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

Law Commons

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

Litigation

Pace University

Jurisdiction

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Is Citizen Suit Notice Jurisdictional And Why Does It Matter?, Karl S. Coplan Jan 2003

Is Citizen Suit Notice Jurisdictional And Why Does It Matter?, Karl S. Coplan

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The question of whether notice is jurisdictional or not has important ramifications for citizen suit litigation. The characterization of the notice requirement as “jurisdictional” implicates the proper procedure for raising notice objections, the means of curing notice defects, the question of waiver of notice objections, and the timing of raising notice objections. This article will conduct a brief review of the case law concerning the jurisdictional nature (or not) of the notice requirement, a consideration of the as-yet unnoticed impact of Steel Co. on the issue, and a discussion of the procedural and litigation ramifications of characterizing the notice element ...


What's Wrong With This Picture?: Rule Interpleader, The Anti-Injunction Act, In Personam Jurisdiction, And M.C. Escher, Donald L. Doernberg Jan 1996

What's Wrong With This Picture?: Rule Interpleader, The Anti-Injunction Act, In Personam Jurisdiction, And M.C. Escher, Donald L. Doernberg

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The effectiveness of interpleader depends upon the availability of injunctions against other proceedings. There is no congressional authorization of such injunctions for rule interpleader cases. If interpleader were an in rem action, one of the other exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act might save the day, but the Supreme Court has apparently foreclosed that option. This article examines that three-sided conflict. Part II discusses the problem in greater depth, focusing first on how interpleader functions and why it depends on being “the only game in town.” Part II next addresses the background and interpretation of the Anti-Injunction Act, exploring particularly the ...


"You Can Lead A Horse To Water . . .": The Supreme Court's Refusal To Allow The Exercise Of Original Jurisdiction Conferred By Congress, Donald L. Doernberg Jan 1990

"You Can Lead A Horse To Water . . .": The Supreme Court's Refusal To Allow The Exercise Of Original Jurisdiction Conferred By Congress, Donald L. Doernberg

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This Article will address primarily the lack of textual and historical support for the Court's narrow construction of jurisdictional provisions that cause it to deny the existence of jurisdiction. In addition, the Article will briefly describe the lack of historical support for the Court's independent development of the abstention doctrines and their consequent illegitimacy. Both areas share democratic theory and institutional legitimacy concerns that Professor Redish will address, but let me respectfully suggest that these issues are best understood in light of the congressional thought underlying the Title 28 authorizations.


History Comes Calling: Dean Griswold Offers New Evidence About The Jurisdictional Debate Surrounding The Enactment Of The Declaratory Judgment Act, Donald L. Doernberg, Michael B. Mushlin Jan 1989

History Comes Calling: Dean Griswold Offers New Evidence About The Jurisdictional Debate Surrounding The Enactment Of The Declaratory Judgment Act, Donald L. Doernberg, Michael B. Mushlin

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

In a recent article, we proposed that the Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934 was intended, contrary to the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation, to enlarge the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts. When Congress considered the Act, jurisdictional concerns centered around whether declaratory judgments would violate the case-or-controversy clause, not whether introduction of the device would expand the federal question jurisdiction Congress already had authorized. There is, indeed, substantial evidence that Congress intended to expand federal question jurisdiction to include at least two, and possibly three, case models; there is virtually no evidence supporting the contrary position taken by ...