Law Commons^™

Aiming At The Wrong Target: The "Audience Targeting" Test For Personal Jurisdiction In Internet Defamation Cases, Sarah H. Ludington

Faculty Scholarship

In Young v. New Haven Advocate, 315 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2002), the Fourth Circuit crafted a jurisdictional test for Internet defamation that requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant specifically targeted an audience in the forum state for the state to exercise jurisdiction. This test relies on the presumption that the Internet — which is accessible everywhere — is targeted nowhere; it strongly protects foreign libel defendants who have published on the Internet from being sued outside of their home states. Other courts, including the North Carolina Court of Appeals, have since adopted or applied the test. The …

Spatial Legality, Anthony J. Colangelo

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

For too long, state interests have dominated public jurisdiction and private choice-of-law analyses regarding the reach and application of a state’s law, or prescriptive jurisdiction. Individual rights — whether of criminal defendants or private litigants — have been marginalized. Yet states are projecting regulatory power over actors abroad with unprecedented frequency and aggression. State interest analyses proceed from the perennially critiqued but remarkably sticky concept of sovereignty. Now more than ever, legal thinkers, courts and litigants need a bedrock concept from which to build individual rights arguments against jurisdictional overreach. And it should be one that holds not only theoretical …

Choice Of Law As General Common Law: A Reply To Professor Brilmayer, Michael S. Green

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Kiss The Ring, But Never Touch The Crown: How U.S. Policy Denies Indian Women Bodily Autonomy And The Save Native Women Act's Attempt To Reverse That Policy, Hossein Dabiri

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

The New Illegitimacy: Tying Parentage To Marital Status For Lesbian Co-Parents, Joanna L. Grossman

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

A Crisis In Federal Habeas Law, Eve Brensike Primus

Reviews

Everyone recognizes that federal habeas doctrine is a mess. Despite repeated calls for reform, federal judges continue to waste countless hours reviewing habeas petitions only to dismiss the vast majority of them on procedural grounds. Broad change is necessary, but to be effective, such change must be animated by an overarching theory that explains when federal courts should exercise habeas jurisdiction. In Habeas for the Twenty-First Century: Uses, Abuses, and the Future of the Great Writ, Professors Nancy King and Joseph Hoffmann offer such a theory. Drawing on history, current practice, and empirical data, King and Hoffmann find unifying themes …

Does Section 329 Grant Exclusive Jurisdiction To Bankruptcy Courts?, Samantha M. Tusa

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Fee agreements between bankruptcy debtors and their counsel must often be settled in court. In which court those fee disputes can be heard is a question that is not yet settled. One court has looked to section 329 of the Bankruptcy Code for the answer. Section 329 states that if the compensation agreed upon by the debtor and attorney exceeds a reasonable value for the services rendered, “the court” may cancel the agreement or return some of the payment. In re Piccinini is the first case to hold that the phrase “the court” in section 329 confers exclusive jurisdiction …

Negotiating Jurisdiction: Retroceding State Authority Over Indian Country Granted By Public Law 280, Robert T. Anderson

Articles

This Article canvasses the jurisdictional rules applicable in American Indian tribal territories-"Indian country." The focus is on a federal law passed in the 1950s, which granted some states a measure of jurisdiction over Indian country without tribal consent. The law is an aberration. Since the adoption of the Constitution, federal law preempted state authority over Indians in their territory. The federal law permitting some state jurisdiction, Public Law 280, is a relic of a policy repudiated by every President and Congress since 1970. States have authority to surrender, or retrocede, the authority granted by Public Law 280, but Indian tribal …

Pluralism On Appeal, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

In a thoughtful response to my article, Rethinking Federal Circuit Jurisdiction, Ori Aronson notes that judges “work in context, be it social, cultural, or...institutional,” and that “context matters” to their decisions. Indeed, the primary aim of my article was to spur a conversation about the context in which the judges of the Federal Circuit — who have near plenary control over U.S. patent law — decide cases. That context includes many matters in narrow areas of law that bear little relation to the innovation and economic concerns that should animate patent law. To inject those concerns into the court’s province, …

Note: "Standing" In The Way Of Equality? The Myth Of Proponent Standing And The Jurisdictional Error In Perry V. Brown, Andrew Kim

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Global Legal Pluralism: A Jurisprudence Of Law Beyond Borders (Introduction), Paul Schiff Berman

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

We live in a world of legal pluralism, where a single act or actor is potentially regulated by multiple legal or quasi-legal regimes imposed by state, substate, transnational, supranational, and nonstate communities. Navigating these spheres of complex overlapping legal authority is inevitably confusing, and we cannot expect territorial borders to solve all the problems that arise because legal norms inevitably flow across such borders. At the same time, trying to create one universal set of legal rules is also often unsuccessful because the sheer variety of human communities and interests thwarts such efforts. Instead, we need an alternative jurisprudence, one …

Court Litigation Over Arbitration Agreements: Is It Time For A New Default Rule?, Jack Graves

Scholarly Works

Court litigation over the existence or validity of arbitration agreements is a major threat to the efficacy of international commercial arbitration. While New York Convention Article II(3) requires a court to “refer the parties to arbitration” when faced with a valid and effective arbitration agreement, it fails to provide any guidance with respect to the process for answering that question, thus leaving the issue to national law. A recalcitrant respondent may, therefore, have a variety of options for court challenges—based on a disparate array of national laws—in seeking to delay or at least complicate any claims subject to arbitration. This …

Structuring Jurisdictional Rules And Standards, Scott Dodson, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Faculty Scholarship

Jonathan Remy Nash's article, On the Efficient Deployment of Rules and Standards to Define Federal Jurisdiction, bravely tackles and creatively merges-the dual debates over rules versus standards and the ideal contours of federal jurisdiction.' He proposes a revised regime in which rules define jurisdictional boundaries at the front end, while standards "migrate" into a discretionary abstention phase at the back end.² This realignment, Nash argues, optimizes efficiency and predictability by placing a bright-line rule at the jurisdictional threshold, while promoting federalism by establishing a safety net that applies standards to claims that cross the threshold. ³ In this …

Clarity And Clarification: Grable Federal Questions In The Eyes Of Their Beholders, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Faculty Scholarship

Jurists and commentators have repeated for centuries the refrain that jurisdictional rules should be clear.' Behind this mantra is the idea that clearly designed jurisdictional rules should enable trial courts to apply the law more easily and therefore allow litigants to predict more accurately how trial courts will rule^.2 The mantra's ultimate goal is efficiency-that trial courts not labor too long on jurisdiction and, most important, that litigants can accurately predict the correct forum and choose to spend their money litigating the merits of their claim, rather than where it will be heard. Jurisdictional clarity largely is devoted …

Gat, Solvay, And The Centralization Of Patent Litigation In Europe, Marketa Trimble

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Court Litigation Over Arbitration Agreements: Is It Time For A New Default Rule?, Jack Graves

Scholarly Works

Court litigation over the existence or validity of arbitration agreements is a major threat to the efficacy of international commercial arbitration. While New York Convention Article II(3) requires a court to “refer the parties to arbitration” when faced with a valid and effective arbitration agreement, it fails to provide any guidance with respect to the process for answering that question, thus leaving the issue to national law. A recalcitrant respondent may, therefore, have a variety of options for court challenges—based on a disparate array of national laws—in seeking to delay or at least complicate any claims subject to arbitration. This …

The Case Of The Retired Justice: How Would Justice John Paul Stevens Have Voted In J. Mcintyre Machinery, Ltd. V. Nicastro?, Rodger D. Citron

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Forbidden Territory Or Well-Defined Boundaries? M.B.Z. V. Clinton And The Overzealous Application Of The Political Question Doctrine, Andrew Hand

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Picking Fights In Missouri: Baldwin's Non-Rule Embraces The Minority Approach To Internet Libel Jurisdiction, Allison Marie Isaak

Missouri Law Review

The competing standards of Internet libel jurisdiction reflect the tensions between the forum state's interest in providing convenient recovery for its injured residents and the defendant's constitutional right to foresee where he might be subject to jurisdiction. In an effort to pursue these two goals as well as integrate modem Internet-related concerns, lower courts have derived numerous divergent tests for Internet libel jurisdiction, leaving the issue in a state of disorder and ambiguity. To analyze this problem, this Note will first survey the historical background of traditional personal jurisdiction principles, with particular emphasis on the U.S. Supreme Court's Calder "effects" …

Distribution Of Marital Assets In Community Property Jurisdictions: Equitable Doesn't Equal Equal, James R. Ratner

Louisiana Law Review

No abstract provided.

How Community Property Jurisdictions Can Avoid Being Lost In Cyberspace, Sally Brown Richardson

Louisiana Law Review

No abstract provided.

Civil Practice And Procedure, John R. Walk, Andrew P. Sherrod

University of Richmond Law Review

This article surveys recent significant developments in Virginia civil practice and procedure. Specifically, the article discusses opinions of the Supreme Court of Virginia from June 2010through June 2011 addressing civil procedure topics; significant amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia concerning procedural issues during the same period; and legislation enacted by the Virginia General Assembly during its 2011 session that relates to civil practice.

Family Law, Ronald R. Tweel, Elizabeth P. Coughter, Jason P. Seiden

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gtl: Gaming, Territoriality, And The Law — Comparative Approaches To Online Gaming: Lessons For Ontario, Emir Aly Crowne, Anthony Andreopoulos

UNLV Gaming Law Journal

In 2010, the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG) – the Crown Corporation of the Government of Ontario (Canada) charged with regulating and administering lotteries, casinos, and race tracks in Ontario – announced its plans to launch an online gaming website. This article explores the Province of Ontario’s foray into online gaming, weighing the likely success of that venture against the regulatory approaches taken in jurisdictions like the United Kingdom (U.K.) and United States of America. Some “modest proposals” are also suggested.

The Judicial Power And The Inferior Federal Courts: Exploring The Constitutional Vesting Thesis, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

Although the Constitution vests the "Judicial Power" of the United States in the Supreme Court and in any inferior courts that Congress establishes, both Congress and the Court have long propounded the traditional view that the inferior courts may be deprived cognizance of some of the cases and controversies that fall within that power. Is this view fully consonant with the history and text of Article III? One possible reading of those sources suggests that the Constitution vests the full Judicial Power of the United States in the inferior federal courts, directly extending to them jurisdiction over matters that Congress …

Prosecuting The Crime Of Aggression In The International Criminal Court, Johan D. Van Der Vyver

University of Miami National Security & Armed Conflict Law Review

No abstract provided.

Health Care: Why Jurisdiction Matters, Kevin C. Walsh

Law Faculty Publications

Congress’s enactment of comprehensive healthcare reform legislation last year was the culmination of one round of an intense debate that continues today. The second round began the same day that the first round ended, when President Obama signed the legislation. In this second round, the locus of debate has shifted from Congress to the courts, which are processing a slew of lawsuits filed immediately after enactment.

One of the most prominent is Virginia v. Sebelius. The lawsuit presents on its face a prominent and critically important question of federalism: Did Congress exceed the limits of its enumerated legislative powers by …

Asymmetrical Jurisdiction, Matthew I. Hall

Scholarly Works

Most people — and most lawyers — would assume that the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review any determination of federal law by an inferior court, whether state or federal. And there was a time when it was so. But the Court’s recent justiciability decisions have created a perplexing jurisdictional gap — a set of cases in which state court determinations of federal law are immune from the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. The Court has thus surrendered a portion of its supremacy and thereby undermined the policies that underlie its appellate jurisdiction.

In an effort to address this problem, …

Food Entrepreneurs And Food Safety Regulation, Nina W. Tarr

Journal of Food Law & Policy

It is a bucolic scene: local food growers and producers chatting with consumers who come back each week to participate in a direct and continuing conversation about food with someone they know, and to engage in commerce. This illusion of simplicity masks the ever-growing morass of conflicting, complicated, and expensive regulatory oversight that undermines the local food movement by creating barriers between producers and consumers. Those creating and implementing food policy in the United States are facing a fundamental dilemma of how to reconcile the local food movement with regulations designed to address concerns about food safety.

This article will …

United States Food Law Update: The Fda Food Safety Modernization Act, Obesity And Deceptive Labeling Enforcement, A. Bryan Endres, Nicholas R. Johnson

Journal of Food Law & Policy

The long-awaited enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), the most significant amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in several decades, provides the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with significantly enhanced jurisdiction to close some of the gaps in the domestic food safety system. The enhanced FDA authority, however, will have little impact on the shared governance system at the federal level that involves multiple agencies, as the Act does not address the U.S. General Accounting Office's (GAO) repeated calls for consolidation of the fragmented federal food safety system. Rather, the Act perpetuates the division …