Law Commons^™

The Admiralty Jurisdiction Of Torts And Crimes And The Failed Search For Its Purposes, Graydon S. Staring

Graydon S. Staring

This article views the jurisdiction, or power, of the Admiral in its historic setting as that of a governor, a ruler, of the offshore waters claimed by the kings. He had military, legislative (regulatory), police and judicial powers, the recognition of which became customary for maritime nations. The judicial jurisdiction comprised the legal questions that arose from his other functions. Like the rest of his powers, it was territorial rather than defined by other subject matter. This was the situation when the Constitution was adopted, when admiralty in its broadest form known to us was found in the colonies and …

From Incitement To Indictment? Prosecuting Iran's President For Advocating Israel's Destruction And Piecing Together Incitement Law's Emerging Analytical Framework, Gregory S. Gordon

Gregory S. Gordon

On October 25, 2005, at an anti-Zionism conference in Tehran, Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called for Israel to "be wiped off the face of the map" -- the first in a series of incendiary speeches arguably advocating liquidation of the Jewish state. Certain commentators argue that these speeches constitute direct and public incitement to commit genocide. This Article analyzes these arguments by examining the nature and scope of recent groundbreaking developments in incitement law arising from the Rwandan genocide prosecutions. For the first time in the legal literature, the Article pieces together an analytical framework based on principles derived from …

On Mutual Mistakes, Daniel Cohen

Daniel Cohen

Herein we reconsider what has for over a century been a judicial inconsistency inspiring mostly dismissive scorn. We find a classical disparity in judicial reasoning to have a surprising hidden profundity and we identify it as a sincere though unintentional attempt of erstwhile courts to perform what would today be seem as an admirable effort of social policy making. We shall examine a curious pair of seemingly inconsistent rulings from a century ago and conclude that they are actually consistent with the principles of Law and Economics as understood today, although they were at that time uncomfortably incongruous. The only …

Rubin V. The Islamic Republic Of Iran - A Struggle For Control Of Persian Antiquities In America, James A. Wawrzyniak

James A Wawrzyniak Jr

This paper analyzes the multi-jurisdictional attachment and execution proceedings taking place sub nomine Rubin v. The Islamic Republic of Iran. The Rubin litigation raises novel issues in the areas of art law and foreign relations. The first section of the paper evaluates whether third parties have standing to raise a sovereign state’s immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). The second delves into the particulars of the commercial use exception to the FSIA. The final section considers various provisions of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2001, a new law with little judicial gloss. These three main issues are …

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: Using A "Shield" Statute As A "Sword" For Obtaining Federal Jurisdiction In Art And Antiquities Cases, Lauren F. Redman

Lauren F Redman

This paper examines the emergence of art and antiquities restitution cases being brought in U.S. federal courts under the FSIA. The purpose of the paper is twofold. First, it aims to serve as a compendium of the major art and antiquities restitution cases brought under the FSIA up to this point. In addition, it examines several questions concerning the appropriateness of the FSIA being used in the way it has been in the context of the art cases. Have the jurisdiction granting provisions springing from the exceptions to the FSIA eclipsed the primary purpose of foreign sovereign immunity, which is …

Burdens Of Jurisdictional Proof, Lonny Hoffman

Lonny Hoffman

Having passed the most significant legislative reform of complex litigation in American history, advocates of the Class Action Fairness Act have now set their sights on more technical battles of statutory interpretation and application. Their ambitions span a broad range: from trying to stretch the boundaries of CAFA’s reach, in the first instance, to divining new principles in the conflict of laws which bear, ultimately, on the propriety of class certification. One of the most important questions with which courts are wrestling with regard to the Class Action Fairness Act concerns the burden of jurisdictional proof. In the broadest sense, …

Originalism And The Problem Of Fundament Fairness, R. George Wright

R. George Wright Professor

Originalism is perhaps the most prominent theory of how to interpret the Constitution. Originalism, however, rests upon a process of constitutional drafting and ratification that systematically excluded important demographic groups. Originalism thus rests on a fundamental injustice. Crucially, this fundamental injustice is not confined to the past once the various excluded groups gain the franchise. Originalist theories remain crucially tainted and skewed, particularly with respect to constitutional questions on which originally excluded groups had interests diverging from those of non-excluded groups. The continuing effects of the fundamental unfairness of the constitutional drafting and ratifying process are explored through considering the …

Rejecting The Touchstone: Complete Preemption And Congressional Intent After Beneficial National Bank V. Anderson, Margaret C. Tarkington

Margaret C Tarkington

The paper examines the doctrine of complete preemption—a jurisdictional doctrine that allows for removal based on a federal preemption defense contrary to the well-pleaded complaint rule. The doctrine was expanded by the Supreme Court in 2003 in Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson. This paper explores efficiency, separation of powers, and federalism problems created by Anderson, both generally and in the context of a specific statutory scheme—the Carmack Amendment. The paper then offers a new framework, relying on congressional intent to create federal removal jurisdiction, for determining when complete preemption should apply.

The Domestic Legal Status Of Customary International Law In Comparative Perspective, David M. Ginn

David M Ginn

This essay considers the contested domestic legal status of customary international law. Two distinct positions have emerged in the debates about customary international law. The first position maintains that customary international law operates as a type of federal common law that is automatically incorporated into U.S. law and should be applied by courts in any appropriate case. The second position holds that only the political branches may incorporate customary international law into U.S. law, and that courts may only apply customary international law if a federal statute authorizes them to do so.

Drawing from the federal courts' experience with admiralty …

Infringement & The International Reach Of U.S. Patent Law, Moin A. Yahya, Cameron Hutchison

Moin A Yahya

American Patent Law, through both judicial and legislative efforts, has evolved from a strict territorial based set of laws asserting jurisdiction only over those infringements taking place on American soil to a more expansive set of rules asserting jurisdiction over any event that may harm patent holders in the United States regardless of where the infringement is taking place. This, we argue, is contrary to the original purpose of Patent Law and inconsistent with American obligations under the International Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS). We argue for a return to territorial based rules of jurisdiction. Such a …

“Manifest” Destiny?: How Some Courts Have Fallaciously Come To Require A Greater Showing Of Congressional Intent For Jurisdictional Exhaustion Than They Require For Preemption, Colin Miller

Colin Miller

Abstract for Colin Miller, “Manifest” Destiny?: How Some Courts Have Fallaciously Come To Require A Greater Showing Of Congressional Intent For Jurisdictional Exhaustion Than They Require For Preemption Congress engages in preemption when it enacts federal legislation that supersedes any existing state and local laws in a particular field and proscribes any future state and local regulation of that field. Because preemption repeals state and local legislative authority over traditional areas of state law, courts have understandably required that preemptive legislation evince “clear and manifest” Congressional intent to supersede state and local legislation. Conversely, when Congress includes a jurisdictional exhaustion …

L'Azione Revocatoria Internazionale Fra Giurisdizione E Legge Applicabile, Valerio Sangiovanni

Valerio Sangiovanni

No abstract provided.

Misguided Fairness? Regulating Arbitration By Statute: Empirical Evidence Of Declining Award Finality, Michael H. Leroy

Michael H LeRoy

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) created a national policy that promotes arbitration. Congress passed this law to end judicial hostility to arbitration. So far, no one has questioned this premise. My Article shows, however, that nineteenth century courts enforced arbitrator awards, even those that failed to conform to “technicalities and niceties.” Acting on the mistaken advice that judges excessively interfere with arbitration, Congress enacted a law that transfers oversight of arbitration from the judiciary to legislatures.

This change is affecting how court reviews arbitrator awards. I collected data in 426 federal and state court rulings in employment disputes from June …

International Organizations In Us Courts: Reconsidering The Anachronism Of Absolute Immunity, Steven B. Herz

Steven B. Herz

No abstract provided.

License To Sue?, Lorelei Ritchie De Larena

Lorelei Ritchie de Larena

Courts, commentators and practitioners have for too long viewed intellectual property law as a discrete discipline, without putting it into the proper theoretical context of general jurisprudence. Intellectual property law cannot and must not exist on its own, outside the normative framework of overlapping legal institutions. Even within the rubric of intellectual property, courts have overlooked the potential for cross-applying relevant doctrines between patent, copyright, and trademark law. Certainly, when intellectual property disputes touch on other disciplines, such as civil procedure, contract, or tort law, courts have tended to overlook their synergies, focusing instead on only one of several important …

Foreign Plaintiffs, Forum Non Conveniens, And Consistency, Andrew R. Klein

Andrew R Klein

Few topics inspire more debate than globalization. Yet, despite controversy, a more integrated global economy seems inevitable. As former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has stated, “arguing against globalization is like arguing against the laws of gravity.”

One consequence of globalization is an increased likelihood that a person will suffer harm caused by the conduct of an entity based outside her own country. This, in turn, can lead to a victim seeking compensation far from home. The trend is evident in the United States, where an increasing number of foreign plaintiffs are seeking relief based on events that took …

The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights At Sixty: Is It Still Right For The United States?, Tai-Heng Cheng

Tai-Heng Cheng

Many scholars and human rights advocates have hailed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a triumph for the human rights movement. The occasion of its sixtieth anniversary in 2008 provides pause to appraise if in fact it has been a success and whether it still is of any value to the United States. To conduct such an appraisal, this article reviewed the contemporaneous records of negotiations leading to the adoption of the Declaration by the UN General Assembly. It also reviewed the decisions of U.S. federal and state courts, the International Court of Justice, and Australian courts that have …

Jurisdictionality And Bowles V. Russell, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

When is a limitation “jurisdictional,” and when is it not? Litigators encounter these questions all the time in statutory coverage issues, in time limitations, and in a host of other preconditions. They are critical, for jurisdictional limitations are not subject to waiver or equitable exceptions, may be raised at any time, and obligate courts to monitor and raise them sua sponte. In Bowles v. Russell, the Court held that the statutory time limitation for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. This essay critiques Bowles, predicts some of the difficulties that it might cause, and offers a better approach.

The Lay-Up Warranty And Wilburn Boat: I.N.A. V. San Juan Excursions, Graydon S. Staring

Graydon S. Staring

This article is an exposition of the uselessness of factors of causation and increase of risk in cases of breach of the lay-up warranty and some reflections on the mischaracterization of federal maritime law as State law in looking for establishment or entrenchment under Wilburn Boat.

A Alteração Do Regimento Interno Do Supremo Tribunal Federal Para A Aplicação Da Repercussão Geral Da Questão Constitucional No Recurso Extraordinário, Nelson Rodrigues Netto

Nelson Rodrigues Netto

No abstract provided.

Standing To Sue In The Absence Of Prosecution: Can A Case Be Too Controversial For Case Or Controversy?, David T. Hardy

David T. Hardy

The Supreme Court has recognized that, except in highly unusual situations, a plaintiff has “harm in fact,” and thus standing to sue, if a criminal statute outlaws conduct in which he intends to engage and which is arguably within the protections of the Constitution. Three Circuits have, however, evolved contradictory strings of caselaw, in which certain challenges are assessed in accord with the Supreme Court’s teachings, while other, indistinguishable, challenges are subjected to much stricter standards, standards which are almost impossible to meet. The Circuits rarely attempt to reconcile the two sets of decisions, and when they do, the resolution …

Re-Evaluating Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction In Intellectual Property Disputes, Lorelei Ritchie De Larena

Lorelei Ritchie de Larena

The Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934 was quickly tagged by the U.S. Supreme Court as a simple procedural measure. Whether simple or procedural, the addition of the declaratory judgment option has dramatically increased the rights of would-be defendants. This is of special interest in patent law, where without the ability to initiate legal action, an alleged infringer would typically have no recourse but to either drop a lucrative business and lose a massive investment, or to languish in legal limbo while potentially accruing liability for treble damages. The option of a mirror-image lawsuit removes the patentee’s ability to unilaterally decide …

Trial And Error - Balancing The Scales Of Justice Through The Doctrines Of Stare Decisis And Ex Proprio Motu, Antonin I. Pribetic

Antonin I. Pribetic

Many will be familiar with the legal axiom: Great cases, like hard cases, make bad law. This comment addresses the obverse: Bad cases, like ordinary cases, make hard law. Put another way, to what extent should a judge or appellate court be bound by the doctrine of stare decisis when confronted with a legal precedent which is incorrect?

Happily Never After: When Final And Binding Arbitration Has No Fairy Tale Ending, Michael H. Leroy

Michael H LeRoy

We launched this empirical study 15 years after the Supreme Court decided Gilmer v. Interstate Johnson/Lane Corp., a key decision that enforced a mandatory arbitration agreement. Gilmer led to the widespread adoption of individual employment arbitration but provided courts no standards for reviewing these arbitration awards.

Until now, researchers have examined the fairness and legality of Gilmer agreements and other aspects of employment arbitration. Our timing is significant because employment arbitration has matured beyond the initial phase of pre-arbitration challenges to this forum. By now, a critical mass of individuals and their employers have been to arbitrations and appealed arbitrator …

On Mutual Mistakes, Daniel Cohen

Daniel Cohen

Herein we reconsider what has for over a century been a judicial inconsistency inspiring mostly dismissive scorn. We find a classical disparity in judicial reasoning to have a surprising hidden profundity and we identify it as a sincere though unintentional attempt of erstwhile courts to perform what would today be seen as an admirable effort of social policy making. We shall examine a curious pair of seemingly inconsistent rulings from a century ago and conclude that they are actually consistent with the principles of Law and Economics as understood today, although they were at that time uncomfortably incongruous. The only …

A Fraude À Execução E O Novo Art. 615-A, Do Cpc, Nelson Rodrigues Netto

Nelson Rodrigues Netto

No abstract provided.

In Defense Of Complete Preemption, Paul E. Mcgreal

Paul E. McGreal

Recent writings by Professors Gil Seinfeld and Trevor Morrison criticize the Supreme Court's complete preemption doctrine as misguided and unconstitutional, respectively. Professor Seinfeld suggests reforming the doctrine around field preemption, and Professor Morrison rejects complete preemption as inconsistent with separation of powers. This response defends the Supreme Court's doctrine as it currently stands: A state law claim arises under federal law (and so may be removed to federal court) when a federal statute both preempts the claim and supplies an exclusive federal remedy. This doctrine is a sensible application of the well-pleaded complaint rule that prevents improper circumvention of federal …

Reconciling Individual And Group Justice With The Need For Repose In Nazi-Looted Art Disputes: Creation Of An International Tribunal, Jennifer Kreder

Jennifer Kreder

The recent push for Holocaust reparations, which resulted in European, domestic and international funds, left a significant gap pertaining to Nazi-looted art. Claims to Nazi-looted art are exploding, creating a tremendous problem for the art market. This Article concludes that the best remedy for the problem is the creation of an international tribunal with compulsory jurisdiction to resolve claims to Nazi-looted art in a manner akin to an equitable hybrid of mediation and binding arbitration. The Tribunal would provide justice to both individual claimants with strong claims and other claimants who probably could not win in court but are nonetheless …

Federalism And The Tug Of War Within: Seeking Checks And Balance In The Interjurisdictional Gray Area, Erin Ryan

Erin Ryan

Federalism and the Tug of War Within explores tensions that arise among the underlying values of federalism when state or federal actors regulate within the “interjurisdictional gray area” that implicates both local and national concerns. Drawing examples from the failed response to Hurricane Katrina and other interjurisdictional problems to illustrate this conflict, the Article demonstrates how the trajectory set by the New Federalism’s “strict-separationist” model of dual sovereignty inhibits effective governance in these contexts. In addition to the anti-tyranny, pro-accountability, and localism-protective values of federalism, the Article identifies a problem-solving value inherent in the capacity requirement of American federalism’s subsidiarity …

Mandatory Gun Ownership, The Militia Census Of 1806, And Background Assumptions Concerning The Early American Right To Arms: A Cautious Response To Robert Churchill, William G. Merkel

William G. Merkel