Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Close Enough For Government Work: What Happens When Congress Doesn't Do Its Job, Thomas C. Arthur, Richard Freer Jan 1991

Close Enough For Government Work: What Happens When Congress Doesn't Do Its Job, Thomas C. Arthur, Richard Freer

Faculty Articles

There's the beef. The supplemental jurisdiction statute, particularly section 1367(b), is a nightmare of draftsmanship. The problems that flow from that fact are more than aesthetic. The sloppiness makes easy cases hard and sows confusion in areas where there should be, and so easily could have been, clarity. It creates that most wasteful type of litigation - fights over jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction rules ought to be clear and capable of near-mechanical application whenever possible. Such pre­cision was possible in the supplemental jurisdiction, if only someone had spent as much time writing the statute as the trio has spent writing …


Section 1983, Honorable George C. Pratt, Martin A. Schwartz, Leon Friedman Jan 1991

Section 1983, Honorable George C. Pratt, Martin A. Schwartz, Leon Friedman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Affirmative Action, Douglas Scherer, John Dunne Jan 1991

Affirmative Action, Douglas Scherer, John Dunne

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Grasping At Burnt Straws: The Disaster Of The Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute, Thomas C. Arthur, Richard Freer Jan 1991

Grasping At Burnt Straws: The Disaster Of The Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute, Thomas C. Arthur, Richard Freer

Faculty Articles

Ah, the strawman model! Where would Professors Rowe, Burbank, and Mengler be without it? At a minimum, they would have a much shorter article. If Professor Freer in fact torched the entire farm, it is because there was so much dry straw lying around after the three drafters fin­ished tilting with the strawmen they created in their response to Professor Freer's article. The drafters spend more than half of their article arguing the irrelevant points that a statute was needed after Finley, that the stat­ute was consistent with recommendations of the Federal Courts Study Committee, and that Professor Freer …