Courts Commons^™

Constitutional History Of Ohio Appellate Courts, Lee E. Skeel

Cleveland State Law Review

The right of appeal, using the word appeal in the broad sense now given it in the Appellate Procedure Act of Ohio, contemplates the removal of a case after judgment or final order, from a court of inferior jurisdiction to a court of higher jurisdiction, in the judicial process for retrial or review. Appeal, particularly on questions of law, is not the procedure intended to be depended on in the first instance to win a lawsuit. Appellate courts were provided in order to protect against trial court mistakes which result in substantial prejudice, or in the denial of justice to …

Compulsory Joinder Of Parties In Civil Actions, John W. Reed

Articles

The plaintiff in a civil cause ordinarily is permitted to select the persons with whom he will litigate. The initial designation of parties to an action is made by the plaintiff, and if he chooses to sue B and not A,' that is ordinarily of no concern to B or to A or to the court. So also where the plaintiff without A as co-plaintiff sues B. Not always, however, is the plaintiff permitted unfettered choice in naming the parties to his lawsuit. On the one hand there are persons whose relationship to the situation in litigation is outside the …

Labor Law - Lmra - Substantive Application By A State Court Of Section 8(B), George E. Ewing S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The defendant unions peacefully picketed the Valley Lumber Company to force the adoption of a closed shop agreement. The employees had indicated that they did not desire union affiliation or representation and the employer had not recognized any union. The NLRB Regional Director refused to assert jurisdiction over the company for certification purposes because the employer's interstate business was below the Board's jurisdictional yardsticks. The trial court asserted jurisdiction to award damages and an injunction against the picketing. On appeal, held, affirmed, three justices dissenting. Not only was the trial court's jurisdiction proper but it could apply section 8 …

Labor Law - Federal Procedure - Stay Of State Court Proceedings Involving Matters Within The Exclusive Jurisdiction Of The Nlrb, Arne Hovdesven S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Richman Brothers sought and was granted a state court injunction against organizational picketing conducted by the union. The complaint alleged acts which were unfair labor practices under section 8 (b) (2) of the amended National Labor Relations Act. The union, after failing to obtain removal of this action, unsuccessfully applied for a federal district court injunction against the state court proceedings. On appeal, held, affirmed. Section 2283 of the Judicial Code prevents a federal court injunction of a state court proceeding, despite the fact that the activities involved are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. …

Federal Procedure - Interlocutory Appeals - Appealability Of Stay Of Proceedings Under Section 1292 Of The Judicial Code, Lawrence W. Sperling S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff brought an action for an accounting of the profits of a joint adventure. The defendant moved to stay proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to section 3 of the United States Arbitration Act. This motion was denied and defendant appealed the ruling, claiming as justification for the appeal that an interlocutory order denying a stay was a denial of an injunction under section 1292 of the Judicial Code. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal. On certiorari to the Supreme Court, held, affirmed, two justices dissenting. A stay of proceedings in a suit where plaintiff's action is equitable in nature …

Criminal Law - Delay In Imposition Of Sentence As Destroying Jurisdiction Of Trial Court, M. Fred Mallender, Ii S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Defendant was tried for burglary in April 1952. Before judgment was rendered, a petition for his commitment to the Indiana Village for Epileptics was granted, and the trial court entered judgment in July 1952 that it continue the matter under advisement so long as defendant remained in the Epileptic Village and complied with the rules and regulations. In September 1952 defendant escaped from the Epileptic Village and was later apprehended. He was brought to trial in April 1953. The court found that he had not complied with the judgment of July 1952, found him guilty as charged, and sentenced him …

Jurisdiction Of United States District Courts In Multiple-Claim Cases, Thomas F. Green Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

The jurisdictional problem peculiar to a case which involves more than one claim is: Shall the court entertain the entire action when it would have jurisdiction of one or more of the claims, but not all, if they were sued separately?' The application of this question to the United States district courts raises conflicting considerations. On the one hand is the fact that most of the claims which would not be within federal jurisdiction if sued alone, present questions of state rather than federal law. In general the more appropriate tribunals to deal with such questions in the first instance …

Jury Trial In Chancery Court In Tennessee, Frank C. Ingraham

Vanderbilt Law Review

Tennessee has since 1827 maintained, in some degree, a separate court of equity, presided over by a chancellor. Though most states have abolished the procedural distinction between cases in law and suits in equity, Tennessee still retains this dichotomy in its court system. Prior to 1827 law and equity were dispensed in Tennessee by a single court of general jurisdiction, the Superior Court of Law. This practice grew out of the North Carolina Act of 1782 and the continuation of that Act by the First Territorial Legislature in 1794, both of which gave equity jurisdiction to the Superior Court of …

Labor Law - Removal Jurisdiction Of Federal Courts - Action To Enjoin Secondary Boycott, George B. Berridge S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff, a Michigan trucking company subject to the LMRA, brought suit in a Michigan court against defendant, a local of the Teamsters Union, for an injunction and $50,000 damages. Plaintiff alleged that defendant's conduct in attempting to coerce plaintiff's employees to become members of the Teamsters Union was an illegal combination and conspiracy under Michigan law and a violation of the Michigan antitrust laws. Defendant removed the case to a federal district court on the theory that certain specific acts alleged by plaintiff would constitute an unlawful secondary boycott under the LMRA and that plaintiff had therefore stated a cause …

Labor Law-Class Action By Labor Union Members To Enforce Collective Bargaining Agreement-Jurisdiction Of State Courts, John Houck S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff was an employee of defendant corporation, and an officer of the union accredited as bargaining agent. He brought an equity suit in the Ohio courts for specific enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement and to collect back wages, on behalf of himself and other union members similarly situated. The basis of the suit was section 11257 of the Ohio General Code, providing for class actions. The lower court dismissed the petition on the grounds of no jurisdiction under that section. On appeal, held, reversed. Although the defendant corporation's activities in interstate commerce subject it to federal labor legislation, …

The Uniform Code Of Military Justice-New Rights And A Means To Enforce Them, John F. Spindler

Michigan Law Review

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, designed to govern the entire military establishment of the United States, was enacted May 5, 1950, replacing the three separate systems of law theretofore applied to the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Pressure for a uniform code was a reflection of the great surge toward unification of the Armed Services which followed World War II. The new Code, however, is not just a revision and consolidation of the prior systems of military law. World War II, with its great increase in the size of the Armed Services and in the percentage of the population …

The Original And Exclusive Jurisdiction Of The United States Supreme Court, Wencelas J. Wagner

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Federal Procedure-Removal Jurisdiction-Jurisdictional Estoppel, Paul M.D. Harrison S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Respondent sued petitioner, a Florida corporation, the Indiana Lumbermen's Mutual Insurance Company, an Indiana corporation, and Joe Reiss, a citizen of Texas, in a Texas state court. The complaint asked for relief in the alternative for a fire loss suffered by respondent On the joint petition of the two corporate defendants, the case was removed to the federal court under section 1441(c) of the United States Judicial Code. Respondent unsuccessfully moved to remand the case, and, after trial of the case to a jury, a judgment in favor of the respondent was awarded against the petitioner alone. Petitioner's motion to …

Supreme Court Practice, By Robert L. Stern And Eugene Gressman; Jurisdiction Of The Supreme Court Of The United States, By Richard Wolfson And Philip B. Kurland, Henry M. Hart Jr

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Habeas Corpus-Jurisdiction Of Federal Courts To Review Jurisdiction Of Military Tribunals When The Prisoner Is Physically Confined Outside The United States, Willis B. Snell S. Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The question of the power of federal courts to issue the writ of habeas corpus for a prisoner confined outside the territorial United States has not as yet been completely answered. Until recently, there were few instances in which anyone was confined outside the United States under the authority of the United States. However, during and since World War II, American military tribunals have exercised power over citizens and aliens, civilians and military personnel, in many parts of the world, and especially in Germany and Japan. Because of this extended use of military tribunals, the question of the power of …

Habeas Corpus-Jurisdiction Of Federal Courts To Review Jurisdiction Of Military Tribunals When The Prisoner Is Physically Confined Outside The United States, Willis B. Snell S. Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The question of the power of federal courts to issue the writ of habeas corpus for a prisoner confined outside the territorial United States has not as yet been completely answered. Until recently, there were few instances in which anyone was confined outside the United States under the authority of the United States. However, during and since World War II, American military tribunals have exercised power over citizens and aliens, civilians and military personnel, in many parts of the world, and especially in Germany and Japan. Because of this extended use of military tribunals, the question of the power of …

Federal Courts-Venue-Transfer To A More Convenient Forum Under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1404(A), Nolan W. Carson S. Ed.

Michigan Law Review

A cause of action based on diversity of citizenship was brought in a United States District Court in Pennsylvania by a New York corporation against a Delaware corporation. Plaintiff joined a New York corporation as an involuntary plaintiff. Defendant then moved for a transfer based on forum non conveniens to the Southern District of New York. Held, this suit could not have been brought originally in the Southern District of New York since the present involuntary plaintiff, amenable to process in that district, could only have been joined as a defendant and diversity of citizenship would have been absent. …

Forum Non Conveniens Under The United States Judicial Code, Robert P. Hobson

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jurisdictional Amount In The Federal District Courts, William W. Hurst

Vanderbilt Law Review

In 1925, Judge Dobie, then professor of law at the University of Virginia, advanced a formula for determining the value of the matter in controversy in all federal question and diverse citizenship cases in the federal district courts. He called it a "plaintiff-viewpoint rule," and stated it thus: "The amount in controversy in the United States District Court is always to be determined by the value to the plaintiff of the right which he in good faith asserts in his pleading that sets forth the operative facts which constitute his cause of action."

Since then, the rule has received sanction …

Federal Courts-Substitution Of Parties By Amendment Under The Federal Rules To Correct A Jurisdictional Defect, Rex Eames S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The plaintiffs, local officers of a union, sued to enjoin the national officers of the union from interfering with plaintiffs' union duties. Because the original complaint failed to show diversity of citizenship as a basis for federal jurisdiction, plaintiffs sought by amendment to substitute five nonresident members of the union as parties plaintiff and to change the action to a class suit. Held, the court had the power to permit such an amendment but, in the exercise of its discretion, it would not do so here. National Maritime Union of America v. Curran, (D.C. N.Y. 1949) 87 F. …

Operative Relationships Among Various Courts, Law Enforcement And Welfare Agencies In The City Of Detroit, Maxine Boord Virtue

Michigan Law Review

This article is the seventh chapter of a book, Survey of Metropolitan Courts: Detroit Area, which is being published this year by the Michigan Legal Series. It was prepared by this writer as a Research Associate in the employ of the Law School of the University of Michigan, under the supervising editorship of Professor Edson R. Sunderland. The study was undertaken at the request of the Committee on Judicial Administration in Metropolitan Trial Courts, appointed by the Section on Judicial Administration of the American Bar Association, of which committee Ira W. Jayne, Presiding Judge of the Circuit Court of …

Federal Courts-Removal Jurisdiction-Counterclaim As The Sole Basis For Removal, Paul M. D. Harrison S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff brought an action for damages in a state court Defendant filed pleas to the declaration, and also filed a counterclaim arising out of the same cause of action. On this date defendant also filed a motion with the Federal District Court asking removal of the case based solely upon his counterclaim. On plaintiff's motion, held, case remanded to the state court. Defendant has no right under the United States Judicial Code to have a case removed from the state court to the federal court when his motion is based upon his own counterclaim. Collins v. Faucett, (D.C. …

Federal Courts-Use Of A Cross-Claim Under Rule 13(G) Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Rex Eames S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Under an ordinary automobile insurance policy, P insurance company promised to defend and indemnify Harvey for any suit arising from an accident involving his use of the insured truck. Collier sued Harvey in a state court alleging injuries due to the negligent use of the insured truck by two Harvey employees. Before judgment thereon, P, incorporated under the laws of Wisconsin, sued Harvey and Collier, citizens of Oklahoma, in the federal court. P sought a declaratory judgment on the grounds that (a) at the time of the accident the employees were under the control and supervision of the City …

Federal Procedure-Disposition Of Case Before Court On Certiorari After Petitioner Has Fled Jurisdiction [Eisler V. United States, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1949].

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Courts-Civil Procedure-Availability To Plaintiff Of Change Of Venue Under Title 28 U.S.C.A. 1404(A), Richard B. Gushée S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The plaintiffs filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in order to obtain service on the defendant. The plaintiff then filed a motion for an order to transfer the cause to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under Title 28 U.S.C.A. 1404(a) on the grounds that all the plaintiffs and witnesses resided in Pennsylvania, that it would be inconvenient and expensive to transport these witnesses to Ohio, and that the cause of action arose in Pennsylvania. Held, motion denied. Title 28 U.S.C.A. 1404(a) is not available …

Constitutional Law-Federal Courts-Diversity Jurisdiction- District Of Columbia Citizens, John D. Mcleod S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The Act of Congress of April 20, 1940, provided that district courts should exercise original jurisdiction over actions "between citizens of different States, or citizens of the District of Columbia, the Territory of Hawaii, or Alaska, and any State or Territory . . . . " The committee report and the title indicate the purpose to extend to citizens of the District of Columbia and the territories the right to sue in federal district courts on grounds solely of diversity of citizenship. Although the committee reports indicated no constitutional difficulties, the majority of the lower federal courts which considered the …

Courts--Process--Retroactive Operation Of Statutes Providing For Substituted Service, Robert H. Frick S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff, a stockholder of a South Carolina corporation, commenced a derivative suit against former directors of the corporation by serving a summons and complaint on the Secretary of State of South Carolina. Plaintiff relied on a statute providing that nonresident directors of domestic corporations, by acceptance of election or appointment as directors, should be held to have appointed the Secretary of State their agent for service of process. The statute became effective in May, 1947. Defendants, residents of New Jersey and Maryland, had resigned as directors of the corporation in December, 1946. On appeal from a judgment vacating the service …

Courts-Validity Of Contracts Restricting Venue In Actions Under The Federal Employers' Liability Act, John C. Walker S. Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Petitioner suffered injuries in the course of his duties as an employee of respondent railroad. Subsequently, respondent advanced money to petitioner and the latter agreed in writing that if his claim could not be settled he would sue only in the county or district where he resided at the time of the injury, or in the county or district where the injury was sustained. This agreement restricted petitioner's choice of venue to either a state or federal court sitting in Michigan. Ignoring the contract, petitioner sued in an Illinois court. Respondent then brought suit in the Michigan courts to enjoin …

The Tidewater Case And Limited Jurisdiction Of Federal "Constitutional" Courts, Joe H. Foy

Vanderbilt Law Review

In the recent case of National Mutual Insurance Ca. v. Tidewater Transfer Co.,' the Act of April 20, 1940, allowing citizens of the District of Columbia and of the territories to sue and be sued in the district courts on the basis of diverse citizenship, was held constitutional insofar as it applies to citizens of the District of Columbia. The practical effect of the decision, in allowing Congress to remove a basic inequality among citizens of the United States, is perhaps commendable. However, there are broad theoretical implications in this holding, emphasized by sharp debate among the justices, which could …

Book Reviews, Henry B. Witham, George K. Gardner, Malcolm Sharp, Ivan C. Rutledge, F. Eugene Reader, Murray Seasongood

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.