Law Commons^™

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

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 …

Law School News: Inside Rwu Law's Small 'Admiralty Empire' 10-18-2019, Michael M. Bowden

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

(In Re Guardianship Of Carmen Wittler) Wittler V. Wittler, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 31 (Aug. 01, 2019), Mckay Holley

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Tricarichi V. Coöperatieve Rabobank, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 73175 (May 2, 2019), John Bays

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) Walden v. Fiore did not overrule Davis v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, meaning that Nevada, under its long-arm statute, recognizes conspiracy-based theory personal jurisdiction and utilizes the conspiracy jurisdiction test as laid out in Gibbs v. Prime Lending and (2) Tricarichi failed to establish personal jurisdiction under either specific or conspiracy theory personal jurisdiction due to an inability to provide sufficient evidence connecting the respondents actions to Nevada.

The Territorial Reach Of Federal Courts, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

Federal courts exercise the sovereign authority of the United States when they assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant. As components of the national sovereign, federal courts' maximum territorial reach is determined by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which permits jurisdiction over persons with sufficient minimum contacts with the United States and over property located therein. Why, then, are federal courts limited to the territorial reach of the states in which they sit when they exercise personal jurisdiction in most cases? There is no constitutional or statutory mandate that so constrains the federal judicial reach. Rather, it is by operation …

Recovering Misdirected Trust Assets In The Face Of Torrens Indefeasibility, Alvin W. L. See

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

Where misdirected trust asset consists of, or becomes invested in,registered land, whether the beneficiary could recover it from the recipient isdoubtful given that the Torrens system, through the principle ofindefeasibility, effects a substantial reversal of the priority rules under thegeneral law. The key to unravelling the seemingly contradictory cases on thistopic is to be sensitive to the diversity in drafting and interpretation of thedifferent Torrens legislations, with particular focus on whether the principleof indefeasibility also protects registered volunteers. Through a comparative studyof the Torrens jurisdictions in Australia and Singapore, this article highlightshow the position differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and …

Apple V. Pepper: Rationalizing Antitrust’S Indirect Purchaser Rule, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

In Apple v. Pepper the Supreme Court held that consumers who allegedly paid too much for apps sold on Apple’s iStore could sue Apple for antitrust damages because they were “direct purchasers.” The decision reflects some bizarre complexities that have resulted from the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Illinois Brick, which held that only direct purchasers could sue for overcharge injuries under the federal antitrust laws. The indirect purchaser rule was problematic from the beginning. First, it was plainly inconsistent with the antitrust damages statute, which gives an action to “any person who shall be injured in his business …

An Organizational Account Of State Standing, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Publications

Again and again in regard to recent high-profile disputes, the legal community has tied itself in knots over questions about when state plaintiffs should have standing to sue in federal court, especially in cases where they seek to sue federal-government defendants. Lawsuits challenging everything from the Bush administration’s environmental policies to the Obama administration’s immigration actions to the Trump administration’s travel bans have become mired in tricky and technical questions about whether state plaintiffs belonged in federal court.

Should state standing cause so much controversy and confusion? This Essay argues that state plaintiffs are far more like at least one …

Forward: Some Puzzles Of State Standing, Tara Leigh Grove

Faculty Publications

When should states have standing? In recent years, there has been an explosion in literature on that question.1 Yet, even today, there seem to be as many questions as answers. In this Foreword to the Notre Dame Law Review’s 2019 Federal Courts, Practice, and Procedure Symposium on state standing, I discuss a few such puzzles. First, should states have “special” standing when they sue the federal government—that is, greater access to federal court than private parties? Second, and conversely, should states have at least “equal” access to federal court, or should they face more barriers than private parties? These questions …

The Constitutionality Of Ouster Clauses: Nagaenthran A/L K Dharmalingam V Attorney-General [2018] Sghc 112, Benjamin Joshua Ong

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

Section 33B(4) of Singapore’s Misuse of Drugs Act purportedly partly ousts judicial review of the Public Prosecutor’s determination of whether a drug trafficker has substantively assisted the anti-drug enforcement agency. This paper argues that Singapore’s High Court erred in holding this provision constitutionally valid. Ouster clauses are unconstitutional vis-à-vis Articles 12(1) and 93 of the Constitution; the High Court’s view does not accord with the law on non-justiciability and is premised on a flawed theory of legislative intention. It is no answer that judicial power is subject to a ‘balance’ which renders a partial ouster clause constitutionally valid. The High …

Abstention At The Border, Maggie Gardner

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The lower federal courts have been invoking “international comity abstention” to solve a range of problems in cross-border cases, using a wide array of tests that vary not just across the circuits, but within them as well. That confusion will only grow, as both scholars and the Supreme Court have yet to clarify what exactly “international comity abstention” entails. Meanwhile, the breadth of “international comity abstention” stands in tension with the Supreme Court’s recent reemphasis on the federal judiciary’s obligation to exercise congressionally granted jurisdiction. Indeed, loose applications of “international comity abstention” risk undermining not only the expressed preferences of …

Henry V. Nev. Comm'n On Judicial Discipline, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 5 (Feb. 28, 2019) (En Banc), James Puccinelli

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that NRS § 1.428 is constitutional. Thus, hearing masters are subject to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline’s jurisdiction.

The Promise And Pitfalls Of C-92: An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit, And Métis Children, Youth And Families, Naiomi Metallic, Hadley Friedland, Sarah Morales

Reports & Public Policy Documents

On June 21, 2019, Bill C-92 An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families became law. The Bill is a huge and unprecedented step forward in Canada. It is the first time the federal government has exercised its jurisdiction to legislate in the area of Indigenous child welfare.

In this article, we identify both the improvements in Bill C-92 since our last report as well as key problems that remain in the five following areas: 1) National Standards 2) Jurisdiction 3) Funding 4) Accountability 5) Data Collection We also suggest strategies to assist Indigenous communities in …

Jurisdiction And "Definitional Law", John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

Professor Scott Dodson and I agree that the law of federal jurisdiction needs improvement. We disagree, however, on Congress’s power to make that happen. In an article published in 2017, Dodson argued that “jurisdiction” has an “inherent identity” that “[n]either Congress nor the courts can change.” In an article published the following year, I critiqued this claim. There, I argued that Congress is not obliged to respect jurisdiction’s inherent identity (to the extent it might have one). Rather, Congress need only respect the identity of jurisdiction contained in the United States Constitution. Professor Dodson recently published a rejoinder to my …

The Justice System Is Criminal, Raven Delfina Otero-Symphony

2020 Award Winners

No abstract provided.

When Forum Selection Clauses Meet Choice Of Law Clauses, Tanya Monestier

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

State Standing For Nationwide Injunctions Against The Federal Government, Jonathan R. Nash

Faculty Articles

Recent years have seen a substantial increase of cases in which states seek, and indeed obtain, nationwide injunctions against the federal government. These cases implicate two complicated questions: first, when a state has standing to sue the federal government, and second, when a nationwide injunction is a proper form of relief. For their part, scholars have mostly addressed these questions separately. In this Essay, I analyze the two questions together. Along the way, I identify drawbacks and benefits of nationwide injunctions, as well as settings where nationwide injunctions may be desirable and undesirable. I present arguments that, although I do …

Stern Claims And Article Iii Adjudication - The Bankruptcy Judge Knows Best, Laura B. Bartell

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

Regulating Offshore Finance, William J. Moon

Faculty Scholarship

From the Panama Papers to the Paradise Papers, massive document leaks in recent years have exposed trillions of dollars hidden in small offshore jurisdictions. Attracting foreign capital with low tax rates and environments of secrecy, a growing number of offshore jurisdictions have emerged as major financial havens hosting thousands of hedge funds, trusts, banks, and insurance companies.

While the prevailing account has examined offshore financial havens as “tax havens” that facilitate the evasion or avoidance of domestic tax, this Article uncovers how offshore jurisdictions enable corporations to evade domestic regulatory law. Specifically, recent U.S. Supreme Court cases restricting the geographic …

#Personaljurisdiction: A New Age Of Internet Contacts, Zoe Niesel

Faculty Articles

No abstract provided.

Jurisdiction Stripping Circa 2020: What The Dialogue (Still) Has To Teach Us, Henry P. Monaghan

Faculty Scholarship

Since its publication in 1953, Henry Hart’s famous article, The Power of Congress to Limit the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts: An Exercise in Dialectic, subsequently referred to as simply “The Dialogue,” has served as the leading scholarly treatment of congressional control over the federal courts. Now in its seventh decade, much has changed since Hart first wrote. This Article examines what lessons The Dialogue still holds for its readers circa 2020.

Waiving Federal Sovereign Immunity In Original Actions Between States, Sandra B. Zellmer

Faculty Law Review Articles

There are tremendous disparities between high stakes original actions between states before the US. Supreme Court, where there is no waiver of federal sovereign immunity, and other types of cases in the lower courts, where a plethora of immunity waivers allow states and other parties to seek relief from the federal government for Fifth Amendment takings, unlawful agency action, and tort claims. Federal actions or omissions are often at the heart of the dispute, and federal involvement may be crucial for purposes of providing an equitable remedy to the state parties, but there is no reliable mechanism for bringing the …

Rising Confusion About 'Arising Under' Jurisdiction In Patent Cases, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

By statute, all cases “arising under” patent law must be heard exclusively by the federal courts (not state courts) and, on appeal, by the Federal Circuit (not the twelve regional circuits). But not all cases involving patents “arise under” patent law. As recently as 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the mere need to apply patent law in, for example, a malpractice case involving a patent lawyer, is insufficient to trigger exclusive jurisdiction. Rather, the Court held, for a case that does not involve claims of patent infringement to arise under patent law, the patent issue must be “important . …

Erie Doctrine, State Law, And Civil Rights Litigation, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

How should state law questions and claims be resolved when they arise in federal civil rights litigation? In prior work, I have criticized the given wisdom that the Erie doctrine, while originating in diversity cases, applies in all cases whatever the basis for federal jurisdiction. In that work, I proposed a framework, “Erie Step Zero,” to place Erie questions in their jurisdictional context. As I have argued, the concern with forum shopping and unequal treatment that prompted Erie have less salience in federal question cases. Different concerns emerge when one focuses on the presence of state law issues in …

The Circulation Of Judgments Under The Draft Hague Judgments Convention, Ronald A. Brand

Articles

The 2018 draft of a Hague Judgments Convention adopts a framework based largely on what some have referred to as “jurisdictional filters.” Article 5(1) provides a list of thirteen authorized bases of indirect jurisdiction by which a foreign judgment is first tested. If one of these jurisdictional filters is satisfied, the resulting judgment is presumptively entitled to circulate under the convention, subject to a set of grounds for non-recognition that generally are consistent with existing practice in most legal systems. This basic architecture of the Convention has been assumed to be set from the start of the Special Commission process, …

Forgotten Statutes: Trade Law's Domestic (Re)Turn, Kathleen Claussen

Articles

Since the first half of the twentieth century, the U.S. Congress has increasingly delegated its authority over tariffs to the U.S. president. Some of these statutes permit private actors to petition for tariff relief. Some also permit the president to initiate an investigation and subsequently to take trade-related or other action when certain criteria are met. Since the 1990s, however, a robust multilateral trading system has required the United States and others to resolve disputes over trade measures in Geneva, rather than through unilateral policy steps under these tariff authorities. In a stark departure from this movement away from unilateral …

The Cisg: Applicable Law And Applicable Forums, Ronald A. Brand

Articles

Despite being in effect for over thirty years, a debate continues on whether the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) has been a success. With 89 Contracting States, it clearly is widely accepted. At the same time, empirical studies show that private parties regularly opt out of its application. It has served as a model for domestic sales law, and as an important educational tool. But has it been a success? In this article I consider that question, and suggests that the scorecard is not yet complete; and that it will perhaps take significantly …

An Unfinished Dialogue: Congress, The Judiciary, And The Rules For Federal Judicial Misconduct Proceedings, Arthur D. Hellman

Articles

Federal judges can be impeached and removed from office for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” but what can be done to investigate and remedy less serious misconduct? Congress gave its answer 40 years ago when it passed the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980. The Act emerged from a series of complex interactions between Congress and the judiciary that could hardly be replicated today. Initially there was strong support, particularly in the Senate, for a centralized, “strictly adjudicatory” system, including a provision for removal of judges without impeachment. Over the course of several years, however, the judiciary persuaded Congress to …

Has Shoe Run Its Course?, David W. Ichel

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.