Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Jurisdiction (3)
- Diversity Jurisdiction (2)
- 9/11 (1)
- AIA (1)
- Administrative decisions (1)
-
- Al-Kidd (1)
- Anti-injunction act of 1793 (1)
- Appeals (1)
- Arabian American Oil (1)
- Arbaugh (1)
- Arising under (1)
- Article I court (1)
- Article III (1)
- Ashcroft (1)
- Bivens (1)
- Boumediene (1)
- Civil Procedure (1)
- Corporate Citizenship (1)
- Criminal Justice Act (1)
- Detainee (1)
- Federal district courts (1)
- Federal jurisdiction (1)
- Fee reimbursement (1)
- Forum shopping (1)
- Foucault (1)
- Game theory (1)
- Habeas (1)
- Hamdi (1)
- Hertz Corp. v. Friend (1)
- Justiciability Doctrines (1)
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Value Of Uncertainty, Cathy Hwang, Benjamin P. Edwards
The Value Of Uncertainty, Cathy Hwang, Benjamin P. Edwards
Northwestern University Law Review
In recent years, federal courts have heard, without clear subject matter jurisdiction, contract disputes involving billions of dollars worth of securitized financial instruments (SFIs). These SFI disputes are litigated in federal court under the federal interpleader statute, which specifies that a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over these cases only when parties deposit the disputed amount with the court. SFI litigants have ignored this requirement, so courts have, at best, uncertain jurisdiction over these cases. Why have no parties raised the jurisdictional defect, even though some would stand to gain from raising it? This Essay advances game theoretical explanations …
An Appeal To Common Sense: Why "Unappealable" District Court Decisions Should Be Subject To Appellate Review, Matthew D. Heins
An Appeal To Common Sense: Why "Unappealable" District Court Decisions Should Be Subject To Appellate Review, Matthew D. Heins
Northwestern University Law Review
28 U.S.C. § 1291 vests jurisdiction in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal to hear “appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” Various circuit courts have, however, determined that they may only hear appeals of final “judicial” decisions, and that they do not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of United States district courts if those decisions are “administrative.” Circuit courts have been loath to explicitly define the dividing line between the two classes of case, and have frequently invoked the potential availability of mandamus review as a means of placating …
Digging Up The Corp(Ses): Holston Investments V. Lanlogistics Corp. And The Continuing Struggle To Determine The Citizenship Of Dissolved And Inactive Corporations For The Purposes Of Diversity Jurisdiction, Nicholas W. Roosevelt
Digging Up The Corp(Ses): Holston Investments V. Lanlogistics Corp. And The Continuing Struggle To Determine The Citizenship Of Dissolved And Inactive Corporations For The Purposes Of Diversity Jurisdiction, Nicholas W. Roosevelt
Northwestern University Law Review
Since the early 1990s, the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have been divided on how to determine the citizenship of dissolved or inactive corporations for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, courts of appeals addressing the issue had settled on one of three conclusions: (1) citizenship should be determined only by the corporation’s state of incorporation; (2) citizenship should be determined both by the corporation’s state of incorporation and its last principal place of business; or (3) citizenship should always be determined by the corporation’s state of incorporation, but only be determined by principal …
Cases, Controversies, And Diversity, F. Andrew Hessick
Cases, Controversies, And Diversity, F. Andrew Hessick
Northwestern University Law Review
Article III’s diversity jurisdiction provisions extend the federal judicial power to state law controversies between different states or nations and their respective citizens. When exercising diversity jurisdiction, the federal judiciary does not function in its usual role of protecting federal interests or ensuring the uniformity of federal law. Instead, federal courts operate as alternative state courts for resolving disputes between diverse parties. But federal courts often cannot act as alternative state courts because of Article III justiciability doctrines such as standing, ripeness, and mootness. These doctrines define when a federal court may act. But they do not apply to state …
The Demise Of "Drive-By Jurisdictional Rulings", Howard M. Wasserman
The Demise Of "Drive-By Jurisdictional Rulings", Howard M. Wasserman
Northwestern University Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Foucauldian Call For The Archaeological Excavation Of Discourse In The Post-Boumediene Habeas Litigation, Jonathan David Shaub
A Foucauldian Call For The Archaeological Excavation Of Discourse In The Post-Boumediene Habeas Litigation, Jonathan David Shaub
Northwestern University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Qualified Immunity, Constitutional Stagnation, And The Global War On Terror, Sarah L. Lochner
Qualified Immunity, Constitutional Stagnation, And The Global War On Terror, Sarah L. Lochner
Northwestern University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Morris V. Allen And The Lost History Of The Anti-Injunction Act Of 1793, James E. Pfander, Nassim Nazemi
Morris V. Allen And The Lost History Of The Anti-Injunction Act Of 1793, James E. Pfander, Nassim Nazemi
Northwestern University Law Review
No abstract provided.
How Congress Should Fix Personal Jurisdiction, Stephen E. Sachs
How Congress Should Fix Personal Jurisdiction, Stephen E. Sachs
Northwestern University Law Review
No abstract provided.