Jurisprudence Commons^™

Nonparty Jurisdiction, Aaron D. Simowitz, Linda J. Silberman

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

The Supreme Court's recent decisions on personal jurisdiction, including its 2021 decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, have all focused on the adjudication of plenary claims. In seven years, the Court has decided six major cases on personal jurisdiction in that context. However, these precedents also appear to guide lower courts in areas outside the traditional focus of personal jurisdiction doctrine but where personal jurisdiction is nonetheless necessary. For example, a court must have personal jurisdiction over a nonparty witness in order to compel the witness to testify or to produce documents. A court must …

Emotional Common Sense As Constitutional Law, Terry A. Maroney

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In Gonzales v. Carhart the Supreme Court invoked post-abortion regret to justify a ban on a particular abortion procedure. The Court was proudly folk-psychological, representing its observations about women's emotional experiences as "self-evident." That such observations could drive critical legal determinations was, apparently, even more self-evident, as it received no mention at all. Far from being sui generis, Carhart reflects a previously unidentified norm permeating constitutional jurisprudence: reliance on what this Article coins "emotional common sense." Emotional common sense is what one unreflectively thinks she knows about the emotions. A species of common sense, it seems obvious and universal to …

Commandeering And Its Alternatives: A Federalism Perspective, Neil S. Siegel

Vanderbilt Law Review

This inquiry argues that current Tenth Amendment jurisprudence causes net harm to federalism values under certain circumstances. Specifically, New York v. United States and Printz v. United States protect state autonomy to some extent by requiring the federal government to internalize more of the costs of federal regulation before engaging in regulation. But anticommandeering doctrine harms state autonomy in situations where the presence of the rule triggers more preemption going forward. Preemption generally causes a greater compromise of federalism values than does commandeering by eroding state regulatory control.

While it is a context-sensitive empirical question whether specific applications of the …

The Law And Large Numbers, Paul H. Edelman

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Can mathematics be used to inform legal analysis? This is not a ridiculous question. Law has certain superficial resem­blances to mathematics. One might view the Constitution and various statutes as providing "axioms" for a deductive legal sys­tem. From these axioms judges deduce "theorems" consisting of interpretation of these axioms in certain situations. Often these theorems are built on previously "proven" theorems, i.e. earlier decisions of the court. Of course some of the axioms might change, and occasionally a theorem that was once true becomes false; the former is a common feature of mathematics, the latter, though theoretically not possible in …

The Most Dangerous Justice Rides Again: Revisiting The Power Pageant Of The Justices, Paul H. Edelman, Jim Chen

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Who is the most powerful Supreme Court Justice? In 1996 we measured voting power on the Court according to each Justice's ability to form five-member coalitions. From the set of all coalitions formed by the Court during its 1994 and 1995 Terms, we developed a generalized Banzhaf index of the Justices' relative strength. Generally speaking, participating in a greater number of unique coalitions translates into greater judicial voting power. To supplement the small number of decisions then available, we derived hypothetical five-Justice coalitions from the intersections of actually observed coalitions involving more than five members. Professor Lynn Baker contested our …

Disentangling Deregulatory Takings, Jim Rossi, Susan Rose-Ackerman

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Constitutional takings protections, such as those in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, create a potential for state liability for changes in regulatory policy by governments. This Article critiques takings jurisprudence in the context of two infrastructure investment issues: the stranded cost problem facing United States utility industries, which has given rise to claims of compensation for deregulatory takings; and the development of standards to protect direct foreign investment in developing countries. In both contexts, traditional legal doctrines do not adequately provide for the type of remedy sought so courts are in need of standards to assist them …

Textualism And Judgment, Suzanna Sherry

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Textualism, like other foundationalist theories such as originalism, purports to be a grand theory of constitutional interpretation, answering all questions with the same single-minded and narrowly constrained technique. The inevitable result is a diminution of what one might call judgment. Judgment is what judges use to decide cases when the answer is not tightly constrained by some interpretive theory. It is an aspect of what others have called prudence, or pragmatism.' But if one has a theory of constitutional interpretation that is supposed to produce clear answers in a relatively mechanical way, there is little room for the exercise of …

What's Wrong With Baker V. Carr?, Robert Lancaster

Vanderbilt Law Review

The decision of the majority of the Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr, the recently decided Tennessee Reapportionment Case, may well turn out to be one of the landmark decisions of American jurisprudence. If by reason of apathetic acquiescence such a judicial intrusion is permitted to go unchallenged and undebated, our federal system of limited and constitutional government may be further weakened. Although the balance of power as between the states and the national government has shifted and this shift has been reflected in and furthered by judicial interpretation of our Constitution, it seems questionable that such a far-reaching and …

What Is Happening In The Conflict Of Laws: Three Supreme Court Cases, Wendell Carnahan

Vanderbilt Law Review

An answer to the topical inquiry is "A great deal" but full explanation of the general answer to a very big question cannot be attempted in a single article. Instead, attention will be directed primarily to the opinions in three cases decided on the same day by the Supreme Court of the United States. These cases present problems in the segments of conflict of laws dealing with principles of forum non conveniens and full faith to a statute,' jurisdiction over a foreign corporation and a combination of choice of laws rules and judicial recognition of an alimony award. These cases …

The Role Of The Privy Council In Judicial Review Of The Canadian Constitution--A Post-Script, Edward Mcwhinney

Vanderbilt Law Review

In its Preamble, the Constitution of Canada speaks of the desire of the Provinces of Canada to be "federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom." Historically, then, the Constitution of Canada like the Constitution of the United States, stems from a compact between a number of different territorial units: the Provinces of Lower Canada (Quebec), Upper Canada (Ontario), and the two eastern maritime Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brtnswick, joined together in 1867 to form the new …

State Statutes And The Full Faith And Credit Clause -- Hughes V. Fetter, Jay A. Hanover

Vanderbilt Law Review

The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution' has commonly been regarded as concerned only with the enforcement of foreign judgments between the states of the Union. The numerous cases which have come before the Supreme Court have dealt almost exclusively with the "judicial Proceedings" phrase of the clause, while the words "public Acts" and "Records" have been, for the most part, left untapped as a source of decisional law. It has only been in recent years that the Supreme Court has broadened its approach by applying the full faith and credit clause to the legislative acts of the …

Book Reviews, Carl B. Swisher (Reviewer), Elvin E. Overton (Reviewer), Jay Murphy (Reviewer), Charlotte Williams (Reviewer), Alexander Holtzoff (Reviewer)

Vanderbilt Law Review

Book Reviews

LIONS UNDER THE THRONE

By Charles P. Curtis, Jr.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1947. Pp. xviii, 368. $3.50

MR. JUSTICE BLACK: THE MAN AND His OPINIONS

By John P. Frank (Introduction by Charles A. Beard)

New York: Knopf Company, 1949.Pp. xix, 357. $4.00

ON UNDERSTANDING THE SUPREME COURT

By Paul A. Freund

Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1949. Pp. vi, 130. $3.00

MELVILLE VESTON FULLER: CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES, 1888-1919

By Willard L. King

New York: Macmillan Company, 1950. Pp.394. $5.00

CHIEF JUSTICE STONE AND THE SUPREME COURT

By Samuel J. Konefsky (Prefatory Note by Charles A. …

Remarks On The Theory Of Appellate Decision And The Rules Or Canons About How Statutes Are To Be Construed, Karl N. Llewellyn

Vanderbilt Law Review

If a statute is to make sense, it must be read in the light of some assumed purpose. A statute merely declaring a rule, with no purpose or objective, is nonsense. If a statute is to be merged into a going system of law, moreover, the court must do the merging, and must in so doing take account of the policy of the statute-or else substitute its own version of such policy. Creative re- shaping of the net result is thus inevitable. But the policy of a statute is of two wholly different kinds-each kind somewhat limited in effect by …