Civil Law Commons^™

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 …

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.

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 …

Office Of Attorney General: Peter F. Neronha, Attorney General: Access To Public Records Act ; Open Meetings Act (Powerpoint Presentation), Office Of The Attorney General Of Rhode Island, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Surprises In The Skies: Resolving The Circuit Split On How Courts Should Determine Whether An "Accident" Is "Unexpected Or Unusual" Under The Montreal Convention, Ashley Tang

Washington Law Review

Article 17 of both the Montreal Convention and its predecessor, the Warsaw Convention, imposes liability onto air carriers for certain injuries and damages from “accidents” incurred by passengers during international air carriage. However, neither Convention defines the term “accident.” While the United States Supreme Court opined that, for the purposes of Article 17, an air carrier’s liability “arises only if a passenger’s injury is caused by an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger,” it did not explain what standards lower courts should employ to discern whether an event is “unexpected or unusual.” In 2004, …

25th Annual Open Government Summit: Your Guide To The Access To Public Records Act & Open Meetings Act, Peter F. Neronha, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Changemakers: Master Of Studies In Law: "Exactly What I Needed...": John Marion, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

A Jurisprudential Quilt Of Tribal Civil Jurisdiction: An Analysis Of Tribal Court Approaches To Determining Civil Adjudicatory Jurisdiction, Jacob Maiman-Stadtmauer

American Indian Law Journal

There are hundreds of Native American Tribes with their own judicial systems and courts. Under the test first established in Montana v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States has provided a single, nebulous standard for determining the limits of tribal courts’ jurisdiction over non-Indians. Scholars and federal jurists have long assumed that the Supreme Court's framework limiting tribal civil jurisdiction is essential to how tribal courts determine jurisdiction. This paper challenges that assumption. Through a first of its kind survey of tribal court decisions on civil jurisdiction, spanning 26 tribes and covering 71 decisions, this paper …

The 24th Annual Open Government Summit: Your Guide To The Access To Public Records Act & Open Meetings Act, Peter F. Neronha, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Omar Effendi Vs. Union Fenosa: Corruption As A Transnational Public Policy Consideration, Ahmed Badr Eldin

Theses and Dissertations

At the beginning of 2011, Egypt witnessed radical political developments that led to the emergence of a pressing tendency to adjudicate the collapsed regime’s policies and practices. Shortly thereafter, the Egyptian State Council issued a number of judicial decisions that confirmed that the sale of the privatized governmental enterprises had been tainted by corruption. Crucially, the Court maintained that flagrant breach of law, regulations, and administrative orders that encompassed these transactions created serious suspicions about corruption committed by public officials and investors. It concluded that the existence of corruption, as a transnational public policy consideration, had deprived foreign investors of …

23rd Annual Open Government Summit: Attorney General State Of Rhode Island : Access To Public Records Act & Open Meetings Act July 30, 2021, Office Of The Attorney General State Of Rhode Island

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Rwu Law News: The Newsletter Of Roger Williams University School Of Law 04-2021, Michael M. Bowden, Barry Bridges, Political Roundtable

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

The Civil Liability Claim Arising Out Of The Infringement Of The Privacy Right A Study In Jordanian Private International Law, Nour Hamed Al-Hajaya

UAEU Law Journal

Protection of privacy right is vital. Therefore, the injured person is entitled to claim damages for any infringement of his privacy right. However, claiming damages face some difficulties pertaining to the determination of the competent court and the applicable law in case where the infringement involves a foreign element. This Article is devoted to tackle these two issues in two chapters and a conclusion. Chapter one will tackle the issue of competent court through the application of the criteria stated in Articles 27 and 28 of the Jordanian Law of Civil Proceedings on the International Jurisdiction of Jordanian Courts to …

Law School News: Professor Gonzalez Is 2020 Rhode Island Lawyer Of The Year 01/11/21, Barry Bridges, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Preventing Foreign-Judgment Country Hopping With A New Transnational Recognition And Enforcement Standard, Ryan Everette

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Since the 1990s, a group of plaintiffs from Ecuador has been involved in litigation with what is presently the Chevron Corporation. During the lawsuit in Ecuador’s courts, the plaintiffs’ lawyers took part in deceptive activities that led to an unreliable judgment against Chevron and has resulted in civil liability for the lawyers and an inability to enforce the judgment against Chevron in the United States for the plaintiff class. Over the better part of the last decade, the plaintiffs’ lawyers have sought and failed to enforce the judgment in several countries outside of the United States, leading to a prolonging …

Internet Jurisdiction: Using Content Delivery Networks To Ascertain Intention, Patrick Lin

LL.M. Essays & Theses

Specific jurisdiction in civil litigation centers on the rather general,yet immutable, concept of intention. Although the word “intention” does not surface prominently in the personal jurisdiction case law, it is clearly intrinsic to the concept of “purposeful availment”. On the Internet, however, intention is hard to ascertain: how does a court, for example, determine whether the defendant intended that its website, application, or advertisement within a mobile application should end up in the forum state? In answering such a question, courts have historically used one of two approaches to establish intent: (i) a targeting test or (ii) a degree of …

French Jurisdictional Complexity On The Fringe— Acadia 1667-1710, Jacques Vanderlinden

Journal of Civil Law Studies

During the second half of the 17th century of French formally institutionalized colonial power in Acadia, the province was in an interesting state of jurisdictional complexity insofar as French colonists were concerned. While native Amerindians, mostly Malecites and Micmawqs, carried their precolonial political order and jurisdictional organisation without almost any interference of the colonial power, imported normative systems derived from feudalism, the Catholic Church, French colonial order, French provincial customs and family organisation were juxtaposed and interacted, each of them were a well-known part of the Western legal tradition. Yet—and this is the most interesting—the state power, which was prevalent …

Venezuela Undermines Gold Miner Crystallex's Attempts To Recover On Its Icsid Award, Sam Wesson

Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review

No abstract provided.

Guidelines And Best Practices For Large And Mass-Tort Mdls (Second Edition), Bolch Judicial Institute

Bolch Judicial Institute Publications

Mass-tort MDLs dominate the federal civil docket, yet they present enormous challenges to transferee judges assigned to manage them. There is little official guidance and no rules specific to the management of mass-tort MDLs, often requiring the transferee judge to develop procedures out of whole cloth.

Beginning in 2013, the Bolch Judicial Institute (then the Center for Judicial Studies) sought to address this issue through a series of annual bench-bar conferences. From these conferences came the Guidelines and Best Practices for Large and Mass-Tort MDLs document — now in its Second Edition — which is designed to help judges and …

Rethinking Removal And "Relates To": International Arbitration Disputes And The N.Y. Convention, Holly Wilson

University of Richmond Law Review

Part I explores the historical roots of the Convention,

discusses the evolution of its removal provisions, and explains how

it functions in the district courts today. Part II addresses the arguments

in favor of reverting to the Ruhrgas standard. This article

demonstrates that the current judicial interpretation of the Convention's

removal provisions under Beiser is too broad and that the

stricter construction under Ruhrgas should be re-adopted. Part II

examines three key reasons why the current Beiser standard is unworkable:

the current standard (1) leads to absurd results, (2) disrespects

notions of federalism and strains comity, and (3) in conjunction …

Dueling Grants: Reimagining Cafa’S Jurisdictional Provisions, Tanya Pierce

Georgia State University Law Review

More than a decade after Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), courts continue to disagree as to its application and meaning in a variety of situations, many of which have wide-ranging effects. This article considers a fundamental issue that arises after a certification decision is reached: whether a court’s subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA depends on a class being certified. Specifically, the article considers what happens when a federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction derives solely from CAFA’s minimal diversity jurisdiction provision and a request for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (Rule 23) …

Civil Practice And Procedure, John R. Walker, Jaime B. Wisegarver

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The United States Government As Defendant - One Example Of The Need For A Uniform Liability Regime To Govern Outer Space And Space-Related Activities, Joseph A. Bosco

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Amendments To Federal Removal Statutes: Curtailing Adjudication Of Diversity Cases Or Bad Faith Causes Of Action?, Brooke M. Gaffney

Barry Law Review

This student comment explores the problem facing Florida insurers preventing them from exercising their right to litigate bad faith causes of action in federal court. This article demonstrates how the federal removal statutes, and amendments thereto, have potentially precluded insurers from removing some bad faith actions from state to federal court under diversity jurisdiction. This article details the divergence in opinion among Florida’s Southern and Middle District Courts in interpreting the federal removal statutes and concludes with a prediction of how the split may be resolved by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

First Options Of Chicago, Inc. V. Kaplan And The Kompetenz-Kompetenz Principle , Adrianna Dulic

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

In 1995, the United States Supreme Court in First Options of Chicago, Incorporated v. Kaplan considered whether arbitral tribunals or courts should have the primary power to decide if parties agreed to arbitrate the merits of the dispute and whether the court of appeals should accept the district court's findings of fact and law or apply a de novo standard of review. The Court unanimously held that, unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise, the question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate is to be decided by the court, not the arbitral tribunal. Furthermore, in such a case, …

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.

Bifurcation Of Civil Trials, John P. Rowley Iii, Richard G. Moore

University of Richmond Law Review

Despite its widespread and long-standing recognition as a valuable docket-control device, the bifurcation of issues in civil trials has generated considerable debate among legal scholars and judges. The state and federal courts both utilize bifurcation, andthe Supreme Court of Appeals in Virginia recognized the advantages of the procedural device as early as 1915. Nonetheless, authority for the bifurcation of issues in civil trials in Virginia has remained clouded. The Supreme Court of Virginia lifted at least some of the clouds when it decided Allstate Insurance Co. v. Wade, thereby rejecting the position taken in an amicus curiae brief filed …

International Law's Mixed Heritage: A Common/Civil Law Jurisdiction, Colin B. Picker

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

This Article provides the first application of the emerging mixed jurisdiction jurisprudence to a comparative analysis of international law. Such a comparative law analysis is important today as the growth and increasing vitality of international juridical, administrative and legislative institutions is placing demands on international law not previously experienced. International law is unsure where to look for help in coping with these new stresses. In significant part this isolation can be attributed to a general view among international law scholars that international law is sui generis, and hence there is little to be gained from national legal systems. This Article …

A Complete Property Right Amendment, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

The trend of the eminent domain reform and "Kelo plus" initiatives is toward a comprehensive Constitutional property right incorporating the elements of level of review, nature of government action, and extent of compensation. This article contains a draft amendment which reflects these concerns.

Bond Repudiation, Tax Codes, The Appropriations Process And Restitution Post-Eminent Domain Reform, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

This brief comment suggests where the anti-eminent domain movement might be heading next.