Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Preliminary Injunction Standards In Massachusetts State And Federal Courts, Arthur D. Wolf
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 …
Civil Rule 54(B): Seventy-Five And Ready For Retirement, Andrew S. Pollis
Civil Rule 54(B): Seventy-Five And Ready For Retirement, Andrew S. Pollis
Faculty Publications
As we commemorate the diamond anniversary of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Article takes a critical look at one of the failed Rules: Rule 54(b). Although many commentators have noted difficulties with Rule 54(b), this is the first effort to describe those difficulties comprehensively, analyze their root causes, and offer a workable alternative.
When an order resolves a discrete claim in a multi-claim action, Rule 54(b) permits a district court to sever the order for immediate appeal by “expressly determine[in] that there is no just reason for delay.” The rule was designed to ease the hardship on litigants …