Jurisdiction Commons^™

Complete Preemption And The Separation Of Powers, Trevor W. Morrison

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This is a short response, published in Pennumbra (the online companion to the University of Pennsylvania Law Review), to Gil Seinfeld's recent article, "The Puzzle of Complete Preemption."

I first sound some notes of agreement with Professor Seinfeld's critique of the Supreme Court's complete preemption doctrine. I then turn to his proposed reshaping of the doctrine around the interest in federal legal uniformity. Although certainly more satisfying than the Court's account, Professor Seinfeld's refashioning of the doctrine raises a number of new difficulties. In particular, it invites the federal courts to engage in a range of line-drawing exercises to which …

The Definition And Jurisdiction Of The Crime Of Aggression And The International Criminal Court, Buhm-Suk Baek

Cornell Law School J.D. Student Research Papers

The United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court that was held in Rome to establish the International Criminal Court in 1998 finally adopted the Rome Statute with the participation of 160 countries. The Rome Statute of the ICC entered into force on 1 July 2002 and has been ratified by 100 States. What was considered not so long ago merely a dream of a few people has become a reality after the strenuous efforts of the UN over 50 years. However, one central issue still remains unresolved in the Rome Status. It is …

Jurisdictional Fact, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

What kind of factual showing must the plaintiff make in order to establish, say, personal jurisdiction? While that question may seem simple enough, real difficulties in regard to the standard of proof arise when there is a similarity of the facts entailed in the jurisdictional determination and those on the merits. Surely, the plaintiff has to do more than allege that the defendant is the author of state-directed acts or omissions. Yet, almost as surely, the plaintiff should not have to prove the cause of action in order to establish jurisdiction. The plaintiff thus must have to show something between …

Saddam Hussein's Trial In Iraq: Fairness, Legitimacy & Alternatives, A Legal Analysis, Christian Eckart

Cornell Law School J.D. Student Research Papers

The paper focuses on Saddam Hussein’s trial in front of the Iraqi High Criminal Court in Baghdad. After providing an overview of the facts surrounding the court’s installation, the applicable international law is identified and the fairness and legitimacy of the current proceedings are analyzed. The paper finishes by considering whether the trial should be relocated and addresses alternative venues that could have been chosen to prosecute Iraq’s ex-dictator.

Exorbitant Jurisdiction, Kevin M. Clermont, John R.B. Palmer

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Exorbitant territorial jurisdiction in civil cases comprises those classes of jurisdiction, although exercised validly under a country's rules, that nonetheless are unfair to the defendant because of a lack of significant connection between the sovereign and either the parties or the dispute. The United States, France, and most of the rest of the world exercise a good deal of exorbitant jurisdiction so defined. In the United States, an emphasis on power derived from territoriality has led to jurisdictional restraint in some respects, but has also allowed general jurisdiction based solely on transient physical presence, the attachment of property, or extensive …

Overlooked In The Tort Reform Debate: The Growth Of Erroneous Removal, Theodore Eisenberg, Trevor W. Morrison

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Disputes over forum often center on whether a case should proceed in state or federal court. Removal to federal court can trigger a costly forum struggle. When a state case is removed to federal court only to be sent back to state court, the time and resources incurred in the detour are a toll on the judicial system and waste parties’ resources. We find erroneous removal to be an increasing problem. From 1993 to 2002, a period when state tort filings noticeably decreased, the number of removed diversity tort cases increased by about 10 percent to about 8,900 per year. …

International Antisuit Injunctions: Enjoining Foreign Litigations And Arbitrations - Beholding The System From Outside, Marco Stacher

Cornell Law School J.D. Student Research Papers

Antisuit injunctions are issued by a court to prevent a party from bringing suit in another forum. They are a powerful tool available to American courts to implement their decision on jurisdiction. It goes without saying that granting such an injunction de facto affects the capability of the other forum to hear the dispute, which conflicts with the principle of comity. American courts therefore only enjoin a party from proceeding in another forum if certain criteria are satisfied. This paper discusses these criteria in the context of international litigations and arbitrations. It analyzes the case law on this issue and …

A Global Law Of Jurisdiction And Judgments: Views From The United States And Japan, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Japanese and U.S. legal systems, despite surprisingly similar doctrine and outlook on matters of jurisdiction and judgments, often clash: jurisdictions overlap and judgments may go unrespected, while parallel proceedings persist. The current outlook for harmonization through a multilateral Hague convention of general scope is bleak. These two countries are, however, ideally situated to reach a highly feasible bilateral agreement that would provide a better tomorrow in which jurisdiction was allocated appropriately and judgments were respected accordingly.

The Role Of Private International Law In The United States: Beating The Not-Quite-Dead Horse Of Jurisdiction, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Territorial authority to adjudicate is the preeminent component of private international law. Empirical research proves that forum really affects outcome, probably by multiple influences. This practical effect makes international harmonization of jurisdictional law highly desirable. Although harmonization of nonjurisdictional law remains quite unlikely, jurisdictional harmonization is increasingly feasible because, among other reasons, U.S. jurisdictional law in fact exhibits no essential differences from European law. None of the usual assertions holds up as an unbridgeable difference, including that (1) the peculiar U.S. jurisdictional law flows inevitably from a different theory of governmental authority, one that rests on power notions; (2) U.S. …

French Article 14 Jurisdiction, Viewed From The United States, Kevin M. Clermont, John R.B. Palmer

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

French courts have broadly read their Civil Code’s oddly written Article 14 as authorizing territorial jurisdiction over virtually any action brought by a plaintiff of French nationality. This study traces the history of this provision from its genesis two hundred years ago to its extension under the current Brussels Regulation.

Nevertheless, for a number of reasons, French plaintiffs do not use Article 14 all that much, other than in status suits such as matrimonial matters or in situations where the defendant has assets in France (or now, under the Brussels regime, in Europe). The actual use of Article 14 ends …

Who Decides The Arbitrators' Jurisdiction? Separability And Competence-Competence In Transnational Perspective, John J. Barceló Iii

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Jurisdictional Salvation And The Hague Treaty, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The United States' law of territorial jurisdiction in civil cases is a mess. Many commentators, here and abroad, have said so for a long time. The United States' treatment of foreign judgments, however, stands in contrast. As a well-behaved member of the international community of nations, the United States eagerly gives appropriate respect to foreign judgments, despite sometimes getting no respect in return.

Now, ongoing negotiations at the Hague have generated a prospect for an international agreement on the reciprocal treatment of foreign judgments. The envisaged treaty would ensure mutual respect of judgments among contracting countries, but it would also …

Do Case Outcomes Really Reveal Anything About The Legal System? Win Rates And Removal Jurisdiction, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

General Observations on Interpreting Win-Rate Data Properly. Many empirical legal studies use data on plaintiffs' rate of success, because of those data's ready availability and apparent import. Yet these "win rates" are probably the slipperiest of all judicial data. Win rates are inherently ambiguous because of the case-selection effect. The litigants' selection of the cases brought produces a biased sample from the mass of underlying disputes. The settlement process, usually conducted by rational and knowledgeable persons who take into account and thereby neutralize the very factor that one would like to study, produces a residue of litigated cases for which …

Simplifying The Choice Of Forum: A Reply, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

We have three things to think about here, as the real estate agents say—“location, location, location.” Accordingly, the two of us have engaged for several years in empirical studies aimed at gauging the effect of forum on case outcome. The results to date strongly suggest that forum really matters. An early piece of the puzzle fell into place in our study of venue. In that article, we examined the benefits and costs of the federal courts scheme of transfer of civil venue “in the interest of justice.” Ours was a pretty straightforward and simple cost-benefit analysis, but we supported it …

Xenophilia In American Courts, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Foreigner! The word says it all. Verging on the politically incorrect, the expression is full of connotation and implication. A foreigner will face bias. By such a thought process, many people believe that litigants have much to fear in courts foreign to them. In particular, non-Americans fare badly in American courts. Foreigners believe this. Even Americans believe this.

Such views about American courts are understandable. After all, the grant of alienage jurisdiction to the federal courts, both original and removal, constitutes an official assumption that xenophobic bias is present in state courts. As James Madison said of state courts: “We …

Exorcising The Evil Of Forum-Shopping, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Most of the business of litigation comprises pretrial disputes. A common and important dispute is over where adjudication should take place. Civil litigators deal with nearly as many change-of-venue motions as trials. The battle over venue often constitutes the critical issue in a case.

The American way is to provide plaintiffs with a wide choice of venues for suit. But the American way has its drawbacks. To counter these drawbacks, an integral part of our court systems, and in particular the federal court system, is the scheme of transfer of venue "in the interest of justice." However, the leading evaluative …

The Neumeier-Schultz Rules: How Logical A "Next Stage In The Evolution Of The Law" After Babcock?, Gary J. Simson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Plotting The Next "Revolution" In Choice Of Law: A Proposed Approach, Gary J. Simson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Restating Territorial Jurisdiction And Venue For State And Federal Courts, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

"Jurisdiction must become venue," concluded Professor Albert A. Ehrenzweig. Perhaps it should. More certain is the proposition that comprehending jurisdiction requires mastering its relationship with venue. Such conclusions lie at some distance, however, bringing to mind that every journey must begin with a single step. A solid first step takes me to the subject of this Symposium, the Restatement (Second) of Judgments. This, put simply, is a masterful work. Even while still in tentative drafts, it proved an invaluable aid to judge, practitioner, teacher, and student. Yet in a work of such scope, anyone could find grounds for differing. …

Is There Life For Erie After The Death Of Diversity?, Peter Westen, Jeffrey S. Lehman

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Congressional Authority To Restrict Lower Federal Court Jurisdiction, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Separation of powers in the federal government inevitably generates conflicts among the branches. In recent years the executive branch's authority to impound funds appropriated by Congress and to make war without congressional approval has been questioned. In earlier days debate raged over the Supreme Court's authority to nullify legislation passed by Congress. A recurrent example of this phenomenon has been the struggle between Congress and the judiciary over the scope of congressional control of federal court jurisdiction. The recent controversy over school busing has highlighted this problem. The problem is, however, neither novel nor peculiar to the busing issue. In …

A Rule Is A Rule Because It Is The Rule: Intellectual Crisis In Conflict Of Laws, E. F. Roberts

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.