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

Law Commons™

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

Selected Works

Scott Dodson

Jurisdiction

Articles 1 - 15 of 15

Full-Text Articles in Law

The Irrelevance Of Jurisdictionality In Fort Bend County V. Davis, Scott Dodson Dec 2018

The Irrelevance Of Jurisdictionality In Fort Bend County V. Davis, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

In Fort Bend County v. Davis, the Supreme Court has been asked to decide whether Title VII's exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional. I argue that the Court should not answer that question because it is the wrong question. The real issue confronting the parties in the case is whether the district court was correct to dismiss a claim for failure to exhaust when the defendant failed to raise the exhaustion defect until summary judgment. That issue implicates the effects of the defect, not its character. Those effects can be determined from ordinary principles of statutory interpretation. The parties and the …

Go to article

Jurisdiction And Its Effects, Scott Dodson Dec 2016

Jurisdiction And Its Effects, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson


Jurisdiction is experiencing an identity crisis. The Court has given jurisdiction three different identities: jurisdiction as power, jurisdiction as defined effects, and jurisdiction as positive law. These identities are at war with each other, and each is unsustainable on its own. The result has been a breakdown in the application of the basic question of what is jurisdictional and what is not.
      I aim to rehabilitate jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is none of the three identities above. Rather, jurisdiction determines forum in a multiforum system. It seeks not to limit a particular court in isolation but instead to define boundaries and …

Go to article

Joint And Several Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson, Philip Pucillo Dec 2015

Joint And Several Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson, Philip Pucillo

Scott Dodson

Is federal diversity jurisdiction case-specific or claim-specific? Consider a state-law case in federal court between a Texas plaintiff and two defendants—one from California and the other from Texas. The complete-diversity rule taught to every first-year law student makes clear that, when the diversity defect is noted, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the action as a whole. The court cannot, therefore, proceed with either claim as long as the nondiverse claim remains. But does the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction nevertheless extend to the diverse claim, such that the case can continue if the spoiler is dismissed? This question is both pervasive …

Go to article

Amicus Brief In Support Of Neither Party In Sebelius V. Auburn Reg. Med. Ctr., No. 11-1231, Scott Dodson Aug 2012

Amicus Brief In Support Of Neither Party In Sebelius V. Auburn Reg. Med. Ctr., No. 11-1231, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

This amicus brief in support of neither party in the merits case of Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, No. 11-1231, urges the Supreme Court to decide the question presented (whether 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(a)(3) permits equitable tolling) without resort to jurisdictional labels.

Go to article

Structuring Jurisdictional Rules And Standards, Scott Dodson, Elizabeth Mccuskey Dec 2011

Structuring Jurisdictional Rules And Standards, Scott Dodson, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Scott Dodson

This essay, for Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc, critically assesses Jonathan Remy Nash’s article, "On the Efficient Deployment of Rules and Standards to Define Federal Jurisdiction," which proposes to use rules to demarcate jurisdictional boundaries at the front end while "migrating" standards into a discretionary abstention phase at the back end. While we believe Nash's cause is worthy, and while we applaud his creativity, we think his proposal suffers from ambiguous definitions of “rules” and “standards” and assumes that clear and simple “rules” are actually attainable in jurisdictional doctrine. We also show that Nash's proposal works only with a broad …

Go to article

The Complexity Of Jurisdictional Clarity, Scott Dodson Feb 2011

The Complexity Of Jurisdictional Clarity, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

The ideal of clear and simple jurisdictional rules seems like a no-brainer. Clarity in areas of subject-matter jurisdiction generally reduces the cost of litigating those issues and thus preserves litigant and judicial resources for the merits of a dispute. As a result, scholars and justices regularly promote the rhetoric of jurisdictional clarity. Yet no one has probed that rhetoric or reconciled it with the reality of subject-matter jurisdiction doctrine, which is anything but clear and simple. This Article begins to fill that gap, and, in the process, shifts the perspective of existing conversations between rules and standards and between mandates …

Go to article

Hybridizing Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson Dec 2010

Hybridizing Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

Federal jurisdiction—the “power” of the court—is seen as something separate and unique. As such, it has a litany of special effects that define jurisdictionality as the antipode of nonjurisdictionality. The resulting conceptualization is that jurisdictionality and nonjurisdictionality occupy mutually exclusive theoretical and doctrinal space. In a recent Article in Stanford Law Review, I refuted this rigid dichotomy of jurisdictionality and nonjurisdictionality by explaining that nonjurisdictional rules can be “hybridized” with any—or even all—of the attributes of jurisdictionality.
This Article drops the other shoe. Jurisdictional rules can be hybridized, too. Jurisdictional rules can be hybridized with nonjurisdictional features in myriad forms. …

Go to article

Amicus Brief, First American Financial Corp. V. Edwards, No. 10-708, Scott Dodson Dec 2009

Amicus Brief, First American Financial Corp. V. Edwards, No. 10-708, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

No abstract provided.

Go to article

O'Connell V. Chapman Univ., No. 10-810, Scott Dodson Dec 2009

O'Connell V. Chapman Univ., No. 10-810, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

No abstract provided.

Go to article

In Search Of Removal Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson Dec 2007

In Search Of Removal Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

The ubiquitous and somewhat careless use of the term “jurisdictional” by courts has spawned confusion over what is and is not jurisdictional in a variety of contexts, including removal. The issue has critical implications for litigants. Yet it lacks scholarly coverage and is the subject of deep divisions in the lower courts. In this Article, I develop an initial framework for characterizing provisions of the removal statute as jurisdictional or procedural. I build upon the groundwork laid by prior precedent and modify it to account for the quasi-jurisdictional nature of removal and its impact on the federal-state balance of power. …

Go to article

Mandatory Rules, Scott Dodson Dec 2007

Mandatory Rules, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

Whether a limitation is jurisdictional or not is an important but often obscure question. In an Article forthcoming in Northwestern University Law Review, I proposed a framework for courts to resolve the issue in a principled way, but I left open the next logical question: what does it mean if a rule is characterized as nonjurisdictional? Jurisdictional rules generally have a clearly defined set of traits: they are not subject to equitable exceptions, consent, waiver, or forfeiture; they can be raised at any time; and they can be raised by any party or the court sua sponte. This jurisdictional rigidity …

Go to article

Appreciating Mandatory Rules: A Reply To Critics, Scott Dodson Dec 2007

Appreciating Mandatory Rules: A Reply To Critics, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

This short essay, replying to the responses of Professors Burch and Dane and Mr. Poor, address their critiques of my original essay, "Jurisdictionality and Bowles v. Russell."

Go to article

The Failure Of Bowles V. Russell, Scott Dodson Dec 2007

The Failure Of Bowles V. Russell, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

Last term, the Supreme Court decided Bowles v. Russell—perhaps the year’s most underrated case—which characterized the time to file a civil notice of appeal as jurisdictional and therefore not subject to equitable excuses for noncompliance. In so holding, the Court overstated the supporting precedent, inflated the jurisdictional importance of statutes, and undermined an important recent movement to clarify when a rule is jurisdictional and when it is not. This did not have to be. The Court missed a golden opportunity to chart a middle course—holding the rule mandatory but nonjurisdictional—that would have been more consistent with precedent while resolving the …

Go to article

Jurisdictionality And Bowles V. Russell, Scott Dodson Jul 2007

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.

Go to article

The Forum Defendant Rule In Arkansas, Scott Dodson Dec 2006

The Forum Defendant Rule In Arkansas, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

This article analyzes the circuit split (between the Eighth Circuit and the other circuits) on the jurisdictionality of the forum defendant rule, the rule that prevents a resident defendant from removing a state case to federal court on diversity grounds.

Go to article