Law Commons^™

The Elastics Of Snap Removal: An Empirical Case Study Of Textualism, Thomas O. Main, Jeffrey W. Stempel, David Mcclure

Scholarly Works

This article reports the findings of an empirical study of textualism as applied by federal judges interpreting the statute that permits removal of diversity cases from state to federal court. The “snap removal” provision in the statute is particularly interesting because its application forces judges into one of two interpretive camps—which are fairly extreme versions of textualism and purposivism, respectively. We studied characteristics of cases and judges to find predictors of textualist outcomes. In this article we offer a narrative discussion of key variables and we detail the results of our logistic regression analysis. The most salient predictive variable was …

Immunity From Suit For International Organizations: The Judiciary's New Que Of Separating Lawsuit Sheep From Lawsuit Goats, Ylli Dautaj

Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies

I. Introduction

II. Immunity from Suit in Public International Law

(A) Sovereign Immunity

(i) Sources of Sovereign Immunity

(ii) Legal Theory on Sovereign Immunity

(iii) Doctrinal Evolution of Sovereign Immunity

(B) Jurisdictional Immunity for International Organizations

(C) Sovereign Immunity and Immunity for International Organizations

Domestically

III. Jam v. Int'l Finance Corporation:

A New Dawn for International Organizations in the United States

(A) Jam v. Int'l Finance Corporation: Majority View

(B) Jam v. Int'l Finance Corporation: Dissenting Opinion by Justice Breyer

IV. The Exception that Proves but does not Swallow the rule on Virtually

Absolute Immunity: Criticism of the Majority in …

Snap Removal: Concept; Cause; Cacophony; And Cure, Jeffrey W. Stempel, Thomas O. Main, David Mcclure

Scholarly Works

So-called “snap removal” – removal of a case from state to federal court prior to service on a forum state defendant – has divided federal trial courts for 20 years. Recently, panels of the Second, Third and Fifth Circuits have sided with those supporting the tactic even though it conflicts with the general prohibition on removal when the case includes a forum state defendant, a situation historically viewed as eliminating the need to protect the outsider defendant from possible state court hostility.

Consistent with the public policy underlying diversity jurisdiction – availability of a federal forum to protect against defending …