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

Law Commons

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

Jurisdiction

Series

Jurisdiction

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

Complete Preemption And The Separation Of Powers, Trevor W. Morrison Mar 2007

Complete Preemption And The Separation Of Powers, Trevor W. Morrison

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This is a short response, published in Pennumbra (the online companion to the University of Pennsylvania Law Review), to Gil Seinfeld's recent article, "The Puzzle of Complete Preemption."

I first sound some notes of agreement with Professor Seinfeld's critique of the Supreme Court's complete preemption doctrine. I then turn to his proposed reshaping of the doctrine around the interest in federal legal uniformity. Although certainly more satisfying than the Court's account, Professor Seinfeld's refashioning of the doctrine raises a number of new difficulties. In particular, it invites the federal courts to engage in a range of line-drawing exercises to which …


Jurisdictional Fact, Kevin M. Clermont Jul 2006

Jurisdictional Fact, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

What kind of factual showing must the plaintiff make in order to establish, say, personal jurisdiction? While that question may seem simple enough, real difficulties in regard to the standard of proof arise when there is a similarity of the facts entailed in the jurisdictional determination and those on the merits. Surely, the plaintiff has to do more than allege that the defendant is the author of state-directed acts or omissions. Yet, almost as surely, the plaintiff should not have to prove the cause of action in order to establish jurisdiction. The plaintiff thus must have to show something between …


A Global Law Of Jurisdiction And Judgments: Views From The United States And Japan, Kevin M. Clermont Sep 2004

A Global Law Of Jurisdiction And Judgments: Views From The United States And Japan, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Japanese and U.S. legal systems, despite surprisingly similar doctrine and outlook on matters of jurisdiction and judgments, often clash: jurisdictions overlap and judgments may go unrespected, while parallel proceedings persist. The current outlook for harmonization through a multilateral Hague convention of general scope is bleak. These two countries are, however, ideally situated to reach a highly feasible bilateral agreement that would provide a better tomorrow in which jurisdiction was allocated appropriately and judgments were respected accordingly.


The Role Of Private International Law In The United States: Beating The Not-Quite-Dead Horse Of Jurisdiction, Kevin M. Clermont Sep 2004

The Role Of Private International Law In The United States: Beating The Not-Quite-Dead Horse Of Jurisdiction, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Territorial authority to adjudicate is the preeminent component of private international law. Empirical research proves that forum really affects outcome, probably by multiple influences. This practical effect makes international harmonization of jurisdictional law highly desirable. Although harmonization of nonjurisdictional law remains quite unlikely, jurisdictional harmonization is increasingly feasible because, among other reasons, U.S. jurisdictional law in fact exhibits no essential differences from European law. None of the usual assertions holds up as an unbridgeable difference, including that (1) the peculiar U.S. jurisdictional law flows inevitably from a different theory of governmental authority, one that rests on power notions; (2) U.S. …


French Article 14 Jurisdiction, Viewed From The United States, Kevin M. Clermont, John R.B. Palmer Sep 2004

French Article 14 Jurisdiction, Viewed From The United States, Kevin M. Clermont, John R.B. Palmer

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

French courts have broadly read their Civil Code’s oddly written Article 14 as authorizing territorial jurisdiction over virtually any action brought by a plaintiff of French nationality. This study traces the history of this provision from its genesis two hundred years ago to its extension under the current Brussels Regulation.

Nevertheless, for a number of reasons, French plaintiffs do not use Article 14 all that much, other than in status suits such as matrimonial matters or in situations where the defendant has assets in France (or now, under the Brussels regime, in Europe). The actual use of Article 14 ends …