Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Exclusively Confusing: Who Has Jurisdiction To Determine Jurisdiction Under The Missouri Workers' Compensation Law, N. Drew Kemp
Exclusively Confusing: Who Has Jurisdiction To Determine Jurisdiction Under The Missouri Workers' Compensation Law, N. Drew Kemp
Missouri Law Review
In 2011, the Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals summarized and clarified the issue of which court has jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction. After Cooper v. Chrysler Group, LLC, it is clear that a Missouri circuit court must yield to the Commission when the jurisdiction-determining issue is one of fact. However, a circuit court can nevertheless review jurisdictional issues of law. An important question remains, however: will a circuit court distinguish between issues of fact and issues of law if an affirmative defense is not timely raised by the employer?
Circuit Courts With Plenary Jurisdiction And Administrative Agencies With Exclusive Jurisdiction: Can They Peacefully Coexist In Missouri, Paul M. Spinden
Circuit Courts With Plenary Jurisdiction And Administrative Agencies With Exclusive Jurisdiction: Can They Peacefully Coexist In Missouri, Paul M. Spinden
Missouri Law Review
Part II examines this provision, including its impetus. Part III considers J.C.W.’s exposition of jurisdiction and focuses on its contention that the Missouri Constitution necessarily excludes statutory restrictions on the judiciary’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction. Part IV closely examines McCracken’s application of J.C.W.’s analysis to the issue of exclusive administrative remedies and agency jurisdiction. Finally, Part V suggests alternative analyses that maintain exclusive remedies for workers’ compensation and other administrative agencies while preserving the circuit courts’ plenary subject matter jurisdiction.
Dealing With Trans-Territorial Executive Rule-Making , Herwig C.H. Hofmann
Dealing With Trans-Territorial Executive Rule-Making , Herwig C.H. Hofmann
Missouri Law Review
This Article discusses the reality of executive rule-making procedures with trans-territorial effect, with other words, the creation of non-legislative rules which have an effect outside the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of origin. It maps the phenomenon, discusses some of its central challenges for the realization of general principles of law and considers possible legal approaches addressing these. One of the most important issues thereby is to find workable solutions in the context of the pluralism of sources of law – national, supranational and international.
Cross-Border Collective Redress And Individual Participatory Rights: Quo Vadis?, S. I. Strong
Cross-Border Collective Redress And Individual Participatory Rights: Quo Vadis?, S. I. Strong
Faculty Publications
This article fills a critical gap in the commentary by undertaking a rights-based analysis of the various issues that arise in cases involving large-scale international litigation, focusing in particular on the Brussels I Regulation and what may be called ‘individual participatory rights’. In so doing, the discussion considers the nature and scope of individual participatory rights in collective litigation as well the ways in which these rights should be weighed and considered. Although the analysis is set in the context of European procedural law, this discussion is of equal relevance to parties outside the European Union, either because they will …
Cross-Border Collective Redress In The European Union: Constitutional Rights In The Face Of The Brussels I Regulation, S. I. Strong
Cross-Border Collective Redress In The European Union: Constitutional Rights In The Face Of The Brussels I Regulation, S. I. Strong
Faculty Publications
This article considers the various issues associated with the creation of a system of collective relief in a region that has traditionally been hostile to the provision of large-scale private litigation. In so doing, the discussion focuses on the clash between certain constitutional rights relating to the ability of the plaintiff to choose the time, place and manner of bringing suit and the European Union’s primary form of legislation concerning cross-border procedure, Council Regulation 44/2001 on jurisdiction and on recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments, commonly known as the Brussels I Regulation.