Law Commons^™

Marriage Jurisdiction Under European Union Law: Cross-Border Recognition Of Ecclesiastical Decisions, Carmen Garcimartín

Idaho Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Religious Character Of Divorce And Legal Separation Before The Supreme Court, Fatna Sarehane

Revue Marocaine de Droit, d'Economie et de Gestion (Moroccan Journal of Law, Economics and Management)

Under Moroccan private international law, divorce and legal separation of foreigners in Morocco are governed by Article 9 of the D.C.C., which refers to their national law. During the Protectorate and early independence, combined with Article 394 of the former civil procedure code, this led Moroccan courts to defer jurisdiction to ecclesiastical authorities when the foreigner's personal law imposed religious formalities. Some decisions even invoked foreign public policy to justify non-competence. The author examines how this created tensions between religious requirements and secular judicial procedures, particularly concerning the distinction between substantive and formal rules.

Judgment And Commentary: The Urgent Order Issued By The First President Of The Oujda Court Of Appeal On December 3, 1982, Abdel Latif Hidayat Allah

Revue Marocaine de Droit, d'Economie et de Gestion (Moroccan Journal of Law, Economics and Management)

This contribution provides a legal commentary on an urgent order issued by the First President of the Oujda Court of Appeal on December 3, 1982. The case concerns the scope of jurisdiction in urgent proceedings and the distinction between orders based on petition and interim measures. The author summarizes the facts and legal reasoning of the order, then discusses the procedural issues raised by the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Moroccan Code of Civil Procedure. The commentary highlights the limits of the powers of the urgent judge and the conditions under which appellate authorities may intervene in matters …

State Of Nevada V. Rocky Stanley Salazar, 123 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (May 28, 2026), Bowen Fuller

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

When second-degree murder by a controlled substance starts on tribal land but consummates on nontribal land, the state has jurisdiction to prosecute the crime.

Open And Shut: Non-Removal Statutesand Door-Closing Penalties, Isaac Zwerling

Pepperdine Law Review

There is a longstanding tension in the Court’s treatment of non-removal statutes and door-closing penalties. On the one hand, the Court has held non-removal statutes—business registration statutes that condition a foreign corporation’s license on that corporation’s right to remove cases brought against it to federal court—pose an unconstitutional limit on federal court access. On the other, the Court has extended door-closing penalties statutes prohibiting unregistered foreign corporations from initiating an action in the forum state—to federal courts sitting in diversity. This Article surveys how the Court arrived at this puzzling result. It does so by analyzing each line of cases …

A Fourth-Order Dispute? What Fourth-Order Dispute? A Comment On The Fourth Circuit’S Modern Perfection, Llc V. Bank Of America, Christopher Andrew Nunn Ii

Arbitration Law Review (2009 - Present)

No abstract provided.

The Rodrigo Duterte Case At The International Criminal Court: Towards The Erosion Of States’ Right To Withdraw From The Rome Statute?, Giovanni Chiarini Dr

Indonesia Law Review

The Rodrigo Duterte case raises complex questions concerning the interpretation of Article 127 of the Rome Statute (RS), particularly regarding its statutory limits relating to the one-year window governing the effects of withdrawal, as well as the interpretation of the procedural identity of the preliminary examination. This paper is divided into two parts: the first briefly outlines the procedural history of the war on drugs case from 2016 to 2024; the second analyses the dissenting opinion concerning the interpretation of Article 127 RS and explores the key developments from 2025 to 2026, focusing on the main issues raised by the …

الدفع بعدم الإختصاص في قانون الإجراءات المدنية الإماراتي, أحمد حجال

Proche-Orient, Études juridiques

This study addresses the procedural regime of the objection to jurisdiction, which is one of the procedural defenses that raise in the UAE law the issue of the applicable procedural rules. Before which courts and at what stage of the litigation this defense can be raised, and who is the party entitled to raise it? May or should the court raise it proprio motu? Did the Emirati law adopt the traditional categorization of objections to jurisdiction, that is founded on the jurisdiction rules as such? The rules of absolute jurisdiction are the ones whose violation results in a lack …

Leeds V. Norfolk Southern Railway Company—In Undoing Late Removal, District Court Gives Guidance On Evaluating Whether Defendants Were Joined In “Bad Faith”, Geoffrey D. Kearney

SLU Law Journal Online

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, defendants typically have one year to remove to federal court a case filed in state court. The landscape for removal changed somewhat with a 2011 amendment to this statute, which extends that one-year deadline upon a showing “that the plaintiff has acted in bad faith in order to prevent a defendant from removing the action.”

But the question of what sort of conduct satisfies this provision persists. Since its passage, courts—primarily district courts—have grappled with just what it means for a plaintiff to act in bad faith to thwart removal. Leeds v. Norfolk Southern …

Asarco Delenda Est, John Greabe

West Virginia Law Review

ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish is the most important Supreme Court decision addressing the adjudication in state courts of federal claims that Article III’s case-or-controversy requirements would bar lower federal courts from hearing. But there are two serious problems with the reasoning of ASARCO: one involving an error of omission and the other an error of commission. ASARCO’s error of omission is its apparent assumption that a party barred from asserting a federal claim in federal court because of a lack of redressable Article III injury caused by the conduct complained of should face no barriers to obtaining relief on the …

Section 302(A)'S "Arising From" Nexus Element: Need For A Tune-Up In The Aftermath Of Ford Motor?, Michael J. Hutter

Pace Law Review

This article traces the historical development of the “arising out of” and “relate to” nexus requirements, examines the evolution of state long- arm statutes following International Shoe Co., and analyzes the origins and judicial interpretation of C.P.L.R. § 302(a). It argues that New York’s statutory scheme no longer fully reflects the constitutional scope of specific jurisdiction as articulated by the Supreme Court. The article concludes by proposing a legislative amendment to C.P.L.R. 302(a) to add the phrase “relate to,” thereby aligning New York’s long-arm statute with Due Process and better effectuating the statute’s underlying purpose of affording New York residents …

How To Apply Hertz Corp. V. Friend In The Age Of Remote Work, John Andrikos

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

The widespread adoption of remote work in the United States has strained the workability of the nerve center test of Hertz Corp. v. Friend. This comment analyzes how federal courts have applied the nerve center test to fact patterns involving partially or fully remote corporations. Further, it proposes a novel solution to this jurisdictional problem: the Key Person Test.

Native American Law Explainer, Kincaid Brown

Law Librarian Scholarship

Native American tribes are the original sovereign peoples of the lands that now comprise the United States, with histories, governments, and cultures that predate the founding of the nation by thousands of years. Long before European colonization, hundreds of distinct tribal nations exercised independent political authority over their territories. Although the United States entered hundreds of treaties recognizing tribes as distinct political entities, federal Indian policy evolved over time through periods of treaty-making, forced removal, allotment, assimilation, termination, and, since the 1970s, tribal self-determination. The legal relationship between tribes and the federal government is grounded in the U.S. Constitution, as …

No Justice Without Transparency: The Case For A Broad Presumption Of Public Access To Court Documents, Taylor Quimby

FIU Law Review

This Comment argues that a broad presumption of public access to court  documents is essential to preserving the legitimacy and constitutional values  of the American legal system. Although the principle of public access is  rooted in common law and constitutional tradition, individual states differ in  how they approach transparency in the context of court documents. These  jurisdictional inconsistencies continue to gain significance, as the digital age  has completely transformed the way people consume information. The  increasing digitization of court records has heightened the need for consistent  and constitutionally grounded standards that preserve transparency while  adequately protecting legitimate privacy interests. Florida’s …

Data Breaches, Causation, And Constitutional Standing, Anthony Palermo

FIU Law Review

This Article examines the causation requirement of Article III standing in modern data breach litigation. It argues that federal courts have systematically diluted constitutional limits on judicial power by presuming traceability where none exists. While data breaches are ubiquitous and alarming, the Article contends that the mere occurrence of a breach—and even an injury—should not itself establish a justiciable case or controversy. Drawing on foundational separation-of-powers principles, the Article situates the standing doctrine as an essential mechanism of judicial self- restraint—one that prevents courts from reflexively adjudicating societal fears untethered from any fair attribution to the defendant before the court. …

Chimeric Contacts And Consent: The Ill-Reasoned Expansion Of Corporate Jurisdictional Exposure, James P. George

William & Mary Business Law Review

Two recent Supreme Court decisions have imposed aspects of general jurisdiction in a way that exposes corporations and possibly other legal actors to litigation in spuriously connected forums. One case—Ford Motor Company v. Montana—reached a fair result but with strained reasoning that will support unfair results. The second case—Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railroad Company—was wrong on the facts and the law, imposing general jurisdiction based on a vaguely worded corporate registration statute validated by a more than century-old precedent based on Pennoyer v. Neff’s limited territorial model.

Both decisions were the result of conceptual corners …

Governance In The Absence Of Government, Tracy H. Pearl

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Artificial intelligence (AI) is advancing at an unprecedented pace, with generative systems exerting growing influence over social, economic, and political life. While AI offers opportunities for innovation and efficiency, it also poses risks ranging from misinformation and job displacement to existential threats if highly autonomous systems evade human control. Across industry, government, and civil society, there is broad consensus that AI requires oversight. Yet traditional U.S. regulatory approaches face six significant barriers: (1) technology outpacing legislation, (2) limited AI expertise among policymakers, (3) regulatory capture, (4) political gridlock, (5) outdated governance structures, and (6) the inherent complexity of AI. Combined …

Keeping Cruises At Bay: Whether Port Cities Violate The Dormant Commerce Clause And Federal Maritime Law, Julie Jacobs

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Personal Jurisdiction And The Fifth Amendment, Scott Dodson

ConLawNOW

The Supreme Court has avoided clarifying the relationship between federal-court personal jurisdiction, congressional statutes, and the Fifth Amendment. Until now, that is. In June 2025, the Court decided two important cases involving constraints on a federal court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction outside of Rule 4(k)(1)(A), which typically ties federal-court personal jurisdiction to state-court personal jurisdiction. This brief essay explains and analyzes those cases, situating them in the Court’s larger agenda for personal jurisdiction. It also discusses some open questions raised by the decisions and the role that personal jurisdiction in the United States may now play on the global stage.

27th Annual Open Government Summit: Your Guide To The Access To Public Records Act & Open Meetings Act (Powerpoint Slides) 08-01-2025, Attorney General State Of Rhode Island

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Environmental Jurisdiction In The Congress And The Executive, Edmund S. Muskie

Maine Law Review

Extraterrestrial exploration and a historic lunar success have helped give modern man a unique perspective on the earth and his natural environment. We have looked on our planet from the reaches of outer space and have seen how small, how alone, and how vulnerable we are. We have travelled to the moon and photographed Mars, but we have finally realized that no matter how far or how fast we grow, no matter how far afield our explorations take us, and no matter how great our vision, we must always return to earth. This is a discomfiting realization for a civilization …

Extending The Smith V. Hooey Duty To The Holding Jurisdiction, Ronald D. Russell

Maine Law Review

The right to a speedy trial has been an integral part of the Anglo-American legal system since its foundation. The first statement of this guarantee seems to be in the codification of basic rights included in the Magna Charta. It was incorporated into the earliest laws of colonial America and later expressed in the sixth amendment to the Constitution. In Klopfer v. North Carolina, the United States Supreme Court stated, "The history of the right to a speedy trial and its reception in this country clearly establish that it is one of the most basic rights preserved by our Constitution." …

Extending The Smith V. Hooey Duty To The Holding Jurisdiction, Ronald D. Russell

Maine Law Review

The right to a speedy trial has been an integral part of the Anglo-American legal system since its foundation. The first statement of this guarantee seems to be in the codification of basic rights included in the Magna Charta. It was incorporated into the earliest laws of colonial America and later expressed in the sixth amendment to the Constitution. In Klopfer v. North Carolina, the United States Supreme Court stated, "The history of the right to a speedy trial and its reception in this country clearly establish that it is one of the most basic rights preserved by our Constitution." …

Maine's Coastal Conveyance Of Oil Act: Jurisdictional Consideration, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

Maine's Coastal Conveyance of Oil Act is the most comprehensive oil discharge control law in the United States. Such broad regulatory legislation inevitably raises questions of constitutionality and, as expected, the oil industry has brought a challenge to the Maine statute. In American Oil Co. et al. v. Environmental Improvement Commission, a declaratory judgment action, the Maine act has been alleged to violate the commerce, due process, equal protection and admiralty clauses of the United States Constitution. Although each allegation of constitutional conflict raises substantial problems, the most troublesome attack is that based upon the admiralty clause. Here the basic …

Vagueness And The Vermont Long-Arm Statute, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

The authority of state courts to assert jurisdiction over the person of nonresidents has expanded markedly since the days of Pennoyer v. Neff. Different theories for asserting jurisdiction over individuals, as opposed to corporations, have been discarded. For jurisdictional purposes, the common law classifications of in personam, in rem and quasi in rem have been abandoned. "Minimum contacts" has become the all-embracing rationale for reviewing any assertion of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant by a state court. But if "minimum contacts" has replaced these former concepts and served to simplify and unify the requirements of due process, it has also …

Preclusive Jurisdictional Dismissals, Kevin Song

Northwestern University Law Review

Every litigant deserves their day in court. At the same time, litigants cannot endlessly go to court on the same matter. A complex body of preclusion law balances these fundamental tenets by examining when adjudication of a matter precludes subsequent relitigation. This body of law has evolved over time to preserve the day-in-court ideal in a way that is sensitive to the threats that relitigation present to judicial efficiency, fair adjudication, and repose. Modern preclusion law has settled on a pragmatic approach: where a court has issued a final judgment on the merits but erroneously assumed jurisdiction, relitigation may still …

"Jurisdictional" Indictments, Informations And Complaints: An Unnecessary Doctrine, Peter G. Ballou

Maine Law Review

In the majority of jurisdictions in the United States, including the federal courts and Maine, a sufficient indictment, information or complaint is deemed an absolute prerequisite to a valid conviction. This right to a sufficient charging instrument is not subject to waiver and may be asserted at any time, even though not raised before or during trial or on direct appeal from a conviction. This characteristic of nonwaivability, probably unique among the rights belonging to a criminal defendant, has led some courts, including the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, to characterize the requirement of a sufficient indictment as "jurisdictional." When an …

The Meaning And Implications Of "Indian Country": State V. Dana, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

The jurisdictional reach of many federal laws relating to Indians is expressly tied to the term "Indian country.” Where "Indian country" exists, these laws, together with the strong federal policies underlying them, can preempt state jurisdiction. According to 18 U.S.C. § 1151, "Indian country" includes (a) any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished. The State of Maine, under the belief that no Indian Country is located within its borders, has throughout …

The Use Of Federal Habeas Corpus In Child Custody Disputes, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

Inability to enforce child custody decrees on a nationwide basis has created an unfortunate and well-publicized anomaly in the law. A parent disappointed with one state's award of custody may remove the child to another jurisdiction, gambling that the second state's courts will decline to enforce the original decree. Of the several remedies that have been suggested to relieve this situation, federal habeas corpus remains among the least explored. The use of federal habeas corpus in child custody disputes raises two questions central to every federal jurisdictional controversy: Do the federal courts have power to entertain the action? If the …

The Role Of Foreseeability In Jurisdictional Inquiry: Tyson V. Whittaker & Son, Inc., Philip M. Coffin Iii

Maine Law Review

When defining the extent of their jurisdiction over nonresident defendants, state courts must be ever mindful of the principle that "all assertions of state-court jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the standards set forth in International Shoe and its progeny. In deciding jurisdictional issues against this background of Supreme Court decisions, many courts have had considerable difficulty in ascertaining the precise extent of the amorphous and discretionary standards set forth in International Shoe and subsequent cases. In the recent decision of Tyson v. Whitaker & Son, Inc., the Maine Supreme Judicial Court was put to this task in deciding whether …