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

Law Commons

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

Articles 1 - 26 of 26

Full-Text Articles in Law

Climate Change Litigation In The Federal Courts: Jurisdictional Lessons From California V. Bp, Gil Seinfeld Jan 2018

Climate Change Litigation In The Federal Courts: Jurisdictional Lessons From California V. Bp, Gil Seinfeld

Michigan Law Review Online

On March 21 of this year, something unusual took place at a U.S. courthouse in San Francisco: a group of scientists and attorneys provided Federal District Judge William H. Alsup with a crash course in climate science. The five-hour tutorial was ordered by Judge Alsup in connection with a lawsuit that had been filed by the cities of Oakland and San Francisco (“the Cities”) against the world’s five largest producers of fossil fuels. The central issue in the case is whether the energy companies can be held liable for continuing to market fossil fuels long after they learned that such …


When Is An Agency A Court? A Modified Functional Approach To State Agency Removal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, Nicholas Jackson Dec 2015

When Is An Agency A Court? A Modified Functional Approach To State Agency Removal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, Nicholas Jackson

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note argues that courts should interpret 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which permits removal from state court to federal court, to allow removal from state administrative agencies when the agency performs “court-like functions.” Circuits that apply a literal interpretation of the statute and forbid removal from state agencies should adopt this “functional” approach. The functional approach, which this Note calls the McCullion-Floeter test, should be modified to comport with legislative intent and public policy considerations: first, state agency adjudications should not be removable when the adjudication requires technical expertise, which federal courts cannot obtain because they adjudicate cases in a …


The S&P Litigation And Access To Federal Court: A Case Study In The Limits Of Our Removal Model, Gil Seinfeld Jan 2013

The S&P Litigation And Access To Federal Court: A Case Study In The Limits Of Our Removal Model, Gil Seinfeld

Articles

On June 6, 2013, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the consolidation of fifteen actions filed by state attorneys general against the Standard & Poor’s rating agency for its role in the collapse of the market for structured finance securities. The cases are important: The underlying events shook markets worldwide and contributed to a global recession, the legal actions themselves take aim at foundational aspects of the way rating agencies go about their business, and the suits threaten the imposition of significant fines and penalties against S&P. So it is unsurprising that the order of the MDL …


De-Frauding The System: Sham Plaintiffs And The Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine, Matthew C. Monahan May 2012

De-Frauding The System: Sham Plaintiffs And The Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine, Matthew C. Monahan

Michigan Law Review

Playing off the strict requirements of federal diversity jurisdiction, plaintiffs can structure their suits to prevent removal to federal court. A common way to preclude removability is to join a nondiverse party. Although plaintiffs have a great deal of flexibility, they may include only those parties that have a stake in the lawsuit. Put another way, a court will not permit a plaintiff to join a party to a lawsuit when that party is being joined solely to prevent removal. The most useful tool federal courts employ to prevent this form of jurisdictional manipulation is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure …


A Crisis In Federal Habeas Law, Eve Brensike Primus Jan 2012

A Crisis In Federal Habeas Law, Eve Brensike Primus

Reviews

Everyone recognizes that federal habeas doctrine is a mess. Despite repeated calls for reform, federal judges continue to waste countless hours reviewing habeas petitions only to dismiss the vast majority of them on procedural grounds. Broad change is necessary, but to be effective, such change must be animated by an overarching theory that explains when federal courts should exercise habeas jurisdiction. In Habeas for the Twenty-First Century: Uses, Abuses, and the Future of the Great Writ, Professors Nancy King and Joseph Hoffmann offer such a theory. Drawing on history, current practice, and empirical data, King and Hoffmann find unifying themes …


Clarification Needed: Fixing The Jurisdiction And Venue Clarification Act, William Baude Jan 2012

Clarification Needed: Fixing The Jurisdiction And Venue Clarification Act, William Baude

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

One hates to seem ungrateful. Judges and scholars frequently call for Congress to fix problems in the law of jurisdiction and procedure, and Congress doesn't usually intervene. In that light, the Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act ("JVCA"),[1] signed into law on December 7, 2011, ought to be a welcome improvement. And hopefully, on balance, it will be. But in at least one area that it attempts to clarify, the JVCA leaves much to be desired. Professor Arthur Hellman has called the JVCA "the most far-reaching package of revisions to the Judicial Code since the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990."[2] The …


Article I, Article Iii, And The Limits Of Enumeration, Gil Seinfeld Jan 2010

Article I, Article Iii, And The Limits Of Enumeration, Gil Seinfeld

Articles

Article I, Section 8 and Article Ill, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution deploy parallel strategies for constraining the power of the federal government. They enumerate powers that the national legislature and judiciary, respectively, are permitted to exercise and thereby implicitly prohibit these two branches of government from exercising powers not enumerated. According to conventional thinking, this strategy has failed in connection with Article I and succeeded in connection with Article III. That is, it is widely acknowledged that Congress routinely exercises powers that are difficult to square with the Article I enumeration; but it is commonly thought that the …


Structure And Precedent, Jeffrey C. Dobbins Jan 2010

Structure And Precedent, Jeffrey C. Dobbins

Michigan Law Review

The standard model of vertical precedent is part of the deep structure of our legal system. Under this model, we rarely struggle with whether a given decision of a court within a particular hierarchy is potentially binding at all. When Congress or the courts alter the standard structure and process offederal appellate review, however, that standard model of precedent breaks down. This Article examines several of these unusual appellate structures and highlights the difficulties associated with evaluating the precedential effect of decisions issued within them. For instance, when Congress consolidates challenges to agency decision making in a single federal circuit, …


The Federal Courts As A Franchise: Rethinking The Justifications For Federal Question Jurisdiction, Gil Seinfeld Jan 2009

The Federal Courts As A Franchise: Rethinking The Justifications For Federal Question Jurisdiction, Gil Seinfeld

Articles

The components of the Federal Franchise model-procedural homogeneity, cultural conformity, and technical competence-should be familiar. The federal courts' capacity to provide these benefits has not escaped commentators' notice; indeed, there are points of connection between these features of federal court adjudication and the individual fragments of the conventional account.l0 But prior scholarly discussion of these themes has been unsystematic, treating them as (at best) secondary considerations when it comes to the allocation of federal question cases between the state and federal courts. This Article attempts to weave together these previously disconnected strands of thinking about federal court adjudication and to …


A Call For The End Of The Doctrine Of Realignment, Jacob S. Sherkow Jan 2008

A Call For The End Of The Doctrine Of Realignment, Jacob S. Sherkow

Michigan Law Review

In Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank, 1941, the Supreme Court established the doctrine of realignment, requiring federal courts to examine the issues in dispute and realign each party as plaintiff or defendant if necessary. Due to the complete diversity requirement, realignment gave the federal courts the ability to both create and destroy diversity jurisdiction. Since 1941, the federal courts have struggled to interpret the central holding in Indianapolis, and have created several competing "tests" for realignment. This confusion has made the doctrine of realignment unworkable. Realignment along with each of the present tests-encourages jurisdictional abuses by forcing the federal …


The Puzzle Of Complete Preemption, Gil Seinfeld Jan 2007

The Puzzle Of Complete Preemption, Gil Seinfeld

Articles

Part I introduces the central themes in the law of federal question jurisdiction. It describes the prevailing interpretations of the constitutional and statutory texts governing the federal courts' jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving questions of federal law, and it explores the reasons for the establishment of such jurisdiction. This Part also introduces the well-pleaded complaint rule and examines the reasons for its adoption by the Supreme Court. Part II provides a detailed account of complete preemption doctrine, under which parties are permitted to usher state-law claims into the federal courts despite the apparent absence of any federal question on the …


Protecting Native Americans: The Tribe As Parens Patriae, Cami Fraser Jan 2000

Protecting Native Americans: The Tribe As Parens Patriae, Cami Fraser

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

This Note argues that Tribes have parens patriae standing to protect their citizens through litigation on their behalf, even if not all of their citizens are engaged in the litigation. Part I examines the current requirements of parens patriae standing, as articulated by the Supreme Court. Part II briefly examines the nature of tribal sovereignty within American jurisprudence and concludes that parens patriae standing is a retained right of the Tribes. Part III examines the way in which the Federal District Courts have incorrectly handled tribal parens patriae standing. This section argues for a reexamination of Supreme Court doctrine when …


Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Claims By Plaintiffs In Diversity Cases: Making Sense Of 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (B), Darren J. Gold Jun 1995

Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Claims By Plaintiffs In Diversity Cases: Making Sense Of 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (B), Darren J. Gold

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines the language and legislative history of section 1367(b) and proposes a uniform test for determining the circumstances in which subsection (b) authorizes the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Part I of this Note explains the doctrines of pendent and ancillary jurisdiction and examines how the Supreme Court's decision in Finley v. United States called these doctrines into question. Part II examines the language and legislative history of section 1367 and concludes that the statute only prohibits the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs in diversity cases when doing so would permit plaintiffs to circumvent the complete …


Transfer And Choice Of Federal Law: The Appellate Model, Robert A. Ragazzo Feb 1995

Transfer And Choice Of Federal Law: The Appellate Model, Robert A. Ragazzo

Michigan Law Review

In light of recent developments, a reexamination of the position that transferee federal law applies regardless of the context is in order. This article argues that the consensus that existed prior to the Marcus article and the Korean Air Lines case, although not based upon the most thorough analysis, comprises the better view: transferee federal law should apply after permanent but not MDL transfers.


Removal And The Eleventh Amendment: The Case For District Court Remand Discretion To Avoid A Bifurcated Suit, Mitchell N. Berman Dec 1993

Removal And The Eleventh Amendment: The Case For District Court Remand Discretion To Avoid A Bifurcated Suit, Mitchell N. Berman

Michigan Law Review

This Note concludes that the Sixth Circuit was half right: when a civil action names both state and private defendants - what this Note terms a "mixed case" - and when the claims against private defendants arise under federal law, the district court must grant removal of the case8 and must remand the claims against the state defendant. However, this Note also observes that the Fifth Circuit probably achieved the better result. After defendants have removed a mixed case to federal court and the district court has remanded the barred claims, the dual court systems and the parties will usually …


The Federal Courts In The Political Order: Judicial Jurisdiction And American Political Theory, James Hopenfeld May 1992

The Federal Courts In The Political Order: Judicial Jurisdiction And American Political Theory, James Hopenfeld

Michigan Law Review

A Review of The Federal Courts in the Political Order: Judicial Jurisdiction and American Political Theory by Martin H. Redish


Treatise Writing And Federal Jurisdiction Scholarship: Does Doctrine Matter When Law Is Politics?, Richard A. Matasar May 1991

Treatise Writing And Federal Jurisdiction Scholarship: Does Doctrine Matter When Law Is Politics?, Richard A. Matasar

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Federal Jurisdiction by Erwin Chemerinsky and Federal Jurisdiction 1990 Supplement by Erwin Chemerinsky


Isolationism Or Deference? The Alien Tort Claims Act And The Separation Of Powers, Victor A. Pappalardo Jan 1989

Isolationism Or Deference? The Alien Tort Claims Act And The Separation Of Powers, Victor A. Pappalardo

Michigan Journal of International Law

This Note examines the rationales behind Filartiga and other cases which have had the opportunity to pass upon its holding, notably the holdings in Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic and Forti v. Suarez- Mason. It then focuses on the validity of these rationales with respect to the constitutional separation of powers scheme. In so doing, it analyzes Filartiga's conclusions in light of the act of state and political question doctrines, two closely interrelated doctrines which have been at the forefront of the separation of powers criticisms of Filartiga. This Note concludes by suggesting that a clear case exists …


The War On Diversity, John W. Reed Jan 1983

The War On Diversity, John W. Reed

Other Publications

Over the past decade or more there have been strong pressures to abolish the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts. With the strong backing of the prestigious American Law Institute and many scholars, and with the support of the Chief Justice, Senator Kennedy, and others, specific proposals have been introduced in Congress, have been discussed at enormous length, and have passed one or the other House but not both. At the moment, therefore, we still have diversity jurisdiction, and it is safe to predict that abolition of diversity will not occur during the present session of Congress. Nevertheless, the long-term …


Federal Jurisdiction: The Perils And Rewards Of Pulling Things Together, Gene R. Shreve Mar 1982

Federal Jurisdiction: The Perils And Rewards Of Pulling Things Together, Gene R. Shreve

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Federal Jurisdiction: Tensions in the Allocation of Judicial Power by Martin H. Redish


Jurisdictional Conflicts Over Counterclaims Against The United States, David G. Swenson Oct 1977

Jurisdictional Conflicts Over Counterclaims Against The United States, David G. Swenson

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This article first discusses the different approaches that courts have used in determining district court jurisdiction over counterclaims and the differing limits that are imposed upon the size of the counterclaim. Second, it examines the relationship between the Court of Claims and the district courts in cases where the defendant cannot counterclaim for full relief in a district court. The article concludes with several legislative proposals that could lessen the uncertainty and lack of uniformity among the courts currently facing a defendant who wants to counterclaim against the government.


Admiralty Procedure And Jurisdiction After The 1966 Unification, David W. Robertson Aug 1976

Admiralty Procedure And Jurisdiction After The 1966 Unification, David W. Robertson

Michigan Law Review

From the nation's beginning, the federal district courts have been vested with jurisdiction in cases "of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction." Like its predecessor statute, section 1333 of the present Judicial Code asserts that the jurisdiction is "exclusive of the courts of the states," but the infamous "saving clause" goes on to negate that exclusivity in the bulk of maritime cases by giving the plaintiff the option of maintaining his action in any other court having jurisdiction over it. In "saving clause" cases--that is, cases that could have been brought in federal court under the admiralty jurisdiction, but which were maintained, …


Swift To Erie/York, Hanna And Beyond: Proposed Solutions For A Major Problem Of Diversity Jurisdiction, E. Blythe Stason Jr. Apr 1968

Swift To Erie/York, Hanna And Beyond: Proposed Solutions For A Major Problem Of Diversity Jurisdiction, E. Blythe Stason Jr.

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

There are four purposes of this article: First, to expose more fully the nature and dimensions of the difficult problem of determining whether a particular rule is "substantive" or "procedural"; Second, to discuss the various judicial attempts to solve it; Third, to show the shortcomings of those attempts, as manifested in both established doctrine and current federal judicial opinions; and, Fourth, to propose some solutions. It should be made clear that we are involved here with a question of allocating power within our federal union. Diversity characterization functions as an unintended device allocating power between state …


Federal Jurisdiction--Pendent Claims--Doctrine Of Pendent Jurisdiction Applies To Claim Of Second Plaintiff--Wilson V. American Chain & Cable Co.; Newman V. Freeman, Michigan Law Review Dec 1967

Federal Jurisdiction--Pendent Claims--Doctrine Of Pendent Jurisdiction Applies To Claim Of Second Plaintiff--Wilson V. American Chain & Cable Co.; Newman V. Freeman, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

In Wilson v. American Chain & Cable Co., plaintiff, whose son was injured by a defective lawnmower, brought a diversity action in federal district court on behalf of his son against the manufacturer, alleging damages in excess of the $10,000 jurisdictional minimum. Simultaneously, plaintiff sought recovery in his own name for medical bills and the expense of orthopedic shoes resulting from the injury. Because the latter claim was for less than $10,000, it was dismissed by the district court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal to the Third Circuit, held, inter alia, the claim of the …


Limitation Of Diversity Jurisdiction In Cases Affecting Foreign Corporations, Gustavus Ohlinger Apr 1932

Limitation Of Diversity Jurisdiction In Cases Affecting Foreign Corporations, Gustavus Ohlinger

Michigan Law Review

On February 29, 1932, President Hoover sent to the Senate and House of Representatives a message recommending that the jurisdiction of federal courts based on diversity of citizenship be modified by "providing that where a corporation, organized under the laws of one State, carries on business in another State it shall be treated as a citizen of the State wherein it carries on business as respects suits brought within that State between it and the residents thereof arising out of the business carried on in such State."


The Element Of Locality In The Law Of Criminal Jurisdiction, Henry W. Rogers Jan 1889

The Element Of Locality In The Law Of Criminal Jurisdiction, Henry W. Rogers

Articles

THE Federal Courts have no common law criminal jurisdiction. The question was raised in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, in 1798, in United States v. Worrall, 2 Dallas, 384, and the Court was equally divided in opinion. Iii 1818, Mr. Justice STORY, in United States v. Coolidge, 1 Gallison, 488, decided that there were common law offences against the United States. But this, as we shall see, was overruled by the Supreme Court. As early as 1807, Chief Justice MARSHALL, in Ex parte .Bollman, 4 Cranch, 75, had said, "This Court disclaims all jurisdiction not …