Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Civil Procedure Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure

Amicus Brief In Support Of Neither Party In Sebelius V. Auburn Reg. Med. Ctr., No. 11-1231, Scott Dodson Aug 2012

Amicus Brief In Support Of Neither Party In Sebelius V. Auburn Reg. Med. Ctr., No. 11-1231, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

This amicus brief in support of neither party in the merits case of Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, No. 11-1231, urges the Supreme Court to decide the question presented (whether 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(a)(3) permits equitable tolling) without resort to jurisdictional labels.


The Timeliness Of Removal And Multiple-Defendant Lawsuits, Paul Lund Dec 2011

The Timeliness Of Removal And Multiple-Defendant Lawsuits, Paul Lund

Paul Lund

Although the procedure for removing cases from state to federal court has existed for nearly 225 years, removal remains one of the most controversial aspects of federal jurisdictional law. Each year, more than 30,000 civil cases are removed from state to federal court, and many of those cases involve more than one defendant. One of the most frequently litigated issues in these cases has involved when the notice of removal must be filed. Prior to a recent amendment, the statute governing removal, 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), required that a notice of removal be filed within thirty days of service on …


Structuring Jurisdictional Rules And Standards, Scott Dodson, Elizabeth Mccuskey Dec 2011

Structuring Jurisdictional Rules And Standards, Scott Dodson, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Scott Dodson

This essay, for Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc, critically assesses Jonathan Remy Nash’s article, "On the Efficient Deployment of Rules and Standards to Define Federal Jurisdiction," which proposes to use rules to demarcate jurisdictional boundaries at the front end while "migrating" standards into a discretionary abstention phase at the back end. While we believe Nash's cause is worthy, and while we applaud his creativity, we think his proposal suffers from ambiguous definitions of “rules” and “standards” and assumes that clear and simple “rules” are actually attainable in jurisdictional doctrine. We also show that Nash's proposal works only with a broad …