Conflict of Laws Commons^™

A Complete Property Right Amendment, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

The trend of the eminent domain reform and "Kelo plus" initiatives is toward a comprehensive Constitutional property right incorporating the elements of level of review, nature of government action, and extent of compensation. This article contains a draft amendment which reflects these concerns.

Enforcing Foreign Summary/Default Judgments: The Damoclean Sword Hanging Over Pro Se Canadian Corporate Defendants? Case Comment On U.S.A. V. Shield Development, Antonin I. Pribetic

ExpressO

Following the 2003 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Beals v. Saldanha, where the “real and substantial connection” test is otherwise met (i.e. consent-based jurisdiction, presence-based jurisdiction or assumed jurisdiction) the only available defences to a domestic defendant seeking to have a Canadian court refuse enforcement of a foreign judgment are fraud, public policy and natural justice. The 2005 Ontario decision in United States of America v. Shield Development Co., presents an opportunity to critically analyze the defence of natural justice through a juxtaposition of American and Canadian procedural law. The thesis is that procedural justice mandates that “form follow …

“Thinking Globally, Acting Locally”: Recent Trends In The Recognition And Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments In Canada, Antonin I. Pribetic

ExpressO

The continuing evolution of the “real and substantial connection” test for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments remains a topic of immediate interest. Since the landmark decision in Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, and more recently in Beals v. Saldanha, Canadian jurisprudence for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments has been dominated by judicial and legislative unilateralism: the establishment of a domestically imposed standard (the lex fori) striving towards national uniformity informed by private international law (or conflict of laws) principles. While the “real and substantial connection” test for jurisdiction simpliciter provides a flexible analytical framework for …

Bond Repudiation, Tax Codes, The Appropriations Process And Restitution Post-Eminent Domain Reform, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

This brief comment suggests where the anti-eminent domain movement might be heading next.

The Application Of Federal Common Law To Overcome Conflicting State Laws In The Supplemental Disgorgement Proceedings Of An Sec Appointed Receiver, Gauhar Naseem

ExpressO

In spite of the Erie doctrine, the application of federal common law has survived to overcome conflicting state laws in diversity actions where a federal law, interest or function is implicated. A federal court’s authority to substantively implement a federal common law rule over state law is clearest when the party to the action is a federal entity, namely an agency of the U.S. Government deriving its authority from the Constitution or some source of federal law. Analyzing such authority becomes more difficult in circumstances where parties to a diversity lawsuit are private citizens (not necessarily possessing any direct federal …

The Action Bias In American Law: Internet Jurisdiction And The Triumph Of Zippo Dot Com, Richard Greenstein

ExpressO

American law reflects the stories we tell ourselves about who we are as a nation. To illustrate the effect of America’s stories on the law, I identify and describe in this essay a particular characteristic of American law: an “action bias” – a propensity to bestow disproportionately greater legal significance upon affirmative acts than on failures to act – and I argue that this bias reflects, in turn, a powerful myth at the core of the self-image of the United States, a myth I call the “Immigrant’s Tale.”

To illustrate this thesis, I give a number of instances of the …

How Do You Take Your Multi-State, Class-Action Litigation? One Lump Or Two?, Daniel R. Karon

ExpressO

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which essentially federalizes all multi-state class-action cases, has introduced the class-action bar, and necessarily the judiciary, to myriad substantive and procedural issues never before envisioned in class-action litigation’s history. While some of these issues have already surfaced, many others haven’t but will as newly federalized multi-state class-action lawsuits move through litigation to the class certification stage. A major and unavoidable issue involves whether federal judges, when deciding multi-state claims’ class certification under Federal Rule 23, may consider well-developed, state class-action jurisprudence applying a single state’s substantive law or whether doing so violates the …

“The (Cisg) Road Less Travelled”: Case Comment On Grecon Dimter Inc. V. J.R. Normand Inc., Antonin I. Pribetic

ExpressO

At first glance, the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision in GreCon Dimter Inc. v. J.R. Normand Inc. appears to be a case upholding the primacy of international commercial arbitration, choice of forum and choice of law clauses. Upon closer scrutiny, however, the Supreme Court of Canada failed to consider the application of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) to the overall dispute. Interestingly, the same choice of forum and choice of law clauses were considered by the United States Court of Appeals a year earlier in GreCon Dimter, Incorporated v. Horner Flooring Company, …

Breaking The Bank: Revisiting Central Bank Of Denver After Enron And Sarbanes-Oxley, Celia Taylor

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Finding The Contract In Contracts For Law, Forum, And Arbitration, William John Woodward

ExpressO

Contract provisions specifying the law or forum (either judicial or arbitration) have begun appearing in litigated cases, as businesses have pressed many courts for their enforcement against consumers. In at least some of the cases, enforcement of a choice of law provision results in the displacement of the consumer’s home state protection by the lesser consumer protection of the State of the form drafter’s choosing. This phenomenon raises serious problems of federalism and local control of consumer protection. But while considerable scholarly attention has been lavished on so-called “mandatory arbitration” in this context, much less has attempted to improve our …

From International Law To Law And Globalization, Paul Schiff Berman

ExpressO

International law’s traditional emphasis on state practice has long been questioned, as scholars have paid increasing attention to other important – though sometimes inchoate – processes of international norm development. Yet, the more recent focus on transnational law, governmental and non-governmental networks, and judicial influence and cooperation across borders, while a step in the right direction, still seems insufficient to describe the complexities of law in an era of globalization. Accordingly, it is becoming clear that “international law” is itself an overly constraining rubric and that we need an expanded framework, one that situates cross-border norm development at the intersection …

Towards A Cosmopolitan Vision Of Conflict Of Laws: Redefining Governmental Interests In A Global Era, Paul Schiff Berman

ExpressO

It has now been ten years since the idea of global online communication first entered the popular consciousness. And while the internet has undoubtedly opened up new worlds of interaction and cooperation across borders, this increased transnational activity has also at times inspired parochialism, at least among the legislatures and courts of nation-states around the globe. Thus, we have seen a slew of national laws and court decisions purporting to regulate a wide variety of online activities, from gambling to chat rooms to auction sites, and seeking to enforce territorially based rules regarding trademarks, contractual relations, privacy norms, “indecent” content, …

A State's Power To Enter Into A Consent Decree That Violates State Law Provisions: What "Findings" Of A Federal Violation Are Sufficient To Justify A Consent Decree That Trumps State Law?, David W. Swift

ExpressO

In the last forty years federal courts have played a prominent role in reshaping our public institutions. And while some scholars question the efficacy of these structural injuctions, the authority of federal courts to order such relief is generally unquestioned. What is open to debate, however, is whether state officials can agree to a remedy they would not have had the authority to order themselves; and if so, to what extent must an underlying constitutional violation be proved so as to justify the remedy?

This article discusses the competing theories and concludes that a remedy that violates state law may …