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)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
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 …
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 …