Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
![Digital Commons Network](http://assets.bepress.com/20200205/img/dcn/DCsunburst.png)
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Jurisdiction (2)
- 1800 election (1)
- 1947 Philippine Bases Agreements (1)
- Agreed Official Minutes of SOFA (1)
- Agreement Concerning Stationing of United States Forces in the Netherlands (1)
-
- Alcoa case (1)
- American Republic (1)
- American State Department (1)
- American Stock Exchange (1)
- American lawyers (1)
- Anglo-American common law (1)
- Arbitrary and partisan decisions (1)
- Arbitration proceedings (1)
- Armed Forces (1)
- Article 1 of the UN Charter (1)
- Berliet (1)
- Beschwerde (1)
- British Nylon Spinners v. Imperial Chemicals Industries Ld. (1)
- British navy (1)
- Brussels Powers SOFA (1)
- Bundesbeamtengesetz (1)
- Bundesgerichtshof (1)
- Bundesrechtsanwaltsordnung (1)
- Bundesverfassungsgericht (1)
- Buskers v. Seamans (1)
- Cardozo (1)
- Chief Judge Learned Hand (1)
- Chief Justice Marshall (1)
- Civil law countries (1)
- Clerks of courts (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Intergovernmental Federalism Disputes, Lochlan F. Shelfer
Intergovernmental Federalism Disputes, Lochlan F. Shelfer
Georgia Law Review
Constitutional litigation is increasingly being waged
between governments, in both suits between a state and
the United States, and suits between two or more states.
The jurisdictionof the Federalcourts to hear such suits,
however, is disputed. The Supreme Court's cases are
famously difficult to reconcile, with some denying
jurisdiction and other seemingly identical cases
addressing the merits without discussing jurisdiction.
Some scholars have argued that intergovernmental
disputes over political jurisdiction historically are not
justiciableand that it is constitutionally illegitimate for
the Court to hear them. Recently, some scholars have
argued that the Court should hear such cases, but have
assumed …
United States Obligations Under Status Of Forces Agreements: A New Method Of Extradition?, William J. Norton
United States Obligations Under Status Of Forces Agreements: A New Method Of Extradition?, William J. Norton
Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law
No abstract provided.
Judicial Recusation In The Federal Republic Of Germany, Sigmund A. Cohn
Judicial Recusation In The Federal Republic Of Germany, Sigmund A. Cohn
Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law
No abstract provided.
The Proper Reach Of Territorial Jurisdiction: A Case Study Of Divergent Attitudes, Philippe Schreiber
The Proper Reach Of Territorial Jurisdiction: A Case Study Of Divergent Attitudes, Philippe Schreiber
Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law
No abstract provided.
The Place Of Policy In International Law, Oscar Schachter
The Place Of Policy In International Law, Oscar Schachter
Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law
No abstract provided.
Justifying A Prudential Solution To The Williamson County Ripeness Puzzle, Katherine M. Crocker
Justifying A Prudential Solution To The Williamson County Ripeness Puzzle, Katherine M. Crocker
Georgia Law Review
In the much-maligned 1985 case Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, the Supreme Court articulated a rule of "ripeness" requiring most Fifth Amendment regulatory- takings claimants to seek 'just compensation" in state court before attempting to litigate in federal court. Williamson County and its progeny have opened a Pandora's box of unforeseen complications, spawning many more questions than they purported to answer. At the forefront is what kind of requirement the rule is anyway. This Article contends that reading Williamson County as grounded in the Constitution (specifically, in Article III or the Fifth Amendment) runs …
Jurisdictional Sequencing, Alan M. Trammell
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 …