Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Federalism (2)
- Balance of Power (1)
- Civil Procedure (1)
- Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (1)
- Class Action Lawsuits (1)
-
- Diversity Jurisdiction (1)
- Erie Doctrine (1)
- Federal Jurisdiction (1)
- Forum Defendant Rule (1)
- Interstate Commerce (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Republican Party (United States) (1)
- State Courts (1)
- State Rights (1)
- Statutory Limitations (1)
- Tort Reform (1)
- United States Constitution. 10th Amendment (1)
- United States. Supreme Court (1)
- William H. Rehnquist-- Criticism and Interpretation (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Erie, The Class Action Fairness Act, And Some Federalism Implications Of Diversity Jurisdiction, David Marcus
Erie, The Class Action Fairness Act, And Some Federalism Implications Of Diversity Jurisdiction, David Marcus
William & Mary Law Review
The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) expands diversity jurisdiction to allow most significant class actions based on state law to proceed in federal court. Hoping to limit the application of state law through class actions, CAFA's supporters believe that federal judges harbor a collective animosity toward the large, multistate class actions the statute targets. CAFA has no substantive component, and it does not tighten Rule 23's certification requirements. Nonetheless, if supporters are right about judicial preferences and their likely impact on certification decisions, CAFA will weaken the regulatory reach of state law.
Arguments about diversity jurisdiction and judicial …
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 …