Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Civil procedure (4)
- Appellate review (2)
- Personal jurisdiction (2)
- Remand orders (2)
- 28 U.S.C. § 1367(C) (1)
-
- 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (1)
- 28 U.S.C. §§ 1447(c) and (d) (1)
- Abstention (1)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (1)
- Certification (1)
- Class action rule (1)
- Diversity cases (1)
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Mississippi (1)
- Significants contacts (1)
- Stealth revolution (1)
- Supplemental claims (1)
- Supplemental jurisdiction (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Teaching And Learning Personal Jurisdiction After The Stealth Revolution, Deborah Challener
Teaching And Learning Personal Jurisdiction After The Stealth Revolution, Deborah Challener
Journal Articles
In this Response [to Professor Michael Hoffheimer’s article The Stealth Revolution in Personal Jurisdiction], Professor Challener points out one additional cost of the stealth revolution: the substantially increased difficulty of teaching and learning the law of personal jurisdiction which, in turn, erodes law students’ confidence in the Supreme Court as an institution.
More Uncertainty After Daimler Ag V. Bauman: A Response To Professors Cornett And Hoffheimer, Deborah Challener
More Uncertainty After Daimler Ag V. Bauman: A Response To Professors Cornett And Hoffheimer, Deborah Challener
Journal Articles
In Good-Bye Significant Contacts: General Personal Jurisdiction After Daimler AG v. Bauman, Professors Judy M. Cornett and Michael H. Hoffheimer identify a number of legal issues that will become the focus of litigation after Daimler. This Response identifies an additional, perhaps surprising issue that is currently being litigated in the wake of Daimler AG v. Bauman. In the lower federal courts, defendants who have litigated cases on the merits without raising lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense are filing motions to dismiss and arguing that they are not subject to general jurisdiction in the forum under Daimler’s “at home” …
Remand And Appellate Review Issues Facing The Supreme Court In Carlsbad Technology, Inc. V. Hif Bio, Inc., Deborah Challener, John B. Howell Iii
Remand And Appellate Review Issues Facing The Supreme Court In Carlsbad Technology, Inc. V. Hif Bio, Inc., Deborah Challener, John B. Howell Iii
Journal Articles
This Essay provides a brief explanation of § 1367 and §§ 1447(c) and (d) and argues that the Supreme Court should reverse the Federal Circuit’s decision in HIF Bio. We contend that the Federal Circuit erred in concluding that Cohill remands are subject-matter jurisdictional because a district court does not remand supplemental claims based on its lack of power over the claims. Instead, a district court remands supplemental claims based on its discretionary decision under § 1367(c) that a state court is a better forum in which to litigate them. After establishing that Cohill remands are not subject-matter jurisdictional and …
Remand And Appellate Review When A District Court Declines To Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(C): Carlsbad Technology, Inc. V. Hif Bio, Inc., Deborah Challener, John B. Howell Iii
Remand And Appellate Review When A District Court Declines To Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(C): Carlsbad Technology, Inc. V. Hif Bio, Inc., Deborah Challener, John B. Howell Iii
Journal Articles
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and (d), as well as Supreme Court precedent, remand orders in removed cases are immune from appellate review when they are based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Until recently, all appellate courts that had addressed the issue had concluded that a district court’s discretionary decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and remand the supplemental claims does not constitute a remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and therefore is reviewable on appeal.
Distinguishing Certification From Abstention In Diversity Cases: Postponement Versus Abdication Of The Duty To Exercise Jurisdiction, Deborah Challener
Distinguishing Certification From Abstention In Diversity Cases: Postponement Versus Abdication Of The Duty To Exercise Jurisdiction, Deborah Challener
Journal Articles
This Article argues that a federal court does not abdicate its duty to exercise its jurisdiction when it certifies a question in a diversity case; instead, the court merely postpones the exercise of its jurisdiction. Thus, federal courts need not limit certification in diversity cases to exceptional circumstances.
Foreword: Love It Or Leave It; An Examination Of The Need For And Structure Of A Class Action Rule In Mississippi, Deborah Challener
Foreword: Love It Or Leave It; An Examination Of The Need For And Structure Of A Class Action Rule In Mississippi, Deborah Challener
Journal Articles
Given Mississippi's unique status as the only state without a class action rule, the recent developments in Mississippi joinder law, and the suggestions in Armond and Bailey that Mississippi should adopt a class action rule, scholars and practitioners from around the country gathered in Jackson, Mississippi on February 18, 2005, to debate two issues. First, should Mississippi now adopt a class action rule? Second, how should such a rule be structured? The articles in this Symposium represent the final written product of this debate. This Foreword organizes the articles by issue, provides an overview of each article, and identifies key …