Law Commons^™

Jurisdictional Amount In The Federal District Courts, William W. Hurst

Vanderbilt Law Review

In 1925, Judge Dobie, then professor of law at the University of Virginia, advanced a formula for determining the value of the matter in controversy in all federal question and diverse citizenship cases in the federal district courts. He called it a "plaintiff-viewpoint rule," and stated it thus: "The amount in controversy in the United States District Court is always to be determined by the value to the plaintiff of the right which he in good faith asserts in his pleading that sets forth the operative facts which constitute his cause of action."

Since then, the rule has received sanction …

Book Reviews, Noel T. Dowling (Reviewer), Hugo L. Black, Jr. (Reviewer), George H. Cate, Sr. (Reviewer), Henry N. Williams (Reviewer)

Vanderbilt Law Review

On Understanding the Supreme Court

By Paul A. Freund

Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1949. Pp. 130. $3.00

reviewer: Noel T. Dowling

==================================

Courts on Trial

By Jerome N. Frank

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1949. Pp. vii, 441. $5.00

reviewer: Hugo L. Black, Jr.

==================================

Hugo L. Black: A Study in the Judicial Process

By Charlotte Williams

Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1950. Pp. vii, 208. $3.50.

reviewer: George H. Cate, Sr.

====================================

Hatch Act Decisions (Political Activity Cases) of the United States Civil Service Commission

By James W. Irwin

Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1949. Pp. 304. $1.50 …

Special Problems In Drafting And Interpreting Procedural Codes And Rules, Charles E. Clark

Vanderbilt Law Review

My contribution to this symposium will consist of the advancement of one main thesis and four subordinate and supporting ones. My main thesis is simple indeed. Procedural rules must be viewed as grants or creations of judicial power. My subordinate theses then indicate certain complications showing that in practice the matter cannot be thus wholly disposed of. Though too much reform has so assumed, it turns out that telling a court it has power does not guarantee exercise of that power. Judicial inertia, precedent-mindedness, love of technical niceties--all play their part in halting procedural improvement. So does, even more, a …

Legal Writing On Statutory Construction, Paul H. Sanders, John W. Wade

Vanderbilt Law Review

This review does not purport to provide a complete critique of the various works in the field of Statutory Construction. It is not directed primarily to the specialist. Instead, it is intended to bring together for the benefit of the general practitioner the various books and other writings on the subject and thus amounts essentially to a bibliography. But an effort has been made to suggest the approach of the longer works and to estimate in some measure their value. Thus this symposium on the subject of Statutory Construction can be rounded out by providing convenient reference to other writings …

Book Reviews, Paul H. Douglas (Reviewer), Cecil Sims (Reviewer), Ray Forrester (Reviewer)

Vanderbilt Law Review

Book Reviews

Congress on Trial By James M. Burns New York: Harper & Brothers,1949. Pp. vii, 224. $3.00

reviewer: Paul H. Douglas

=================================

Language and the Law By Frederick A. Philbrick New York: MacMillanCo., 1949. Pp. v, 254. $3.75

reviewer: Cecil Sims

==================================

Commentary on the U.S. Judicial Code By James William Moore Albany: Matthew Bender and Company, 1949. Pp. viii, 684. $10.00

reviewer: Ray Forrester

Remarks On The Theory Of Appellate Decision And The Rules Or Canons About How Statutes Are To Be Construed, Karl N. Llwellyn

Vanderbilt Law Review

One does not progress far into legal life without learning that there is no single right and accurate way of reading one case, or of reading a bunch of cases. For

(1) Impeccable and correct doctrine makes clear that a case "holds"with authority only so much of what the opinion says as is absolutely necessary to sustain the judgment. Anything else is unnecessary and "distinguishable" and noncontrolling for the future. Indeed, if the judgment rests on two, three or four rulings, any of them can be rightly and righteously knocked out, for the future, as being thus "unnecessary." Moreover, any …

The Tidewater Case And Limited Jurisdiction Of Federal "Constitutional" Courts, Joe H. Foy

Vanderbilt Law Review

In the recent case of National Mutual Insurance Ca. v. Tidewater Transfer Co.,' the Act of April 20, 1940, allowing citizens of the District of Columbia and of the territories to sue and be sued in the district courts on the basis of diverse citizenship, was held constitutional insofar as it applies to citizens of the District of Columbia. The practical effect of the decision, in allowing Congress to remove a basic inequality among citizens of the United States, is perhaps commendable. However, there are broad theoretical implications in this holding, emphasized by sharp debate among the justices, which could …