Jurisdiction Commons^™

The Origins Of Article Iii "Arising Under" Jurisdiction, Anthony J. Bellia

Anthony J. Bellia

Article III of the Constitution provides that the judicial Power of the United States extends to all cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. What the phrase arising under imports in Article III has long confounded courts and scholars. This Article examines the historical origins of Article III arising under jurisdiction. First, it describes English legal principles that governed the jurisdiction of courts of general and limited jurisdiction--principles that animated early American jurisprudence regarding the scope of arising under jurisdiction. Second, it explains how participants in the framing and ratification of the Constitution understood arising …

May A Federal Court Remand A Case To State Court After Federal Claims Have Been Deleted?, Joseph P. Bauer

Joseph P. Bauer

This Article provides a preview of Carnegie-Mellon University v. Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr., argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 10, 1987. This case concerns the circumstances under which a lawsuit, properly commenced in a state court and then removed before trial to a federal court, may be sent back (remanded) to the state court.

On one level, this case seems only to involve technical interpretations of federal statutes governing procedure in the federal courts. At another level, however, it involves more general and important issues. Among these are how to allocate judicial power …

"Standing" In The Shadow Of Erie: Federalism In The Balance In Hollingsworth V. Perry, Glenn Koppel

Glenn Koppel

Abstract “Standing” in the Shadow of Erie: Federalism in the Balance in Hollingsworth v. Perry In Hollingsworth v. Perry, one of the two same-sex marriage cases decided by the Supreme Court in 2013, the Court declined to address the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, finding that the initiative proponents lacked standing to appeal the district court’s judgment declaring the proposition unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement. Since the State’s Governor and Attorney General declined to appeal, the proponents sought to assert the State’s particularized interest in the proposition’s validity. State law, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court, grants authority to …

Improving Parity In Personal Jurisdiction And Judgment Enforcement In International Cases: A Domestic Proposal To Help Revive The Hague Judgments Convention, Eric Porterfield

Eric Porterfield

Two aspects of American law inadvertently discriminate against American consumers and businesses to the benefit of foreign nationals. Restrictive personal jurisdiction rules often prevent American courts from exercising jurisdiction over foreign nationals on the grounds that they lack sufficient “contact” with the forum. Foreign product manufacturers can use this to their advantage, structuring their business dealings to take advantage of confusing constitutional constraints on personal jurisdiction, reducing, if not eliminating, the risk of potential tort liability in American courts, often leaving American consumers without a remedy and disadvantaging American businesses. American companies, in contrast, cannot avoid American tort law at …

The Concept Of Objectivity In The Uk Supreme Court Through A Comparative Looking Glass, Vito Breda

Vito Breda

This essay reports on the result of hermeneutical research entitled Objectivity in the UK Judicial Discourse. The concept of objectivity generates a plurality of analysis. For instance, in legal theory, MacCormick suggests the possibility of an objective interpretation of cases. Objectivity in the UK Judicial Discourse focuses on the interpretation of the concept by common law judges. In particular, the project sought to map out the cluster of interpretations (and arguments derived therefrom) on the concept of objectivity by the House of Lords and the UK Supreme Court. The result of the study shows that within UK law there …

Federal Court Interpretation Of Attorney's Fees Provision Of Equal Access To Justice Act As It Applies To Hearings Of The United States Department Of Agriculture: United States Department Of Agriculture V. Lane, Tamara Carnovsky

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Deferential Review Of An Administrative Agency's Decision In Federal District Court: International College Of Surgeons V. City Of Chicago , Karen L. Vinzant

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

The Federal Judicial Conduct And Disability System: Unfinished Business For Congress And For The Judiciary, Arthur D. Hellman

Testimony

For most of the nation’s history, the only formal mechanism for dealing with misconduct by federal judges was the cumbersome process of impeachment. That era ended with the enactment of the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (1980 Act or Act). In 2002, Congress made modest amendments to the Act and codified the provisions in Chapter 16 of Title 28. In 2008, the Judicial Conference of the United States – the administrative policy-making body of the federal judiciary – approved the first set of nationally binding rules for misconduct proceedings.

Under the 1980 Act and …

Not Quite A Civilian, Not Quite A Soldier: How Five Words Could Subject Civilian Contractors In Iraq And Afghanistan To Military Jurisdiction , Katherine Jackson

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Removal Reform: A Solution For Federal Question Jurisdiction, Forum Shopping, And Duplicative State-Federal Litigation, Martha A. Field

Indiana Law Journal

Federal court procedural, especially jurisdictional ones, need to be governed by clear, effective, and fair rules. Yet twentieth century doctrines and reforms, even when made in the name of pragmatism, have produced decidedly unpragmatic results: a vague and disputed doctrine of federal question jurisdiction that excludes from federal court many cases where federal law controls the outcome, rules that facilitate forum shopping by plaintiffs and make it impossible to predict in advance what law will apply to decide one’s case, and the stunning waste of a system in which the exact same issues are simultaneously litigated in state and federal …

The Supreme Court's Take On Immigration In Nken V. Holder: Reaffirming A Traditional Standard That Affords Courts More Time And Flexibility To Decide Immigration Appeals Before Deporting Aliens, Elizaveta Kabanova

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

California And Uncle Sam's Tug-Of-War Over Mary Jane Is Really Harshing The Mellow, Daniel Mortensen

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Class Denied! Go Directly To State Court. Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200, Kevin Dulaney

Kevin Dulaney

No abstract provided.

Three-Dimensional Sovereign Immunity, Sarah L. Brinton

Sarah L Brinton

The Supreme Court has erred on sovereign immunity. The current federal immunity doctrine wrongly gives Congress the exclusive authority to waive immunity (“exclusive congressional waiver”), but the Constitution mandates that Congress share the waiver power with the Court. This Article develops the doctrine of a two-way shared waiver and then explores a third possibility: the sharing of the immunity waiver power among all three branches of government.

Deciding Who Decides: Searching For A Deference Standard When Agencies Preempt State Law, John R. Ablan

John R Ablan

When a federal agency determines that the statute that it administers or regulations it has promulgated preempt state law, how much deference must a federal court give to that determination? In Wyeth v. Levine, the Supreme Court expressly declined to decide what standard of deference courts should apply when an agency makes a preemption determination pursuant to a specific congressional delegation to do so. Under this circumstance, this Article counsels against applying any single deference standard to an agency’s entire determination. Instead, it observes that preemption determinations are a complex inquiry involving questions of federal law, state law, and …

Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction Under The Antitrust Laws, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

The Ninth Circuit may soon consider whether challenges to antitrust activity that occurs abroad must invariably be addressed under the rule of reason, which will make criminal prosecution difficult or impossible.

When antitrust cases involve foreign conduct, the courts customarily appraise its substantive antitrust significance only after deciding whether the Sherman Act reaches the activity. Nevertheless, "jurisdictional" and "substantive" inquiries are not wholly independent. Both reflect two sound propositions: that Congress did not intend American antitrust law to rule the entire commercial world and that Congress knew that domestic economic circumstances often differ from those abroad where mechanical application of …

In Defense Of Implied Injunctive Relief In Constitutional Cases, John F. Preis

John F. Preis

A Compendium Of Major California Juvenile Law Decisions With Brief Analyses, 1979, Michael T. Lubinski, Robert M. Triplett

Pepperdine Law Review

Society has been plagued with the problem of whether the police, the courts and the correction agencies are to administer juveniles for their protection and treatment, or for their punishment. To facilitate a better understanding of juvenile administration the authors have analyzed the California juvenile law cases for the year 1979. The article consists of six major area of interest; parent-child custody, sentencing, procedure, jurisdiction, evidentiary and constitutional which will be used to highlight some of the more significant decisions in the past year, thus enabling the reader to assess changes occurring in the juvenile system.

Status Offenders Should Be Removed From The Juvenile Court , Luke Quinn, Peter M. Hutchison

Pepperdine Law Review

Inadequate financial resources and overcrowded juvenile placement facilities have frequently been cited as grounds for the abrogation of the juvenile court's practice of retaining jurisdiction over status offenders. In this article, Judge Quinn suggests the existence of even more compelling reasons which support diversion of status offenders to programs better suited to their particular needs. The author contends that the juvenile court's jurisdiction should be confined to matters of fact-finding and adjudication, rather than intruding into areas within the domain of the parents, and into areas in which the court lacks the necessary expertise. It is argued that diversion of …

A Rationale For The Abolition Of The Juvenile Court's Power To Waive Jurisdiction , John Gasper, Daniel Katkin

Pepperdine Law Review

The juvenile court's power to waive jurisdiction which entails the transfer of juvenile offenders to adult courts presents a topic of longstanding controversy. It's rationale, one of protection of the public, has been labeled by the authors as untenable. Moreover, it is asserted that waiver of jurisdiction in such cases contravenes the very cornerstone of the juvenile court process--the doctrine of parens patriae. Three methods of transfer are seen to exist--legislative, prosecutorial, and judicial. Focusing on the latter, the authors posit an argument advocating the abrogation of the concept of waiver. Justification for this proposition is seen to flow from …

Investment Dispute Resolution Under The Transpacific Partnership Agreement: Prelude To A Slippery Slope?, Leon E. Trakman Professor

Leon E Trakman Dean

Intense debate is currently brewing over the multistate negotiation of the Transpacific Partnership Agreement [TPPA], led by the United States. The TPPA will be the largest trade and investment agreement after the European Union, with trillions of investment dollars at stake. However, there is little understanding of the complex issues involved in regulating inbound and outbound investment. The negotiating of the TPPA is shrouded in both mystery and dissension among negotiating countries. NGOs, investor and legal interest groups heatedly debate how the TPPA ought to regulate international investment. However this dissension is resolved, it will have enormous economic, political and …

A Reappraisal Of General And Limited Jurisdiction In California , Thomas Kallay

Pepperdine Law Review

The ability of a California court to assert jurisdiction over business enterprises currently depends upon how the court characterizes the nature and extent of the business's activities within the state. If the in-state business activities of a particular concern are extensive, California courts will exercise all-encompassing general jurisdiction over the cause of action, but if the activities are insufficient to warrant the exercise of general jurisdiction, which has been invariably the case, the court will then turn to a consideration of limited jurisdiction, which jurisdiction depends upon the quality and nature of the business's activities in the forum in relation …

Aviation Litigation: Federal Preemption And The Creation Of A Federal Remedy As A Means To Extinguish The Current Confusion In The Courts, Deborah J. Olsen

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

International Money Laundering: The Need For Icc Investigative And Adjudicative Jurisdiction, Michael R. Anderson

Michael Anderson

Money laundering is one of the most pressing issues in the realm of international financial crimes. One of the biggest issues involved in international money laundering is the problem of adjudication. There is no international organization that currently hears these sorts of claims, forcing nations to adjudicate these crimes on their own, often without adequate resources to effectively investigate and enforce their money laundering statutes.

This article argues that, in order to more effectively prevent and adjudicate international money laundering offenses, the International Criminal Court should adopt an international money laundering statute designating these activities as a crime within the …

Dissent: Supreme Court Reform: Diversion Instead Of Division, Gerald F. Uelmen

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Opinion: A Two-Part State Supreme Court, Stanley Mosk

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

States Escape Liability For Copyright Infringement?, Michelle V. Francis

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Preliminary Injunction Standards In Massachusetts State And Federal Courts, Arthur D. Wolf

Faculty Scholarship

Concurrent jurisdiction frequently allows attorneys the choice of filing a complaint in state or federal court. State courts presumptively have jurisdiction over claims rooted in federal law. At times, state courts are required to entertain federal claims. Similarly, federal courts have authority over state claims because of diversity, federal question, and supplemental jurisdiction. Many claims are rooted in both state and federal law, such as antitrust, civil rights, environmental, consumer protection, and civil liberties. Confronted with the choice of state or federal court, the attorney must evaluate a variety of factors before deciding in which court to file.

In a …

Defying Gravity: The Development Of Standards In The International Prosecution Of International Atrocity Crimes, Matthew H. Charity

Faculty Scholarship

The International Criminal Court (the “ICC”), now one decade old, is still in the process of setting norms as to scope, jurisdiction, and other issues. One issue that has thus far defied resolution is a key issue of jurisdiction: the place of complementarity in deciding whether certain criminal issues impacting international standards or interests should be decided before the ICC or national tribunals. Although the Rome Statute crystallizes definitions of core international crimes that may be tried before the ICC, the process of determining whether to leave jurisdiction with the nation or allowing jurisdiction to the ICC continues to lack …

Jurisdictional Sequencing, Alan M. Trammell

Georgia Law Review

The Supreme Court has begun to grapple with the
problems presented by the doctrine of jurisdictional
sequencing-the decision of certain issues, and even the
dismissal of cases, before a federal court has verified its
subject matter jurisdiction. Recent jurisprudence has
created confusion as to what, if anything, a federal court
may do before it verifies subject matter jurisdiction.
Moreover, scholars and courts have struggled to discern
an underlying rationale for jurisdictional sequencing, and
no theory has been able to explain the case law fully or
offer a satisfying normative defense of the doctrine.

This Article develops a theory of jurisdictional …