Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Jurisdiction (23)
- Federal Jurisdiction (13)
- Conflict of Laws (7)
- Federal Courts (7)
- Federalism (7)
-
- Judicial Power (4)
- Separation of Powers (4)
- Standing (4)
- United States. Supreme Court (4)
- Aliens (3)
- Due Process of Law (3)
- Extraterritoriality (3)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (3)
- Judicial Process (3)
- Personal Jurisdiction (3)
- State Courts (3)
- Appeals (2)
- Civil Procedure (2)
- Diversity Jurisdiction (2)
- Erie Railroad v. Tompkins (304 U.S. 64 (1938)) (2)
- Federal courts (2)
- Judges (2)
- Law (2)
- Sovereignty (2)
- Statute of Limitations (2)
- United States (2)
- United States Supreme Court (2)
- Venues (Law) (2)
- Actors (1)
- American Government (1)
- Publication Year
Articles 31 - 49 of 49
Full-Text Articles in Law
In Search Of Removal Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson
In Search Of Removal Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson
Faculty Publications
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 tackling the jurisdictional/procedural characterization issues of the removal statute. 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. I …
The Forum Defendant Rule In Arkansas, Scott Dodson
The Forum Defendant Rule In Arkansas, Scott Dodson
Faculty Publications
Section 1441(b) of the removal statute prohibits removal of a diversity case if a defendant is a citizen of the state in which the case was originally filed. The bar to removal is known as the Forum Defendant Rule. Is removal in violation of the Forum Defendant Rule a jurisdictional or nonjurisdictional defect? The characterization matters because a jurisdictional defect can be raised at any time, while a nonjurisdictional defect must be raised within a specific period of time or is waived. The Supreme Court has not resolved the characterization, but a number of circuit courts, including the Eighth Circuit, …
Jurisdictionality And Bowles V. Russell, Scott Dodson
Jurisdictionality And Bowles V. Russell, Scott Dodson
Faculty Publications
On June 14, 2007, the Supreme Court decided Bowles v. Russell, a case watched primarily by procedure geeks but one which may have enormous impact for courts and litigators. It addressed a ubiquitous but confusing question of jurisdictional characterization: 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. Whether a particular limitation is jurisdictional or not can be an important question, for jurisdictional limitations are not subject to waiver or equitable exceptions, may be raised at any time, …
Anti-Federalist Procedure, A. Benjamin Spencer
Anti-Federalist Procedure, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
"[T]he new federal government will ... be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the prerogatives of their governments."
"[T]he Constitution of the United States ... recognizes and preserves the autonomy and independence of the States-independence in their legislative and independence in their judicial departments. . . . Any interference with either, except as [constitutionally] permitted, is an invasion of the authority of the State and, to that extent, a denial of its independence."
The understanding expressed by these opening quotes-that the national government was designed to be one of limited powers that would refrain from encroaching …
Jurisdiction To Adjudicate: A Revised Analysis, A. Benjamin Spencer
Jurisdiction To Adjudicate: A Revised Analysis, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Personal jurisdiction doctrine as articulated by the Supreme Court is in disarray. As a constitutional doctrine whose contours remain imprecise, the law of personal jurisdiction has generated confusion, unpredictability, and extensive satellite litigation over what should be an uncomplicated preliminary issue. Many commentators have long lamented these defects, making suggestions for how the doctrine could be improved. Although many of these proposals have had much to offer, they generally have failed to articulate (or adequately justify or explain) a simple and sound approach to jurisdiction that the Supreme Court can embrace. This Article revises the law of personal jurisdiction by …
Should The Supreme Court Fear Congress?, Neal Devins
Should The Supreme Court Fear Congress?, Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Jurisdiction And The Internet: Returning To Traditional Principles To Analyze Network-Mediated Contacts, A. Benjamin Spencer
Jurisdiction And The Internet: Returning To Traditional Principles To Analyze Network-Mediated Contacts, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Courts have been evaluating the issue of personal jurisdiction based on Internet or "network-mediated" contacts for some time. The U.S. Supreme Court has remained silent on this issue, permitting the federal appeals courts to develop standards for determining when personal jurisdiction based on network-mediated contacts is appropriate. Unfortunately, the circuit approaches-which emphasize a Web site's "interactivity" and "target audience" -are flawed because they are premised on an outdated view of Internet activity as uncontrollably ubiquitous. This view has led courts to depart from traditional jurisdictional analysis and impose elevated and misguided jurisdictional standards. This article argues that courts should reinstitute …
The Constitutional Limits To Court-Stripping, Michael J. Gerhardt
The Constitutional Limits To Court-Stripping, Michael J. Gerhardt
Faculty Publications
This Article is part of a colloquy between Professor Michael J. Gerhardt and Professor Martin Redish about the constitutionality of court-stripping measures. Court-stripping measures are laws restricting federal court jurisdiction over particular subject matters. In particular, the authors discuss the constitutionality of the Marriage Protection Act of 2004. Professor Gerhardt argues that the Act is unconstitutional and threatens to destroy the principles of separation of powers, federalism and due process. It prevents Supreme Court review of Congressional action and hinders the uniformity and finality of constitutional law. Furthermore, the Act violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment Due …
Terminating Calder: "Effects" Based Jurisdiction In The Ninth Circuit After Schwarzenegger V. Fred Martin Motor Co., A. Benjamin Spencer
Terminating Calder: "Effects" Based Jurisdiction In The Ninth Circuit After Schwarzenegger V. Fred Martin Motor Co., A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
In Calder v. Jones, the Supreme Court clearly and succinctly determined that personal jurisdiction is appropriate over a defendant whose only contact with the forum state is its intentional actions aimed at and having harmful "effects" in the forum state. Illustrating the extent to which the law of personal jurisdiction had been relaxed from the time of Pennoyer v. Neff and International Shoe Co. v. Washington, Calder also extended the reach of state courts by permitting jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants on the strength of the plaintiffs' connections with the forum state. Although Calder provided a welcome and much …
The Ultimate Independence Of The Federal Courts: Defying The Supreme Court In The Exercise Of Federal Common Law Powers, Ronald H. Rosenberg
The Ultimate Independence Of The Federal Courts: Defying The Supreme Court In The Exercise Of Federal Common Law Powers, Ronald H. Rosenberg
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Interlocutory Appeals From Orders Denying Qualified Immunity: Determining The Proper Scope Of Appellate Jurisdiction, Kathryn R. Urbonya
Interlocutory Appeals From Orders Denying Qualified Immunity: Determining The Proper Scope Of Appellate Jurisdiction, Kathryn R. Urbonya
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Jurisdiction And Nexus, John B. Harper
Jurisdiction And Nexus, John B. Harper
William & Mary Annual Tax Conference
No abstract provided.
The Domestic Relations Exception To Federal Jurisdiction: Rethinking An Unsettled Federal Courts Doctrine, Michael Ashley Stein
The Domestic Relations Exception To Federal Jurisdiction: Rethinking An Unsettled Federal Courts Doctrine, Michael Ashley Stein
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Alternative Penal Sanctions, Paul Marcus
Ripeness And The Constitution, Gene R. Nichol
Ripeness And The Constitution, Gene R. Nichol
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Legal Positivism And Federalism: The Certification Experience, Paul A. Lebel
Legal Positivism And Federalism: The Certification Experience, Paul A. Lebel
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Meet The New Juvenile And Domestic Relations District Court, Ingrid Michelsen Hillinger
Meet The New Juvenile And Domestic Relations District Court, Ingrid Michelsen Hillinger
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Mcmillan V. Mcmillan: Choice Of Law In A Sinkhole, Doug R. Rendleman
Mcmillan V. Mcmillan: Choice Of Law In A Sinkhole, Doug R. Rendleman
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Federal Procedure, Dudley Warner Woodbridge