Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Courts (4)
- Civil Law (3)
- Jurisdiction (3)
- Conflict of Laws (2)
- Constitutional Law (2)
-
- State and Local Government Law (2)
- Supreme Court of the United States (2)
- Administrative Law (1)
- Banking and Finance Law (1)
- Bankruptcy Law (1)
- Business Organizations Law (1)
- Community Health and Preventive Medicine (1)
- Computer Law (1)
- Construction Law (1)
- Contracts (1)
- Criminal Law (1)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- Epidemiology (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Family Law (1)
- Government Contracts (1)
- Health Law and Policy (1)
- Human Rights Law (1)
- Insurance Law (1)
- International Law (1)
- International Trade Law (1)
- Internet Law (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure
Perbandingan Penyelesaian Sengketa Lingkungan Hidup Melalui Mekanisme Gugatan Warga Negara (Citizen Lawsuit) Di Indonesia Dan Amerika Serikat, Listyalaras Nurmedina
Perbandingan Penyelesaian Sengketa Lingkungan Hidup Melalui Mekanisme Gugatan Warga Negara (Citizen Lawsuit) Di Indonesia Dan Amerika Serikat, Listyalaras Nurmedina
"Dharmasisya” Jurnal Program Magister Hukum FHUI
A citizen lawsuit is a lawsuit filed by citizens against state officials that cause negligence and cause losses. This negligence is an act against the law (onrechtmatige overhead daad), where the state is ordered to improve its performance and issue a policy for general governing policies (regeling). It is intended to ensure that the negligence that previously occurred will not be repeated. A citizen lawsuit is almost similar to a class action lawsuit because it has the same thing, namely that the lawsuit is filed involving the interests of many people represented by one or more people. The difference is …
Constitutional Standoff: An Example Of Practical Difficulty In Mississippi Venue Rules, Hunter C. Ransom
Constitutional Standoff: An Example Of Practical Difficulty In Mississippi Venue Rules, Hunter C. Ransom
Mississippi College Law Review
Mississippi’s legislature and judiciary have been locked in a constitutional standoff over procedural rulemaking power for decades. In an article describing the history of the conflict, author William H. Page has predicted that the situation will inevitably lead to “practical difficulties” down the road. Years later, given ongoing conflicts among various aspects of civil procedure in Mississippi, that prediction is beginning to appear prescient. A prime example has developed in Mississippi’s venue rules.
This Comment has three goals. First, it seeks to resurface Page’s discussion of the “constitutional standoff.”3 Second, it describes how Page was likely correct in predicting that …
For Whom The Sol Tolls: Examining The Role Of The Discovery Rule And Statutes Of Limitations In Ncaa Concussion Litigation, Joseph Sabin Esq., Andrew L. Goldsmith Ph.D.
For Whom The Sol Tolls: Examining The Role Of The Discovery Rule And Statutes Of Limitations In Ncaa Concussion Litigation, Joseph Sabin Esq., Andrew L. Goldsmith Ph.D.
UNH Sports Law Review
No abstract provided.
Acid Rain: Detoxifying Diversity Jurisdiction’S Poisonous Cycle, Baerett Nelson, Gavyn Roedel
Acid Rain: Detoxifying Diversity Jurisdiction’S Poisonous Cycle, Baerett Nelson, Gavyn Roedel
Brigham Young University Prelaw Review
Diversity jurisdiction authorizes federal courts to act as impartial tribunals over certain matters of state law. To preserve states' judicial sovereignty, the US Supreme Court has prohibited diversity courts from directly interpreting state law, holding that federal courts must "predict" the legal outcome as if a state court had adjudicated. However, litigant abuse hinders consistency in legal outcomes. Discrepancies between courts spur forum shopping, which cyclically generates more legal incongruence. This paper identifies a "toxic cycle" plaguing diversity jurisdiction and offers five prescriptions which courts and Congress must use to reverse it.
Rethinking The Process Of Service Of Process, Mary K. Bonilla
Rethinking The Process Of Service Of Process, Mary K. Bonilla
St. Mary's Law Journal
Even as technology evolves, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Federal Rule 4, remains stagnate without a mechanism directly providing for electronic service of process in federal courts. Rule 4(e)(1) allows service through the use of state law—consequently permitting any state-approved electronic service methods—so long as the federal court where proceedings will occur, or the place where service is made, is located within the state supplying the law. Accordingly, this Comment explains that Rule 4 indirectly permits electronic service of process in some states, but not others, despite all 50 states utilizing the same federal court system. With states …
Rule 4(K), Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction, And The Civil Rules Advisory Committee: Lessons From Attempted Reform, A. Benjamin Spencer
Rule 4(K), Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction, And The Civil Rules Advisory Committee: Lessons From Attempted Reform, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
On multiple occasions, I have advocated for a revision to Rule 4(k) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that would disconnect personal jurisdiction in federal courts from the jurisdictional limits of their respective host states—to no avail. In this Essay, I will review—one final time—my argument for nationwide personal jurisdiction in the federal courts, recount my (failed) attempt to persuade the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to embrace my view, and reflect on what lessons may be drawn from the experience regarding the civil rulemaking process. My aim is to prompt discussion around potential rulemaking reforms and to equip …
28 U.S.C. § 1331 Jurisdiction In The Roberts Court: A Rights-Inclusive Approach, Lumen N. Mulligan
28 U.S.C. § 1331 Jurisdiction In The Roberts Court: A Rights-Inclusive Approach, Lumen N. Mulligan
Faculty Works
In this symposium piece, I argue that the Roberts Court, whether intentionally or not, is crafting a 28 U.S.C. § 1331 doctrine that is more solicitous of congressional control than the Supreme Court’s past body of jurisdictional law. Further, I contend that this movement toward greater congressional control is a positive step for the court. In making this argument, I review the foundations of the famous Holmes test for taking § 1331 jurisdiction and the legal positivist roots for that view. I discuss the six key Roberts Court cases that demonstrate a movement away from a simple Holmes test and …