Courts Commons^™

Psychological Harm And Constitutional Standing, Rachel Bayefsky

Brooklyn Law Review

When do psychological or emotional harms count as “injury-in-fact” for the purposes of satisfying Article III standing requirements, and when should they? Courts have wrestled with whether to grant standing, for example, to family members of a man killed by the police who argued that as relatives of the deceased, they had suffered emotional pain; members of an animal-welfare organization who claimed they had undergone “sleeplessness, depression, and anger” when they were unable to visit an elephant at the zoo; and members of a Catholic organization who challenged a city resolution criticizing the Catholic Church’s stance on adoption by same-sex …

A Tribute To Judge Kaye, Nicholas W. Allard

Brooklyn Law Review

This collection of remarks from scholars, practitioners, and judges serves as a tribute to the life of the beloved and esteemed Judge Kaye and her commitment to the New York State Constitution. The collection culminates with Judge Kaye’s final essay, written for the Brooklyn Law Review, with her reflections on opportunity in life and law and New York’s State Constitution.

Medical Certificates Of Death: First Principles And Established Practices Provide Answers To New Questions, Jocelyn Downie, Kacie Oliver

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Voluntary euthanasia became legal in Quebec in December 2015,1 although the legislation is currently the subject of litigation. In addition, physician-assisted death will become legal across Canada in February 2016, barring an extension on the deadline being given by the Supreme Court of Canada. There are many questions about how physician-assisted death should be regulated. One as-yet-unanswered question is “Should physician-assisted death be recorded anywhere on the medical certificate of death?” If so, a second question follows: “How should it be recorded — as manner and/or cause?” and if the latter, “Which category of cause: immediate, antecedent or underlying?”

To …

When Is An Agency A Court? A Modified Functional Approach To State Agency Removal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, Nicholas Jackson

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note argues that courts should interpret 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which permits removal from state court to federal court, to allow removal from state administrative agencies when the agency performs “court-like functions.” Circuits that apply a literal interpretation of the statute and forbid removal from state agencies should adopt this “functional” approach. The functional approach, which this Note calls the McCullion-Floeter test, should be modified to comport with legislative intent and public policy considerations: first, state agency adjudications should not be removable when the adjudication requires technical expertise, which federal courts cannot obtain because they adjudicate cases in a …

From Orphans To Families In Crisis: Parental Rights Matters In Maine Probate Courts, Deirdre M. Smith

Faculty Publications

This Article examines the sources of the contemporary problems associated with the adjudication of parental rights matters in Maine’s probate courts and identifies specific reforms to address both the structural and substantive law problems. The Article first reviews the development of Maine’s probate courts and their jurisdiction over parental rights matters. It traces the expansion of jurisdiction over children and families from a limited role incidental to the administration of a decedent’s estate to the current scope: a range of matters that may result in the limitation, suspension, or termination of the rights of living parents. Maine probate courts now …

European Economic Communities - European Court Of Justice - Convention On Jurisdiction And The Enforcement Of Judgments In Civil And Commercial Matters - Court Independently Defines Phrase "Sale On Installment Credit Terms" To Limit Jurisdictional Advantage To Private Final Consumers, Elizabeth Grant Kline

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Do Irish Courts And The European Court Of Human Rights Have Achieved The Correct Balance Between Protection Of The Rights Of Individual Prisoners And Pragmatic Concerns Regarding The Proper Functioning Of The Prison System., Adrian Berski

Reports

Nowadays it is very hard to find the relevant balance between decisions of the Irish Courts and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), regarding the rights of individual prisoners and the proper functioning of the prison system. On one side, the main function of the courts is resolution dispute, apply the relative law and most importantly: protecting the law and human rights. On the other hand, court decisions have to be based on the relevant prison and justice systems that applies to each particular country.

It is worth taking into consideration that decisions made by the European Court of Human …

Jurisdiction - Aliens, Federal Courts And The Law Of Nations, Jeff Ballew

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Filartiga V. Pena-Irala: International Justice In A Modern American Court?, Josef Rohlik

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

"Home Rule" Vs. "Dillon's Rule" For Washington Cities, Hugh Spitzer

Seattle University Law Review

This Article focuses on the tension between the late-nineteenth century “Dillon’s Rule” limiting city powers, and the “home rule” approach that gained traction in the early and mid-twentieth century. Washington’s constitution allows cities to exercise all the police powers possessed by the state government, so long as local regulations do not conflict with general laws. The constitution also vests charter cities with control over their form of government. But all city powers are subject to “general laws” adopted by the legislature. Further, judicial rulings on city powers to provide public services have fluctuated, ranging from decisions citing the “Dillon’s Rule” …

La Vida Es Un Conflicto, Pero Hay Que Llevar Soluciones: La Resolución De Conflicto En Comunidades Rurales De San Ramón Nicaragua A Través De Facilitadores Judiciales Rurales Y Mediación, Marlee Raible

Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection

In rural parts of Nicaragua historically there has not been a lot of access to the justice system. Conflicts have been going unresolved for years leading to a high amount of violence as people take justice into their own hands. The recent implementation of the Rural Judicial Facilitators Program (RJFP) is an effort to provide access to justice directly in rural communities. These facilitators are trained to use mediation as their principal method to resolve conflict.

This study exposes perceptions of mediation and the RJFP from community members, facilitators, and judiciaries. It discusses the key role of the facilitator in …

An Appeal To Common Sense: Why "Unappealable" District Court Decisions Should Be Subject To Appellate Review, Matthew D. Heins

Northwestern University Law Review

28 U.S.C. § 1291 vests jurisdiction in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal to hear “appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” Various circuit courts have, however, determined that they may only hear appeals of final “judicial” decisions, and that they do not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of United States district courts if those decisions are “administrative.” Circuit courts have been loath to explicitly define the dividing line between the two classes of case, and have frequently invoked the potential availability of mandamus review as a means of placating …

Jurisdiction - The Supreme Court Upholds The Constitutionality Of The Jurisdictional Grant Of The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Over A Suit Between An Alien And A Foreign Sovereign In United States District Court, Stephen E. Farish

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Product Liability Law In Japan: An Introduction To A Developing Area Of Law, Younghee Jin Ottley, Bruce L. Ottley

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Cases, Controversies, And Diversity, F. Andrew Hessick

Northwestern University Law Review

Article III’s diversity jurisdiction provisions extend the federal judicial power to state law controversies between different states or nations and their respective citizens. When exercising diversity jurisdiction, the federal judiciary does not function in its usual role of protecting federal interests or ensuring the uniformity of federal law. Instead, federal courts operate as alternative state courts for resolving disputes between diverse parties. But federal courts often cannot act as alternative state courts because of Article III justiciability doctrines such as standing, ripeness, and mootness. These doctrines define when a federal court may act. But they do not apply to state …

Petitioning Foreign Governments: The Act Of State And Noerr-Pennington Doctrines, Don R. Sampen

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Forum: American Acceptance Of The Jurisdiction Of The International Court Of Justice: Experiences And Prospects, Louis B. Sohn, Dean Rusk, Gabriel M. Wilner

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Morris V. Allen And The Lost History Of The Anti-Injunction Act Of 1793, James E. Pfander, Nassim Nazemi

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fletcherian Standing, Merits, And Spokeo V. Robins, Howard Wasserman

Faculty Publications

This essay offers an exercise in wishful jurisdictional and procedural thinking. As part of a Supreme Court Roundtable on Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, it argues for William Fletcher's conception of standing as an inquiry into the substantive merits of a claim and of whether the plaintiff has a valid cause of action. This approach is especially necessary in statutory cases; along with its constitutional power to create new rights, duties, and remedies, Congress should have a free hand in deciding who and how those rights and duties should be enforced. Spokeo, which involves a claim for damages for publication of …

The Supreme Court's New Approach To Personal Jurisdiction, Bernadette Bollas Genetin

Akron Law Faculty Publications

In the Supreme Court’s recent general jurisdiction cases, it narrowed general jurisdiction in accord with a “reasonableness” approach to jurisdiction that is consistent with International Shoe’s so-called “forward-looking” face. In the Court’s most recent specific jurisdiction case, Walden v. Fiore, the Court took steps toward assessing specific jurisdiction under a reasonableness analysis, but it ultimately reunited the antagonistic “reasonableness” and territorial power theories to impose artificial limits on specific jurisdiction. The newly narrowed general jurisdiction will not often be available as a “safety valve” to provide jurisdiction in some cases in which jurisdiction would be reasonable under the circumstances. This …

Five Questions After Atlantic Marine, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s Atlantic Marine ruling did a lot to clear up the law of forum selection. But it also left a number of live questions in place. This essay briefly discusses five of them. When a party wants to move a case to the selected forum, what procedures can it use, other than venue transfer or forum non conveniens? When is a forum selection clause valid and enforceable, as a matter of state or federal law? If the clause isn’t valid, should a federal court still give it any weight? What if there are multiple parties or claims, and …

Modern-Day Nullification: Marijuana And The Persistence Of Federalism In An Age Of Overlapping Regulatory Jurisdiction, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Thirty-Four Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellants: Altera Corp. V. Papst Licensing Gmbh, Christopher B. Seaman

Scholarly Articles

The amici curiae are law professors who teach and write on civil procedure and/or patent law and policy. As such, amici are interested in the effective functioning of the courts and the patent system in general. Amici believe that this Court’s rigid rule restricting personal jurisdiction in patent declaratory judgment actions both flouts Supreme Court precedent and frustrates the public policy of clearing invalid patents. Although amici hold different views on other aspects of modern patent law and policy, they are united in their professional opinion that this Court should overturn its inflexible jurisdictional rule.

Choosing A Court To Review The Executive, Joseph Mead, Nicholas Fromherz

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

For more than one hundred years, Congress has experimented with review of agency action by single-judge district courts, multiple-judge district courts, and direct review by circuit courts. This tinkering has not given way to a stable design. Rather than settling on a uniform scheme—or at least a scheme with a discernible organizing principle— Congress has left litigants with a jurisdictional maze that varies unpredictably across and within statutes and agencies.

In this Article, we offer a fresh look at the theoretical and empirical factors that ought to inform the allocation of the judicial power between district and circuit courts in …

Choosing A Court To Review The Executive, Joseph Mead, Nicholas Fromherz

All Maxine Goodman Levin School of Urban Affairs Publications

For more than one hundred years, Congress has experimented with review of agency action by single-judge district courts, multiple-judge district courts, and direct review by circuit courts. This tinkering has not given way to a stable design. Rather than settling on a uniform scheme—or at least a scheme with a discernible organizing principle—Congress has left litigants with a jurisdictional maze that varies unpredictably across and within statutes and agencies.In this Article, we offer a fresh look at the theoretical and empirical factors that ought to inform the allocation of the judicial power between district and circuit courts in suits challenging …

Fixing Hollingsworth: Standing In Initiative Cases, Karl Manheim, John S. Caragozian, Donald Warner

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by the “Official Proponents” of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California. Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion held that initiative sponsors lack Article III standing to defend their ballot measures even when state officials refuse to defend against constitutional challenges. As a result, Hollingsworth provides state officers with the ability to overrule laws that were intended to bypass the government establishment—in effect, an “executive veto” of popularly-enacted initiatives.

The Article examines this new “executive veto” in depth. It places Hollingsworth in context, discussing the initiative process …

Opinion Analysis: Bargaining In The Shadow Of Equitable Apportionment, Ryke Longest

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Lawrence V. Texas: The Decision And Its Implications For The Future, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

American And Other National Variations On The Theme Of International Commercial Arbitration, Thomas E. Carbonneau

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Look Back At The Rehnquist Era And An Overview Of The 2004 Supreme Court Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.