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

Law Commons

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

Articles 1 - 11 of 11

Full-Text Articles in Law

Personal Jurisdiction And The Beetle In The Box, Wendy Collins Perdue Jan 1991

Personal Jurisdiction And The Beetle In The Box, Wendy Collins Perdue

Law Faculty Publications

In 1980 in World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, the Supreme Court described personal jurisdiction as "an instrument of interstate federalism." Two years later in Insurance Corporation of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, the Court back-pedaled and explained that personal jurisdiction "represents a restriction on judicial power not as a matter of sovereignty, but as a matter of individual liberty." Then, in 1985 in Phillips Petroleum v. Shutts, the Court explained that the purpose of personal jurisdiction is "to protect a defendant from the travail of defending in a distant forum." Three years later in Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, …


Equal Protection Jan 1991

Equal Protection

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Separation Of Powers Jan 1991

Separation Of Powers

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


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.


Equal Protection Jan 1991

Equal Protection

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Equal Protection Jan 1991

Equal Protection

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Equal Protection Jan 1991

Equal Protection

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Equal Protection Jan 1991

Equal Protection

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Compounding Confusion And Hampering Diversity: Life After Finley And The Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute, Richard D. Freer Jan 1991

Compounding Confusion And Hampering Diversity: Life After Finley And The Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute, Richard D. Freer

Faculty Articles

It has been a tough couple of years for supplemental jurisdiction. In recent decades, the doctrine, which earlier had been called the "child of necessity and sire of confusion," had become somewhat less confusing. The Supreme Court created a flurry of concern over the future of the doctrine with a pair of restrictive decisions in the late 1970s, but showed no further interest; the lower courts generally interpreted those holdings narrowly. With exceptions in a couple of areas, the application of supple­mental jurisdiction in the various joinder situations became relatively clear and predictable, and the doctrine played a major role …


Eighteen Feet Of Clay: Thoughts On Phantom Rule 4(M), Gene R. Shreve Jan 1991

Eighteen Feet Of Clay: Thoughts On Phantom Rule 4(M), Gene R. Shreve

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.


Public Relief And Care Jan 1991

Public Relief And Care

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.