Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Jurisdiction (3)
- Due process (2)
- Canadian judgments (1)
- Civil rights (1)
- Conflict of laws (1)
-
- Deterrence (1)
- Enforcement of judgments (1)
- Extraterritoriality (1)
- Federal jurisdiction (1)
- Foreign judgments (1)
- Foreseeability (1)
- Forum selection (1)
- International Shoe (1)
- International arbitration (1)
- Judgment enforcement (1)
- Legal history (1)
- Mail fraud (1)
- Minimum contacts (1)
- New York Convention (1)
- Notice (1)
- Personal jurisdiction (1)
- Private international law (1)
- RICO (1)
- Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (1)
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1)
- Subordinate sovereign governments (1)
- Super-legislature (1)
- Transnational litigation (1)
- Uniform Law Commission (1)
- Uniform Law Commission of Canada (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Rico's Long Arm, Randy D. Gordon
Rico's Long Arm, Randy D. Gordon
Faculty Scholarship
RICO has for over 50 years presented something of a parlor game for lawyers, mostly because its text leaves wide latitude in interpretation. And, as is often the case with RICO, resolution of one question begets more. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Yegiazaryan v. Smagin proves no exception. Here, the Court brought some clarity to a question left open by RJR Nabisco: viz, what must one plead and prove to satisfy the “domestic injury” requirement necessary to invoke an extraterritorial application of RICO. The Court held that a foreign plaintiff can indeed, given the right facts and circumstances, establish …
Forum Fights And Fundamental Rights: Amenability’S Distorted Frame, James P. George
Forum Fights And Fundamental Rights: Amenability’S Distorted Frame, James P. George
Faculty Scholarship
Framing—the subtle use of context to suggest a conclusion—is a dubious alternative to direct argumentation. Both the brilliance and the bane of marketing, framing also creeps into supposedly objective analysis. Law offers several examples, but a lesser known one is International Shoe’s two-part jurisdictional test. The framing occurs in the underscoring of defendant’s due process rights contrasted with plaintiff’s “interests” which are often dependent on governmental interests. This equation ignores, both rhetorically and analytically, the injured party’s centuries-old rights to—not interests in—a remedy in an open and adequate forum.
Even within the biased frame, the test generally works, if not …
Running On Empty: Ford V. Montana And The Folly Of Minimum Contacts, James P. George
Running On Empty: Ford V. Montana And The Folly Of Minimum Contacts, James P. George
Faculty Scholarship
Jurisdictional contests are in disarray. Criticisms date back to the issuance of International Shoe Co. v. Washington but the breakdown may be best illustrated in two recent Supreme Court opinions, the first rejecting California’s “sliding scale” that mixes general and specific contacts, the second using the discredited sliding scale to hold Ford amenable in states where accidents occurred.
California’s sliding scale is one variety of the contacts-relatedness tests, used in lower courts to have general contacts bolster weaker specific contacts. Some states—Montana and Minnesota for example—use the opposite extreme requiring a causal connection in defendant’s forum contacts, often using foreseeability …
Jurisdictional Elements And The Jury, G. Alexander Nunn
Jurisdictional Elements And The Jury, G. Alexander Nunn
Faculty Scholarship
Do jurisdictional elements in criminal statutes actually matter? Of course, formally, the answer is obvious; jurisdictional elements are of paramount importance. In fact, they often serve as the entire justifying basis for a federal (rather than state) criminal prosecution. But beyond mere technicalities, do jurisdictional elements actually make a difference in a jury deliberation room?
In pursuit of an answer, this Article undertakes a novel empirical study designed to assess the antecedent issue of how laypeople weigh jurisdictional elements when determining guilt. The project’s experiment ultimately finds that when one increases the amount of evidence demonstrating a defendant’s substantive guilt, …
Facilitating Money Judgment Enforcement Between Canada And The United States, Paul George
Facilitating Money Judgment Enforcement Between Canada And The United States, Paul George
Faculty Scholarship
The United States has attempted for years to create a more efficient enforcement regime for foreign-country judgments, both by treaty and statute. Long negotiations succeeded in July 2019, when the Hague Conference on Private International Law (with U.S. participants, including the Uniform Law Commission) promulgated the new Hague Judgments Convention which harmonizes judgment recognition standards but leaves the domestication process to the enforcing jurisdiction. In August 2019, the Uniform Law Commission took a significant step to fill that gap, though limited to Canadian judgments. The Uniform Registration of Canadian Money Judgments Act provides a registration process similar to that for …
United States V. Lozoya: The Turbulence Of Establishing Venue For In-Flight Offenses, Daeja Pemberton
United States V. Lozoya: The Turbulence Of Establishing Venue For In-Flight Offenses, Daeja Pemberton
Texas A&M Law Review
The U.S. Constitution protects one’s right to a fair trial in a proper venue. Typically, venue is proper in whatever territorial jurisdiction a defendant commits an offense. But this rule is not as clear-cut when the offense takes place in a special jurisdiction, such as American airspace. A court must then determine whether the offense continued into the venue of arrival, making it proper under the Constitution. This issue was reexamined when Monique Lozoya assaulted another passenger on an airplane during a domestic flight. In United States v. Lozoya, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to correctly identify …
When Courts Run Amuck: A Book Review Of Unequal: How America's Courts Undermine Discrimination Law By Sandra F. Sperino And Suja A. Thomas (Oxford 2017), Theresa M. Beiner
When Courts Run Amuck: A Book Review Of Unequal: How America's Courts Undermine Discrimination Law By Sandra F. Sperino And Suja A. Thomas (Oxford 2017), Theresa M. Beiner
Texas A&M Law Review
In Unequal: How America’s Courts Undermine Discrimination Law (“Unequal”), law professors Sandra F. Sperino and Suja A. Thomas provide a point-by-point analysis of how the federal courts’ interpretations of federal anti-discrimination laws have undermined their efficacy to provide relief to workers whose employers have allegedly engaged in discrimination. The cases’ results are consistently pro-employer, even while the Supreme Court of the United States—a court not known for being particularly pro-plaintiff—has occasionally ruled in favor of plaintiff employees. The authors suggest some reasons for this apparent anti-plaintiff bias among the federal courts, although they do not settle on a particular reason …
From Marbury V. Madison To Bush V. Gore: 200 Years Of Judicial Review In The United States, Stephen R. Alton
From Marbury V. Madison To Bush V. Gore: 200 Years Of Judicial Review In The United States, Stephen R. Alton
Faculty Scholarship
This Lecture consists of three parts. In the first part, I will lay out the background behind judicial review in the United States - the history, the theory, and the constitutional structure. In the second part of this Lecture, I will discuss some of the major United States Supreme Court cases that established and developed the doctrine of judicial review. In the third, and final, part, I will present the recent case of Bush v. Gore as an example of the major points that have been developed earlier. Finally, I will conclude with some general observations about judicial review and …
Indian Tribes, Civil Rights, And Federal Courts, Robert D. Probasco
Indian Tribes, Civil Rights, And Federal Courts, Robert D. Probasco
Faculty Scholarship
A citizen’s civil rights include protections against certain actions by three different governments – federal, state, and tribal. If the federal or a state government violates your civil rights, you can seek a remedy in federal court, including injunctive or declaratory judgment and damages. But the Supreme Court decided in Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez that that – other than habeas corpus relief – you cannot challenge a civil rights violation by an Indian tribe in federal court. The decision has resulted in a significant amount of controversy and proposals that Congress explicitly grant such jurisdiction. This article reviews the …