Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Absurd Overlap: Snap Removal And The Rule Of Unanimity, Travis Temple
Absurd Overlap: Snap Removal And The Rule Of Unanimity, Travis Temple
William & Mary Law Review
Snap removal employs “a literalist approach” to the statute governing the procedural mechanism for removing cases from state court to federal court. In a typical removal scenario, defendants sued in state court would have the option to be heard in federal court instead, given that certain conditions are satisfied. [S]nap removal essentially allows the defendants to forego a condition that would bar removal if they can file before the plaintiff formally notifies them of the lawsuit. This practice of removing a case before being served with formal process—essentially an act of gamesmanship of the civil procedure system—has gained appellate support …
The Forum-Defendant Rule, The Mischief Rule, And Snap Removal, Howard M. Wasserman
The Forum-Defendant Rule, The Mischief Rule, And Snap Removal, Howard M. Wasserman
William & Mary Law Review Online
Samuel Bray’s The Mischief Rule reconceptualizes and revitalizes that venerable canon of statutory interpretation. Bray’s new approach to the mischief rule offers a textual solution to an ongoing civil procedure puzzle—forum defendants and “snap removal.” The forum-defendant rule provides that a diversity case is not removable from state to federal court when a properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the forum state. Snap removal occurs whena defendant removes before the forum defendant has been properly served, “snapping” the case into federal court. Three courts of appeals and a majority of district courts have endorsed this practice, concluding …
The Paradox Of Exclusive State-Court Jurisdiction Over Federal Claims, Thomas B. Bennett
The Paradox Of Exclusive State-Court Jurisdiction Over Federal Claims, Thomas B. Bennett
Faculty Publications
Standing doctrine is supposed to ensure the separation of powers and an adversary process of adjudication. But recently, it has begun serving a new and unintended purpose: transferring federal claims from federal to state court. Paradoxically, current standing doctrine assigns a growing class of federal claims - despite Congressional intent to the contrary - to the exclusive jurisdiction of state courts. Even then, only in some states, and only to the extent authorized by state law.
This paradox arises at the intersection of three distinct areas of doctrine:
(1) a newly sharpened requirement of concrete injury under Article III that …
An Appellate Solution To Nationwide Injunctions, Sam Heavenrich
An Appellate Solution To Nationwide Injunctions, Sam Heavenrich
Indiana Law Journal
District courts have issued an unprecedented number of nationwide injunctions during the Obama and Trump administrations, provoking criticism from the Supreme Court. This Article proposes a change to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that addresses the Justices’ concerns without taking the drastic step of eliminating nationwide injunctions entirely. Specifically, this Article recommends amending Rule 65 to allow only the appellate courts to issue injunctive relief that extends beyond the plaintiffs in cases challenging a federal law or policy. In addition to the proposed Rule change, this Article offers a categorization framework for existing proposals addressing nationwide injunctions, classifying them …
Justice Ginsburg, Civil Procedure Professor And Champion Of Judicial Federalism, Rodger D. Citron
Justice Ginsburg, Civil Procedure Professor And Champion Of Judicial Federalism, Rodger D. Citron
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
Justice Ginsburg, Civil Procedure Professor And Champion Of Judicial Federalism, Rodger D. Citron
Justice Ginsburg, Civil Procedure Professor And Champion Of Judicial Federalism, Rodger D. Citron
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.