Law Commons^™

Preliminary Injunction Standards In Massachusetts State And Federal Courts, Arthur D. Wolf

Faculty Scholarship

Concurrent jurisdiction frequently allows attorneys the choice of filing a complaint in state or federal court. State courts presumptively have jurisdiction over claims rooted in federal law. At times, state courts are required to entertain federal claims. Similarly, federal courts have authority over state claims because of diversity, federal question, and supplemental jurisdiction. Many claims are rooted in both state and federal law, such as antitrust, civil rights, environmental, consumer protection, and civil liberties. Confronted with the choice of state or federal court, the attorney must evaluate a variety of factors before deciding in which court to file.

In a …

Nationwide Service Of Process: Due Process Limitations On The Power Of The Sovereign, Robert A. Lusardi

Faculty Scholarship

There are a number of instances in which a federal court asserts personal jurisdiction by service of process beyond the territorial limits of the state in which it sits. The most common examples of these assertions of jurisdiction are the use of a state's long-arm statute and the "bulge" provision of the federal rules. But, in addition, there are a number of statutes by which Congress has authorized nationwide service of process in particular circumstances.

It is generally accepted that Congress may authorize expansion limits of the states in which it sits, including authorization of extraterritorial service of process. However, …

Constitutional Remedies For Underinclusive Statutes: A Critical Appraisal Of Heckler V. Mathews, Bruce K. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

The power of the federal courts to remedy injuries caused by constitutional violations is a fundamental assumption of our constitutional scheme. The Supreme Court's equal protection decisions of the past generation illustrate the extent to which we take this power completely for granted. When confronted with a statute that denies a litigant's fifth or fourteenth amendment right to equal treatment, the Court has rarely limited itself to a simple declaration that the statute is unconstitutional. Such declarations, rather, have been routinely accompanied by awards of often substantial relief to the persons injured by the unconstitutional inequality. The author analyzes Heckler …

Hines V. Anchor Motor Freight: Another Step In The Seemingly Inexorable March Toward Converting Federal Judges (And Juries) Into Labor Arbitrators Of Last Resort, Peter Adomeit

Faculty Scholarship

This Article, directed to the courts, and especially to the federal bench, carries this message: you are in danger of converting the federal judiciary into a panel of labor arbitrators. The advance sheets of the federal courts are beginning to read like Labor Arbitration Reports. The kinds of disputes that in the past were resolved by private arbitration are beginning to appear at an increasing rate on the dockets of the federal courts: Did the company have just cause when it discharged the grievants for allegedly falsifying their expense accounts? Did the company violate the agreement with the union when …