Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Civil procedure (2)
- Diversity cases (2)
- Federal district courts (2)
- Forum defendant rule (2)
- Forum selection (2)
-
- Forum shopping (2)
- Judicial code (2)
- Jurisdiction (2)
- Legislative reform (2)
- Removal Jurisdiction Clarification Act (2)
- Removal of cases (2)
- Snap removal (2)
- Snapback (2)
- Breyer Committee Report (1)
- Federal Judges (1)
- Federal Judicial Misconduct Statutes (1)
- Fraudulent joinder (1)
- Judicial Conduct (1)
- Judicial Ethics (1)
- Judicial Misconduct (1)
- Judicial System (1)
- National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal (1)
- Reform (1)
- Rulemaking (1)
- United States Code Chapter 16 (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Snapback, Version 2.0: The Best Solution To The Problem Of Snap Removal, Arthur D. Hellman
Snapback, Version 2.0: The Best Solution To The Problem Of Snap Removal, Arthur D. Hellman
Testimony
The forum defendant rule, embodied in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), prohibits removal of civil actions based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction “if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” Pointing to the phrase “properly joined and served,” defendants have argued that § 1441(b)(2) does not bar removal of a diversity action if a citizen of the forum state has been joined as a defendant but has not yet been served. The stratagem of removing before service to avoid the prohibition of § 1441(b)(2) …
Snapback! A Narrowly Tailored Legislative Solution To The Problem Of Snap Removal, Arthur D. Hellman
Snapback! A Narrowly Tailored Legislative Solution To The Problem Of Snap Removal, Arthur D. Hellman
Testimony
“Snap removal” is a stratagem used by defendants in civil litigation as an end run around the forum defendant rule. That rule, embodied in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), prohibits removal of civil actions based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction “if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” Focusing on the phrase “properly joined and served,” defendants have argued that § 1441(b)(2) allows removal of a diversity action when a citizen of the forum state has been joined as a defendant but has not …
The Federal Judicial Conduct And Disability System: Unfinished Business For Congress And For The Judiciary, Arthur D. Hellman
The Federal Judicial Conduct And Disability System: Unfinished Business For Congress And For The Judiciary, Arthur D. Hellman
Testimony
For most of the nation’s history, the only formal mechanism for dealing with misconduct by federal judges was the cumbersome process of impeachment. That era ended with the enactment of the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (1980 Act or Act). In 2002, Congress made modest amendments to the Act and codified the provisions in Chapter 16 of Title 28. In 2008, the Judicial Conference of the United States – the administrative policy-making body of the federal judiciary – approved the first set of nationally binding rules for misconduct proceedings.
Under the 1980 Act and …