Jurisprudence Commons^™

"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 …

The Battle For The Soul Of International Shoe, Eric H. Schepard

Eric H Schepard

In 2011, Justice Kennedy’s plurality opinion in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro repeatedly cited International Shoe v. Washington, a 1945 decision that transformed the law of personal jurisdiction. Kennedy believed that International Shoe broadly supported his position that a state may hear a suit arising from a within-state workplace injury to its citizen only if the foreign (out-of-state) corporate defendant specifically markets its products to that state. This article reexamines the jurisprudence of International Shoe’s author, Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, to argue that Kennedy hijacked International Shoe’s half-buried legacy of judicial restraint. Scholars have suggested that Stone hoped …

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.

Fernandez-Vargas V. Gonzales: An Examination Of Retroactivity And The Effect Of The Illegal Immigration Reform And Immigrant Responsibility Act, Brooke Hardin

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

A Muddy Decision - The High Court Fails To Define The Corps' Wetland Jurisdiction In Rapanos V. United States, Jill Lambird

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Dissenting State Patent Regimes, Camilla A. Hrdy

IP Theory

No abstract provided.

A Decade Of Registered And Unregistered Design Rights Decisions In The Uk: What Conclusions Can We Draw For The Future Of Both Types Of Rights?, Estelle Derclaye

IP Theory

No abstract provided.

Explaining The Supreme Court's Interest In Patent Law, Timothy R. Holbrook

IP Theory

No abstract provided.

Recalibrating Our Empirical Understanding Of Inequitable Conduct, Jason Rantanen

IP Theory

No abstract provided.

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.

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.

Muko And Conex: The Third Circuit Responds To Connell , Robert A. King, Melvin L. Moser

Pepperdine Law Review

The authors discuss the application of federal antitrust laws to organized labor. The article, written for practitioners, defines the elements necessary to obtain a recovery in labor antitrust actions. The authors analyze the standard of review, burden of proof and the elements which the unions must show in order to be exempted from antitrust law. The focal point of the article is the comparison between the Supreme Court's most recent discussion of the labor exemption in Connell Construction Co. v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union 100 and the Third Circuit's application of that exemption in Larry V. Muko v. Southwestern …

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 …

Thompson V. Thompson: The Jurisdictional Dilemma Of Child Custody Cases Under The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act , Steven M. Schuetze

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ending Judgment Arbitrage: Jurisdictional Competition And The Enforcement Of Foreign Money Judgments In The United States, Gregory Shill

Gregory Shill

Recent multi-billion-dollar damage awards issued by foreign courts against large American companies have focused attention on the once-obscure, patchwork system of enforcing foreign-country judgments in the United States. That system’s structural problems are even more serious than its critics have charged. However, the leading proposals for reform overlook the positive potential embedded in its design.

In the United States, no treaty or federal law controls the domestication of foreign judgments; the process is instead governed by state law. Although they are often conflated in practice, the procedure consists of two formally and conceptually distinct stages: foreign judgments must first be …

A General Defense Of Erie Railroad Co. V. Tompkins, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins was the most important federalism decision of the Twentieth Century. Justice Brandeis’s opinion for the Court stated unequivocally that “[e]xcept in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state. . . . There is no federal general common law.” Seventy-five years later, however, Erie finds itself under siege. Critics have claimed that it is “bereft of serious intellectual or constitutional support” (Michael Greve), based on a “myth” that must be “repressed” (Craig Green), and even “the worst decision …

Amendments To Federal Removal Statutes: Curtailing Adjudication Of Diversity Cases Or Bad Faith Causes Of Action?, Brooke M. Gaffney

Barry Law Review

This student comment explores the problem facing Florida insurers preventing them from exercising their right to litigate bad faith causes of action in federal court. This article demonstrates how the federal removal statutes, and amendments thereto, have potentially precluded insurers from removing some bad faith actions from state to federal court under diversity jurisdiction. This article details the divergence in opinion among Florida’s Southern and Middle District Courts in interpreting the federal removal statutes and concludes with a prediction of how the split may be resolved by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.