Law Commons^™

Airdropping Justice: The Constitutionality Of Service Of Process Via Non-Fungible Token, Jenifer Jackson

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

Self-Intervention, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

You cannot intervene in your own case, duh! Yet the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on just this issue: Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) allow state legislative leaders, seeking to represent the state’s sovereign interest, intervene when the attorney general is already representing the state’s sovereign interest. In this article, I contend that the text, history, and practice of Rule 24(a)(2) prohibits such “self-intervention.” I then explore how the fictive approach to state immunity established in Ex parte Young causes this confusion, while concluding that the doctrine, properly understood, focuses on real, not nominal, parties-in-interest. Next, I …

Acid Rain: Detoxifying Diversity Jurisdiction’S Poisonous Cycle, Baerett Nelson, Gavyn Roedel

Brigham Young University Prelaw Review

Diversity jurisdiction authorizes federal courts to act as impartial tribunals over certain matters of state law. To preserve states' judicial sovereignty, the US Supreme Court has prohibited diversity courts from directly interpreting state law, holding that federal courts must "predict" the legal outcome as if a state court had adjudicated. However, litigant abuse hinders consistency in legal outcomes. Discrepancies between courts spur forum shopping, which cyclically generates more legal incongruence. This paper identifies a "toxic cycle" plaguing diversity jurisdiction and offers five prescriptions which courts and Congress must use to reverse it.

Rule 4(K), Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction, And The Civil Rules Advisory Committee: Lessons From Attempted Reform, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

On multiple occasions, I have advocated for a revision to Rule 4(k) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that would disconnect personal jurisdiction in federal courts from the jurisdictional limits of their respective host states—to no avail. In this Essay, I will review—one final time—my argument for nationwide personal jurisdiction in the federal courts, recount my (failed) attempt to persuade the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to embrace my view, and reflect on what lessons may be drawn from the experience regarding the civil rulemaking process. My aim is to prompt discussion around potential rulemaking reforms and to equip …

28 U.S.C. § 1331 Jurisdiction In The Roberts Court: A Rights-Inclusive Approach, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

In this symposium piece, I argue that the Roberts Court, whether intentionally or not, is crafting a 28 U.S.C. § 1331 doctrine that is more solicitous of congressional control than the Supreme Court’s past body of jurisdictional law. Further, I contend that this movement toward greater congressional control is a positive step for the court. In making this argument, I review the foundations of the famous Holmes test for taking § 1331 jurisdiction and the legal positivist roots for that view. I discuss the six key Roberts Court cases that demonstrate a movement away from a simple Holmes test and …

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

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 …

Removal Without Approval? Corporate Litigative Authority To Consent To Federal Removal Where Adverse Parties Are Co-Equal Shareholder Co-Directors, James M. Mcclure

William & Mary Business Law Review

The Case of Swart v. Pawar involved a novel question of law: can a president of a corporation claim authority on behalf of that corporation to consent to federal removal in a suit against a co-equal shareholder co-director even though that president lacks board approval or explicit authority from the business’s bylaws or charter? To address this question, the parties in Swart analogized removal to suit initiation and defense. Since the federal courts hearing the case did not assess the validity of these analogical arguments or a president’s removal authority generally, this Note evaluates the analogies as well as several …

Dueling Grants: Reimagining Cafa’S Jurisdictional Provisions, Tanya Pierce

Georgia State University Law Review

More than a decade after Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), courts continue to disagree as to its application and meaning in a variety of situations, many of which have wide-ranging effects. This article considers a fundamental issue that arises after a certification decision is reached: whether a court’s subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA depends on a class being certified. Specifically, the article considers what happens when a federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction derives solely from CAFA’s minimal diversity jurisdiction provision and a request for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (Rule 23) …

The Necessary Narrowing Of General Personal Jurisdiction, William Grayson Lambert

Marquette Law Review

General personal jurisdiction allows a court to issue a binding judgment against a defendant in any case, even if the facts giving rise to the case are unrelated to that forum. In the six decades after International Shoe v. Washington, courts held that general jurisdiction existed whenever a defendant had substantial continuous and systemic contacts with the forum. This rule was narrowed significantly in 2011, however, when the Supreme Court in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown held that general jurisdiction was properly exercised only when a defendant had sufficient contacts to be “at home” in the forum.

Joint And Several Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson, Philip Pucillo

Scott Dodson

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 …

The Federal Rules At 75: Dispute Resolution, Private Enforcement Or Decisions According To Law?, James R. Maxeiner

Georgia State University Law Review

This essay is a critical response to the 2013 commemorations of the75th anniversary of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were introduced in 1938 to provide procedure to decide cases on their merits. The Rules were designed to replace decisions under the “sporting theory of justice”with decisions according to law.

By 1976, at midlife, it was clear that they were not achieving their goal. America’s proceduralists split into two sides about what to do. One side promotes rules that control and conclude litigation: e.g.,plausibility pleading, case management, limited discovery, cost indemnity for discovery, and summary …

Beyond Uniqueness: Reimagining Tribal Courts' Jurisdiction, Katherine J. Florey

Katherine J. Florey

If there is one point about tribal status that the Supreme Court has stressed for decades if not centuries, it is the notion that tribes as political entities are utterly one of a kind. This is to some extent reasonable; tribes, unlike other governments, have suffered the painful history of colonial conquest, making some distinctive treatment eminently justifiable. But recent developments have demonstrated to many tribes that uniqueness has its disadvantages. In the past few decades, the Supreme Court has undertaken a near-complete dismantling of tribal civil jurisdiction over nonmembers. Under current law, tribes have virtually no authority to permit …

Hypothetical Jurisdiction And Interjurisdictional Preclusion: A "Comity" Of Errors, Ely Todd Chayet

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Getting To Yes In Specialized Courts: The Unique Role Of Adr In Business Court Cases, Bejamin F. Tennille, Lee Applebaum, Anne Tucker Nees

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

The assumed compatibility between ADR and specialized courts is largely unexamined. Without being able to statistically validate the motivations and preferences of individual disputants in a manner to draw generalized conclusions, this article examines the relationship between ADR and specialized business courts by looking at how the two are structurally intertwined through existing procedural rules and implementation practices. Part I of this article describes the foundational structures and concepts behind both ADR and specialized business courts, as well as the similarities and differences between them. Part II explores the existing formal structural relationship between ADR and specialized courts by examining …

Structuring Jurisdictional Rules And Standards, Scott Dodson, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Scott Dodson

Ruth Bader Ginsburg And Sensible Pragmatism In Federal Jurisdictional Policy, Tobias Barrington Wolff

All Faculty Scholarship

This article, written as part of a symposium celebrating the work of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the occasion of her fifteenth year on the Supreme Court, examines the strain of sensible legal pragmatism that informs Justice Ginsburg's writing in the fields of Civil Procedure and Federal Jurisdiction. Taking as its point of departure the Supreme Court's decision in City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, in which Ginsburg dissented, the article develops an argument against strict textualism in federal jurisdictional analysis. In its place, the article urges a purposive mode of interpretation that approaches jurisdictional text with a …

Has The Erie Doctrine Been Repealed By Congress?, Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr.

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Geographic Variation In Informed Consent Law: Two Standards For Disclosure Of Treatment Risks, David M. Studdert, Michelle M. Mello, Marin K. Levy, Russell L. Gruen, Edward J. Dunn, E. John Orav, Troyen A. Brennan

Faculty Scholarship

We analyzed 714 jury verdicts in informed consent cases tried in 25 states in 1985–2002 to determine whether the applicable standard of care (“patient” vs. “professional” standard) affected the outcome. Verdicts for plaintiffs were significantly more frequent in states with a patient standard than in states with a professional standard (27 percent vs. 17 percent, P = 0.02). This difference in outcomes did not hold for other types of medical malpractice litigation (36 percent vs. 37 percent, P = 0.8). The multivariate odds of a plaintiff’s verdict were more than twice as high in states with a patient standard than …

The Forum Defendant Rule In Arkansas, Scott Dodson

Faculty Publications

Section 1441(b) of the removal statute prohibits removal of a diversity case if a defendant is a citizen of the state in which the case was originally filed. The bar to removal is known as the Forum Defendant Rule. Is removal in violation of the Forum Defendant Rule a jurisdictional or nonjurisdictional defect? The characterization matters because a jurisdictional defect can be raised at any time, while a nonjurisdictional defect must be raised within a specific period of time or is waived. The Supreme Court has not resolved the characterization, but a number of circuit courts, including the Eighth Circuit, …

Forgotten Equity: The Enforcement Of Forum Clauses, Graydon S. Staring

Graydon S. Staring

When courts differ widely and sharply on which of three or four procedural courses shouold be taken to enforce a contractual right of unquestioned validity, and every such course openly strains orthodox procedural doctrine, we may suslpect they are all wrong. We can confirm that they are wrong when we recognize the right in question is not a procedural incident at all but the right to a substantive performance, bargained for by the parties, that has about it an illusory appearance of procedure and, because of its substance, does not fit comfortably within merely procedural doctrine. Such is the right …

Showdown At The Domain Name Corral: Property Rights And Personal Jurisdiction Over Squatters, Poachers And Other Parasites, Ira Nathenson

Ira Steven Nathenson

This paper on domain names disputes has two main goals. The first is to analyze the principal points of litigation in domain name disputes, namely, personal jurisdiction and trademark liability. The second is to propose an analytic framework to better help resolve matters of jurisdiction and liability. Regarding personal jurisdiction, domain names are problematic because an internet site can be viewed almost anywhere, potentially subjecting the domain name owner to suit everywhere. For example, should a Florida domain name owner automatically be subject to suit in Alaska where the site can be viewed? If not, then where? Regarding liability, trademark …

Where's The Beef? The Interjurisdictional Effects Of New Jersey's Entire Controversy Doctrine, Stephen B. Burbank

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Reluctant Partner: Making Procedural Law For International Civil Litigation, Stephen B. Burbank

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Compounding Or Creating Confusion About Supplemental Jurisdiction? A Reply To Professor Freer, Thomas D. Rowe Jr., Stephen B. Burbank, Thomas M. Mengler

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Coda On Supplemental Jurisdiction, Stephen B. Burbank, Thomas D. Rowe Jr., Thomas M. Mengler

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Adjudicatory Jurisdiction And Class Actions, Diane P. Wood

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Shaffer V. Heitner: A Death Warrant For The Transient Rule Of In Personam Jurisdiction, Daniel O. Bernstine

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Practice And Procedure, Martin J. Kane

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.