Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Civil procedure (2)
- Comparative law (2)
- Diversity cases (2)
- Federal district courts (2)
- Forum defendant rule (2)
-
- Forum selection (2)
- Forum shopping (2)
- International economic law (2)
- International litigation (2)
- Judicial code (2)
- Jurisdiction (2)
- Legislative reform (2)
- Private international law (2)
- Removal Jurisdiction Clarification Act (2)
- Removal of cases (2)
- Snap removal (2)
- Snapback (2)
- Breyer Committee Report (1)
- CISG (1)
- Conflict of laws (1)
- Dispute resolution (1)
- Dispute settlement (1)
- Federal Courts (1)
- Federal Judges (1)
- Federal Judicial Misconduct Statutes (1)
- Fraudulent joinder (1)
- International arbitration (1)
- International commercial law (1)
- International law (1)
- International trade law (1)
- Publication
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
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 Circulation Of Judgments Under The Draft Hague Judgments Convention, Ronald A. Brand
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, …
The Cisg: Applicable Law And Applicable Forums, Ronald A. Brand
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
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 …