Law Commons^™

Interjurisdictional Preclusion, Howard M. Erichson

Michigan Law Review

Res judicata is hard enough already. Consider it at the interjurisdictional level, and we are asking for headaches. But consider it at that level we must, because litigation trends make interjurisdictional preclusion more important than ever. Lawyers, judges, litigants, and other litigation participants increasingly must contemplate the possibility that a lawsuit will have claim-preclusive or issue-preclusive effect in a subsequent suit in another jurisdiction. With great frequency, multiple lawsuits arise out of single or related transactions or events. Mass tort litigation and complex commercial litigation provide the most emphatic examples, but the phenomenon of multiple related lawsuits extends to every …

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.

Personal Jurisdiction And Choice Of Law, James Martin

Michigan Law Review

The time has come for the Supreme Court to declare that a state may not apply its own law to a case unless it has the "minimum contacts" required by International Shoe for the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Although the present state of the law is less than certain, the Supreme Court has not yet required that a state show it has minimum contacts with a defendant before applying its law. As a result, in some cases where a state has obtained personal jurisdiction because of a defendant's contacts unrelated to the case - contacts such …

Interstate Publication, William L. Prosser

Michigan Law Review

It is an amazing and a sobering thought that by the utterance of a single ill-considered word a man may today commit forty-nine separate torts, for each of which he may be severally liable, in as many jurisdictions within the continental limits of the United States alone, and without regard to any additional liability he may incur in the possessions and territories and in foreign countries. It calls to mind at once in all solemnity those first words that ever were sent over an interstate wire, and later to the moon. What, indeed, hath God wrought!

Little less astonishing, although …