Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Jurisdiction (3)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (2)
- Federal courts (2)
- United States. Supreme Court (2)
- Amici Curiae (1)
-
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (1)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (1)
- Blogs (1)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (1)
- Civil Rights (1)
- Class action lawsuits (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Due process of law (1)
- Intent (Law) (1)
- Judges (1)
- Law Clerks (1)
- Legal Briefs (1)
- Malice (1)
- Pleadings (1)
- Podcasts (1)
- Polarization (1)
- Same-Sex Marriage (1)
- Social Media (1)
- Standing (1)
- State Constitutions (1)
- State Courts (1)
- Supreme Court Justices (1)
- United States Constitution. 14th Amendment (1)
- United States Constitution. 5th Amendment (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Virtual Briefing At The Supreme Court, Jeffrey L. Fisher, Allison Orr Larsen
Virtual Briefing At The Supreme Court, Jeffrey L. Fisher, Allison Orr Larsen
Faculty Publications
The open secret of Supreme Court advocacy in a digital era is that there is a new way to argue to the Justices. Today's Supreme Court arguments are developed online: they are dissected and explored in blog posts, fleshed out in popular podcasts, and analyzed and re-analyzed by experts who do not represent the parties or have even filed a brief in the case at all. This "virtual briefing" (as we call it) is intended to influence the Justices and their law clerks but exists completely outside of traditional briefing rules. This article describes virtual briefing and makes a case …
Out Of The Quandary: Personal Jurisdiction Over Absent Class Member Claims Explained, A. Benjamin Spencer
Out Of The Quandary: Personal Jurisdiction Over Absent Class Member Claims Explained, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Since the Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, litigants and lower courts have wrestled with the issue of whether a federal court must be able to exercise personal jurisdiction with respect to each of the claims asserted by absent class members in a class action and, if so, what standard governs that jurisdictional determination. This issue is rapidly coming to a head and is poised for inevitable resolution by the Supreme Court in the near future; multiple circuit courts have heard appeals from district courts that have reached varying conclusions on …
The Territorial Reach Of Federal Courts, A. Benjamin Spencer
The Territorial Reach Of Federal Courts, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Federal courts exercise the sovereign authority of the United States when they assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant. As components of the national sovereign, federal courts' maximum territorial reach is determined by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which permits jurisdiction over persons with sufficient minimum contacts with the United States and over property located therein. Why, then, are federal courts limited to the territorial reach of the states in which they sit when they exercise personal jurisdiction in most cases? There is no constitutional or statutory mandate that so constrains the federal judicial reach. Rather, it is by operation …
State Constitutionalism In The Age Of Party Polarization, Neal Devins
State Constitutionalism In The Age Of Party Polarization, Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Government Standing And The Fallacy Of Institutional Injury, Tara Leigh Grove
Government Standing And The Fallacy Of Institutional Injury, Tara Leigh Grove
Faculty Publications
A new brand of plaintiff has come to federal court. In cases involving the Affordable Care Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, and partisan gerrymandering, government institutions have brought suit to redress “institutional injuries”—that is, claims of harm to their constitutional powers or duties. Jurists and scholars are increasingly enthusiastic about these lawsuits, arguing (for example) that the Senate should have standing to protect its power to ratify treaties; that the House of Representatives may sue to preserve its role in the appropriations process; and that the President may go to court to vindicate his Article II prerogatives. This Article …
Pleading Conditions Of The Mind Under Rule 9(B): Repairing The Damage Wrought By Iqbal, A. Benjamin Spencer
Pleading Conditions Of The Mind Under Rule 9(B): Repairing The Damage Wrought By Iqbal, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
In 2009, the Supreme Court decided Ashcroft v. Iqbal, in which it pronounced-among other things- that the second sentence of Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure-which permits allegations of malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of the mind to be alleged "generally" -requires adherence to the plausibility pleading· standard it had devised for Rule 8(a)(2) in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly. That is, to plead such allegations sufficiently, one must offer sufficient facts to render the condition-of-the-mind allegation plausible. This rewriting of the standard imposed by Rule 9(b)'s second sentence-which came only veritable moments after the Court …