Law Commons^™

Enforcing Outbound Forum Selection Clauses In State Court, John Coyle, Katherine Robinson

Indiana Law Journal

Forum selection clauses are a staple of modern business law. Parties agree, ex ante, on where they can sue one another and then rely on the courts to enforce these agreements. Although the number of contracts containing forum selection clauses has skyrocketed in recent years, there is a dearth of empirical information about enforcement practice at the state level. Are there any states that refuse to enforce them? How frequently are they enforced? Under what circumstances, if any, will these clauses be deemed unenforceable? The existing literature provides few answers to these questions.

This Article aims to fill that gap. …

Degrees Of Deference: Applying Vs. Adopting Another Sovereign's Law, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Review

Familiar to all Federal Courts enthusiasts is the Erie distinction between federal actors’ obligatory application of state law and their voluntary adoption of state law as federal law. This Article’s thesis is that this significant distinction holds in all other situations where a sovereign employs another’s law: not only in the analogous reverse-Erie resolution of federal law’s constraint on state actors, but also in the horizontal choice-of-law setting and even in connection with the status of international law. Application and adoption are different avenues by which to approach a pluralist world. Application involves the recognition of the other sovereign’s law …

Custom In Our Courts: Reconciling Theory With Reality In The Debate About Erie Railroad And Customary International Law, Nikki C. Gutierrez, Mitu Gulati

Faculty Scholarship

One of the most heated debates of the last two decades in U.S. legal academia focuses on customary international law’s domestic status after Erie Railroad v. Tompkins. At one end, champions of the “modern position” support customary international law’s (“CIL”) wholesale incorporation into post-Erie federal common law. At the other end, “revisionists” argue that federal courts cannot apply CIL as federal law absent federal legislative authorization. Scholars on both sides of the Erie debate also make claims about the sources judges reference when discerning CIL. They then use these claims to support their arguments regarding CIL’s domestic status. Interestingly, neither …

Federal Jurisdiction Over U.S. Citizens' Claims For Violations Of The Law Of Nations In Light Of Sosa, Gwynne Skinner

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

A General Defense Of Erie Railroad Co. V. Tompkins, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins was the most important federalism decision of the Twentieth Century. Justice Brandeis’s opinion for the Court stated unequivocally that “[e]xcept in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state. . . . There is no federal general common law.” Seventy-five years later, however, Erie finds itself under siege. Critics have claimed that it is “bereft of serious intellectual or constitutional support” (Michael Greve), based on a “myth” that must be “repressed” (Craig Green), and even “the worst decision …

Redeeming Erie: A Response To Suzanna Sherry , Donald Earl Childress Iii

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bankruptcy - Creditor's Right Against Entirety Property - Applicablity Of State Law When United States Is Plaintiff, James Cripe

Michigan Law Review

The United States as assignee sought a joint judgment on four unsecured promissory notes signed by the defendants, who are husband and wife. The proceeds of the notes were used to improve real property held by the entireties by the defendants. The husband had filed in bankruptcy before the assignment of the notes to plaintiff and was discharged from his joint and several liability on the promissory notes prior to the commencement of any action on them. His estate by the entireties, however, was not used to satisfy any listed debts because under state law he had no divisible title …

"Federal Question" Jurisdiction -- A Snare And A Delusion, Ernest J. London

Michigan Law Review

Poorly defined criteria in the area of jurisdiction are especially wasteful, generating as they often do expensive and protracted litigation over threshold issues, rather than promoting the speedy determination of lawsuits on their merits. One of the most perplexing exercises in American law practice is the effort to define with certainty the original jurisdiction of the lower federal courts in matters where there is no diversity of citizenship. Although this general head of federal jurisdiction has persistently and pervasively been characterized as "federal question" jurisdiction, it is doubtful whether there is, in fact, original jurisdiction in the lower federal courts …

The Law Of The Collective Agreement, Charles O. Gregory

Michigan Law Review

The Wagner Act contained no law governing collective agreements. Congress left their enforcement to the state and federal courts under the miserable body of common-law rules. Under various theories the courts worried about consideration, mutuality of obligation, duress and public policy aspects as if they were dealing with conventional contracts.

Any More Light On Haddock V. Haddock? The Problem Of Domicil In Divorce, Harold Wright Holt

Michigan Law Review

AT first glance it seems a work of foolhardiness or of supererogation to embark upon a rediscussion of any problems arising from Haddock v. Haddock. True, the decision of the majority of the Supreme Court in that case has not won wholehearted support from the bench or legal profession. True it is, also, that collusive divorces still flourish. These considerations alone might, perhaps, lead the reader to concede that it would not be unfruitful to speculate upon an eventual modification of some of the principles which the Court in that case approved. If, however, further justification is demanded of …