Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Courts (3)
- Civil Procedure (2)
- Common Law (2)
- Judges (2)
- Jurisdiction (2)
-
- Legislation (2)
- Civil Law (1)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Criminal Law (1)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- Environmental Law (1)
- Health Law and Policy (1)
- Immigration Law (1)
- Law and Society (1)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Legal Remedies (1)
- Military, War, and Peace (1)
- Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law (1)
- Other Law (1)
- State and Local Government Law (1)
- Supreme Court of the United States (1)
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Export Controls - A Private Cause Of Action Under The Export Administration Act Of 1979, Wilbur Owens
Export Controls - A Private Cause Of Action Under The Export Administration Act Of 1979, Wilbur Owens
Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law
No abstract provided.
You Can't Go Holmes Again, Lumen N. Mulligan
You Can't Go Holmes Again, Lumen N. Mulligan
Faculty Works
Under the standard interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the so called Holmes test, pleading a federal cause of action is sufficient for finding federal question jurisdiction. In January 2012, the Supreme Court, in Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, recharacterized this standard test for § 1331 jurisdiction as one that considers whether “federal law creates [both] a private right of action and furnishes the substantive rules of decision.” In this first piece to address the Mims Court’s significant change to the § 1331 canon, I applaud its rights-inclusive holding. I contend that this rights-inclusive view rests upon a firmer …
A Unified Theory Of 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 Jurisdiction, Lumen N. Mulligan
A Unified Theory Of 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 Jurisdiction, Lumen N. Mulligan
Faculty Works
Title 28, section 1331 of the United States Code provides the jurisdictional grounding for the majority of cases heard in the federal courts, yet it is not well understood. The predominant view holds that section 1331 doctrine both lacks a focus upon congressional intent and is internally inconsistent. I seek to counter both these assumptions by re-contextualizing the Court's section 1331 jurisprudence in terms of the contemporary judicial usage of right (i.e., clear, mandatory obligations capable of judicial enforcement) and cause of action (i.e., permission to vindicate a right in court). In conducting this reinterpretation, I argue that section 1331 …
A Plea For Help: Pleading Problems In Section 1983 Municipal Liability Claims, Evan S. Schwartz
A Plea For Help: Pleading Problems In Section 1983 Municipal Liability Claims, Evan S. Schwartz
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Noseworthy Doctrine: A Threepart Rule For Its Application, Steven D. Jannace
The Noseworthy Doctrine: A Threepart Rule For Its Application, Steven D. Jannace
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Interference With Prospective Civil Litigation By Spollation Of Evidence: Should Texas Adopt A New Tort., Philip A. Lionberger
Interference With Prospective Civil Litigation By Spollation Of Evidence: Should Texas Adopt A New Tort., Philip A. Lionberger
St. Mary's Law Journal
Texas courts should adopt a tort for spoliation of evidence. Spoliation of evidence is the tampering with, interference with, loss of, or destruction of evidence. Spoliation of evidence is a serious legal problem because it increases a litigant’s difficulty in proving a cause of action or a defense. Evidence destruction may also increase litigation costs and cause the trial court to make factfinding errors. Texas courts should adopt the tort of spoliation of evidence because it compensates injured litigants and deters future acts of spoliation. Another reason for adopting the tort for spoliation of evidence is the inadequacy of alternative …