Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Act of state doctrine (1)
- Atamirzayeva (Zoya) (1)
- Atamirzayeva v. United States (1)
- Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino (1)
- Case studies (1)
-
- Catch and kill jurisdiction (1)
- Choice of law doctrine (1)
- Class Action Fairness Act (1)
- Complaint rule (1)
- Constitutional standing (1)
- Court access (1)
- Deregulation (1)
- Erie doctrine (1)
- Federal common law of foreign relations doctrine (1)
- Federal preemption doctrine (1)
- Federal question jurisdiction (1)
- Federal statutes (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Foreign relations (1)
- Foreign sovereign (1)
- Forum non conveniens doctrine (1)
- Globalization (1)
- Holmes test (1)
- Indispensable party doctrine (1)
- Jurisdictional sequencing (1)
- Lucus standi (1)
- Multinational corporation (1)
- Necessary construction test (1)
- Nonmerits dismissal (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Transnational Law
Catch And Kill Jurisdiction, Zachary D. Clopton
Catch And Kill Jurisdiction, Zachary D. Clopton
Michigan Law Review
In catch and kill journalism, a tabloid buys a story that could be published elsewhere and then deliberately declines to publish it. In catch and kill jurisdiction, a federal court assumes jurisdiction over a case that could be litigated in state court and then declines to hear the merits through a nonmerits dismissal. Catch and kill journalism undermines the free flow of information. Catch and kill jurisdiction undermines the enforcement of substantive rights. And, importantly, because catch and kill jurisdiction relies on jurisdictional and procedural law, it is often able to achieve ends that would be politically unpalatable by other …
Zoya's Standing Problem, Or, When Should The Constitution Follow The Flag?, Jeffrey Kahn
Zoya's Standing Problem, Or, When Should The Constitution Follow The Flag?, Jeffrey Kahn
Michigan Law Review
Some federal courts have devised a new test of prudential standing that they use to dismiss suits filed by foreign plaintiffs alleging unlawful conduct by American officials abroad, even when these cases involve matters that may have nothing to do with foreign affairs, national security, or terrorism. Rather than decide the case on its merits or dismiss it on any number of legitimate grounds, the complaint is dismissed because the plaintiff lacks a "prior substantial connection" to the United States. I identify and critique this strange but proliferating test of standing. First, it is inconsistent with any theoretical view of …
No Longer Safe At Home: Preventing The Misuse Of Federal Common Law Of Foreign Relations As A Defense Tactic In Private Transnational Litigation, Lumen N. Mulligan
No Longer Safe At Home: Preventing The Misuse Of Federal Common Law Of Foreign Relations As A Defense Tactic In Private Transnational Litigation, Lumen N. Mulligan
Michigan Law Review
In an increasingly common litigation strategy, plaintiffs in Patrickson v. Dole Food Company, laborers in the banana industries of Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala and Panama, brought a classaction suit in Hawaii state court against Dole Food and other defendants. Plaintiffs brought only state law causes of action, alleging that they had been harmed by Dole Food's use of DBCP, a toxic pesticide banned from use in the United States. Dole Food removed the case to federal district court seeking the procedural advantages of a federal forum, as corporate defendants facing alien tort plaintiffs seeking redress for overseas conduct invariably do. …