Jurisdiction Commons^™

Rationalizing Relatedness: Understanding Personal Jurisdiction's Relatedness Prong In The Wake Of Bristol-Myers Squibb And Ford Motor Co., Anthony Petrosino

Fordham Law Review

Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court marked a watershed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s personal jurisdiction jurisprudence. There, the Court came to a reasonable conclusion: Ford, a multinational conglomerate carrying on extensive business throughout the United States, was subject to personal jurisdiction in states where it maintained substantial contacts that were related to the injuries that prompted the suits. This was so, even though the business it conducted in those states was not the direct cause of the suit. While justifying that conclusion, however, the Court drastically altered the personal jurisdiction inquiry’s relatedness prong, which concerns whether …

Service Out Under The New Rules Of Court, Ian Mah, Aaron Yoong

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

The new Rules of Court 2021 seek to provide a more accessible and efficient justice system. The extensiveness of the overhaul, however, brings with it as much unfamiliarity as excitement. This legislation comment examines the changes in the provisions governing service out of jurisdiction and argues that the textual changes also effect substantive changes to how the law is applied. This comment also explores the related issues on the grant of Mareva injunctions in aid of foreign proceedings under the new Rules of Court 2021.

Fugitive Pull: Applying The Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine To Foreign Defendants, Zachary Z. Schroeder

Washington Law Review

Defendants force courts to decide whether to use judicial time and resources to hear a case when they either flee or refuse to submit to jurisdiction. Judges in the United States possess an exceptional discretionary power to deny access to the courts in these circumstances through the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. The fugitive disentitlement doctrine developed as federal common law and permits courts to exercise discretion in declining to hear appeals or motions from defendants classified as fugitives from justice.

Historically, the fugitive disentitlement doctrine was intended to prevent courts from wasting resources adjudicating cases when a defendant has fled and …

Gone Fishing: Casting A Wide Net Using Geofence Warrants, Ryan Tursi

Washington Law Review

Technology companies across the country receive requests from law enforcement agencies for cell phone location information near the scenes of crimes. These requests rely on the traditional warrant process and are known as geofence warrants, or reverse location search warrants. By obtaining location information, law enforcement can identify potential suspects or persons of interest who were near the scene of a crime when they have no leads. But the use of this investigative technique is controversial, as it threatens to intrude upon the privacy of innocent bystanders who had the misfortune of being nearby when the crime took place. Innocent …

Canadian Maritime Law Jurisdiction Revisited: Quo Vadis?, Aldo Chircop

Dalhousie Law Journal

Maritime jurisdiction in Canada has to contend with the division of powers between the federal and provincial levels. At times, this fact has challenged Canadian courts in explaining what should be the interface between federal and provincial law in dual aspect cases and in determining the applicable law or finding complementary applications of federal and provincial law. This essay reflects on the evolution of maritime law jurisdiction in Canada since the establishment of the Federal Court of Canada in 1971. It discusses the imperative of stability and reality of change in maritime law jurisdiction since then with a focus on …

What A Waste! An Evaluation Of Federal And State Medical And Biohazard Waste Regulations During The Covid-19 Pandemic And Their Impact On Environmental Justice, Samantha Newman

Villanova Environmental Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Addressing The Principle And Challenges Of Enforcement And Prosecution Under Universal Jurisdiction: Charting New Pathways For International Justice, Uche Nnawulezi, Hilary Nwaechefu, Salim Bashir Magashi

Indonesian Journal of International Law

Remarkably, the principle of universal jurisdiction is increasingly gaining traction in the international justice system as a key aspect of the prosecution of crime globally. Driven primarily by efforts to combat crime, this paper examined the relevance of universal jurisdiction in order to determine its adequacy as a system of international justice. Contextually, the principle of universal jurisdiction emerged as a supplemental component of the international justice system. This paper adopts the doctrinal approach by identifying and analyzing the relevant provisions and challenges of universal jurisdiction. It argues that if regular enforcement is a goal of the emerging international justice …

International Advisory Proceedings On Climate Change, Benoit Mayer

Michigan Journal of International Law

Several island states are expected to be severely harmed by climate change and rising sea levels. In late 2021, several island states launched two legal initiatives aimed at requesting advisory opinions of international courts on the law applicable to climate change. In the hope of fostering more action to combat climate change, these states are asking international courts to clarify the obligations of states to cut greenhouse gas emissions and pay reparations for harm already caused.

This article provides the first comprehensive assessment of the feasibility and desirability of international advisory proceedings on climate change. It analyzes recent developments and …

Publius’S Protectors Of Liberty: A Still Important Role For States, Adam Reed Moore

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sea Level Rise And Maritime Delimitation In The Eastern Caribbean: A Comparative Approach, Rosemarie Cadogan

American University Law Review

Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Let me just start by thanking the organizers today for having me on the program, and I want to extend to everyone my gratitude for having me here today. I am going to look at, as the title suggests, sea level rise and maritime delimitation in the Eastern Caribbean, and I am going to take a comparative approach as I compare it with the Pacific–South Pacific region. I am going to take it that all protocols have been observed, and, in the interest of time, I will go straight through to my presentation with the one …

Jurisdiction Over Non-Eu Defendants: The Brussels I Article 79 Review, Ronald A. Brand

Book Chapters

When the original EU Brussels I Regulation on Jurisdiction and the Recognition of Judgments was “recast” in 2011, the Commission recommended that the application of its direct jurisdiction rules apply to all defendants in Member State courts, and not just to defendants from other Member States. This approach was not adopted, but set for reconsideration through Article 79 of the Brussels I (Recast) Regulation, which requires that the European Commission report in 2022 on the possible application of the direct jurisdiction rules of the Regulation to all defendants. Without such a change, the Recast Regulation continues to allow each Member …

M/S Bremen V Zapata Off -Shore Company: Us Common Law Affirmation Of Party Autonomy, Ronald A. Brand

Book Chapters

In the 1972 decision in M/S Bremen v Zapata Off -Shore Company, the U.S. Supreme Court brought together the development of doctrines dealing with party autonomy in choice of court and forum non conveniens. Especially when considered alongside developments favoring arbitration clauses in U.S. courts, the case provides a rich study of conflicts of laws jurisprudence in the twentieth century. This chapter begins with a discussion of fundamental elements of the development of party autonomy in U.S. law and the historical context of the law prior to The Bremen. A brief mention of how one prominent political family …

Interagency Litigation Outside Article Iii, Adam Crews

Connecticut Law Review

For over seventy years, the Supreme Court has said that a justiciable controversy can exist when one agency in the federal executive branch sues another. Although this raises intuitive concerns under both Article II (relating to presidential control) and Article III (relating to standing), scholars and judges have paid scant attention to the constitutional foundation for interagency litigation. Of those who have explored the topic, defenders and opponents alike agree on one thing: the foundation—or lack of one—depends on Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement.

That is mistaken. A better approach to understand interagency litigation is to step outside Article III and …

The False Promise Of Jurisdiction Stripping, Daniel Epps, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarly Articles

Jurisdiction stripping is seen as a nuclear option. Its logic is simple: By depriving federal courts of jurisdiction over some set of cases, Congress ensures those courts cannot render bad decisions. To its proponents, it offers the ultimate check on unelected and unaccountable judges. To its critics, it poses a grave threat to the separation of powers. Both sides agree, though, that jurisdiction stripping is a powerful weapon. On this understanding, politicians, activists, and scholars throughout American history have proposed jurisdiction-stripping measures as a way for Congress to reclaim policymaking authority from the courts.

The conventional understanding is wrong. Whatever …

The Failed Idea Of Judicial Restraint: A Brief Intellectual History, Susan D. Carle

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

This essay examines the intellectual history of the idea of judicial restraint, starting with the early debates among the US Constitution’s founding generation. In the late nineteenth century, law professor James Bradley Thayer championed the concept and passed it on to his students and others, including Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, and Felix Frankfurter, who modified and applied it based on the jurisprudential preoccupations of a different era. In a masterful account, Brad Snyder examines Justice Frankfurter’s attempt to put the idea into practice. Although Frankfurter arguably made a mess of it, he passed the idea of …

Martins V. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, 266 A.3d 753 (R.I. 2022)., Keith Lefevre

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

State V. Regan, 273 A.3d 116 (R.I. 2022), Rebecca Costello

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Learning From Mistakes: A Guide To Expanding The Oversight Board, Kevin Frazier

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

More than 4.4 billion people use social media. A few platforms attract a significant number of those users—for example, 2.9 billion people use Facebook, 2.3 billion use YouTube, and 1.2 billion use WeChat. How these major platforms govern themselves with respect to content moderation has an impact on billions of users and may lead to policy changes across other platforms that affect billions more. That is why it is so important to analyze Meta’s Oversight Board—an independent body created for the purpose of “promot[ing] free expression by making principled, independent decisions regarding content on Facebook and Instagram by issuing recommendations …

Airdropping Justice: The Constitutionality Of Service Of Process Via Non-Fungible Token, Jenifer Jackson

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

Mandatory Judging, Douglas R. Richmond

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

As a matter of judicial ethics, judges must disqualify themselves in matters in which their impartiality may reasonably be questioned. This key principle implicates two additional aspects of judicial ethics: the duty to sit and the rule of necessity. The duty to sit basically describes a judge’s duty to preside over a case unless disqualified as a matter of judicial ethics. Or, phrased another way, a judge must hear a case if her impartiality cannot reasonably be questioned. Recognition of the duty to sit means that judges may not disqualify themselves based on their unease with cases, personal or professional …