and in myriad …
Pre-Service Removal In The Forum Defendant's Arsenal, Saurabh Vishnubhakat
Pre-Service Removal In The Forum Defendant's Arsenal, Saurabh Vishnubhakat
Faculty Scholarship
This article is the first academic defense of pre-service removal in diversity cases by forum-state defendants under the “properly joined and served” language of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Pre-service removal has proliferated nationally in recent years. Appellate courts, however, have been silent on the issue for two reasons: First, orders that remand a case to state court are statutorily non-reviewable on appeal. Second, cases retained in federal court and litigated to final judgment are highly unlikely, for reasons of judicial economy, to be voided for de novo readjudication in state court. After tracing the development of the removal statute and …
Asymmetrical Jurisdiction, Matthew I. Hall
Asymmetrical Jurisdiction, Matthew I. Hall
Scholarly Works
Most people — and most lawyers — would assume that the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review any determination of federal law by an inferior court, whether state or federal. And there was a time when it was so. But the Court’s recent justiciability decisions have created a perplexing jurisdictional gap — a set of cases in which state court determinations of federal law are immune from the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. The Court has thus surrendered a portion of its supremacy and thereby undermined the policies that underlie its appellate jurisdiction.
In an effort to address this problem, …
The Preservation Obligation: Regulating And Sanctioning Pre-Litigation Spoliation In Federal Court, A. Benjamin Spencer
The Preservation Obligation: Regulating And Sanctioning Pre-Litigation Spoliation In Federal Court, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
The issue of discovery misconduct, specifically as it pertains to the prelitigation duty to preserve and sanctions for spoliation, has garnered much attention in the wake of decisions by two prominent jurists whose voices carry great weight in this area. In Pension Committee of University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities LLC, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin-of the Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC2 e-discovery casespenned a scholarly and thorough opinion setting forth her views regarding the triggering of the duty to preserve potentially relevant information pending litigation and the standards for determining the appropriate sanctions for various breaches …
The Complexity Of Jurisdictional Clarity, Scott Dodson
The Complexity Of Jurisdictional Clarity, Scott Dodson
Scott Dodson
War Courts: Terror's Distorting Effects On Federal Courts, Collin P. Wedel
War Courts: Terror's Distorting Effects On Federal Courts, Collin P. Wedel
Legislation and Policy Brief
In recent years, federal courts have tried an increasing number of suspected terrorists. In fact, since 2001, federal courts have convicted over 403 people for terrorism-related crimes. Although much has been written about the normative question of where terrorists should be tried, scant research exists about the impact these recent trials have had upon the Article III court system. The debate, rather, has focused almost exclusively upon the proper venue for these trials and the hypothetical problems and advantages that might inhere in each venue.
The war in Afghanistan, presenting a host of thorny legal issues, is now the longest …
Reassessing The Avoidance Canon In Erie Cases, Bernadette Bollas Genetin
Reassessing The Avoidance Canon In Erie Cases, Bernadette Bollas Genetin
Akron Law Faculty Publications
This Article advocates that the Supreme Court recalibrate the avoidance canon used in Erie cases in which Federal Rules are in potential conflict with state law. The Article examines the Court’s historical use of avoidance in Erie cases, observing that contemporary jurists inappropriately conflate the purposes of pre- and post-Hanna avoidance when they conclude that avoidance in both periods protected state interests. Avoidance in the post-Hanna period has been premised on protecting important state interests and regulatory policies, but pre-Hanna avoidance attempted, with mixed success, to protect the Federal Rules. The Article also reveals that the Court’s post-Hanna federalism focus …
Reassessing The Avoidance Canon In Erie Cases, Bernadette Bollas Genetin
Reassessing The Avoidance Canon In Erie Cases, Bernadette Bollas Genetin
Bernadette Bollas Genetin
This Article advocates that the Supreme Court recalibrate the avoidance canon used in Erie cases in which Federal Rules are in potential conflict with state law. The Article examines the Court’s historical use of avoidance in Erie cases, observing that contemporary jurists inappropriately conflate the purposes of pre- and post-Hanna avoidance when they conclude that avoidance in both periods protected state interests. Avoidance in the post-Hanna period has been premised on protecting important state interests and regulatory policies, but pre-Hanna avoidance attempted, with mixed success, to protect the Federal Rules. The Article also reveals that the Court’s post-Hanna federalism focus …
Horizontal Erie And The Presumption Of Forum Law, Michael S. Green
Horizontal Erie And The Presumption Of Forum Law, Michael S. Green
Faculty Publications
According to Erie Railroad v. Tompkins and its progeny, a federal
court interpreting state law must decide as the state’s supreme
court would. In this Article, I argue that a state court interpreting
the law of a sister state is subject to the same obligation. It must
decide as the sister state’s supreme court would.
Horizontal Erie is such a plausible idea that one might think it is
already established law. But the Supreme Court has in fact given
state courts significant freedom to misinterpret sister-state law. And
state courts have taken advantage of this freedom, by routinely presuming
that …
An Article I Theory Of The Inherent Powers Of The Federal Courts, Benjamin H. Barton
An Article I Theory Of The Inherent Powers Of The Federal Courts, Benjamin H. Barton
Catholic University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Rethinking Rule 59'S Appellate 'Waiver' For Magistrate Judge Adjudication Post-Olano, Meehan Rasch
Rethinking Rule 59'S Appellate 'Waiver' For Magistrate Judge Adjudication Post-Olano, Meehan Rasch
Meehan Rasch
In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Thomas v. Arn that a federal court of appeals may establish a rule that failure to file objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendations "waives" both the right to further review by the district court and the right to appeal the judgment to the court of appeals. The Arn majority determined that such a rule did not remove the essential attributes of the judicial power from the Article III court or elevate non-life-tenured magistrate judges to the functional equivalents of Article III judges. Rather, loss of the right to any Article …
Hybridizing Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson
Hybridizing Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson
Scott Dodson