Courts Commons^™

Getting To Yes In Specialized Courts: The Unique Role Of Adr In Business Court Cases, Bejamin F. Tennille, Lee Applebaum, Anne Tucker Nees

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

The assumed compatibility between ADR and specialized courts is largely unexamined. Without being able to statistically validate the motivations and preferences of individual disputants in a manner to draw generalized conclusions, this article examines the relationship between ADR and specialized business courts by looking at how the two are structurally intertwined through existing procedural rules and implementation practices. Part I of this article describes the foundational structures and concepts behind both ADR and specialized business courts, as well as the similarities and differences between them. Part II explores the existing formal structural relationship between ADR and specialized courts by examining …

An Unnecessary Consternation: An Analysis Of The Future Of Eu Arbitration In The Wake Of The West Tankers Decision, Mark G. Materna

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This article proposes that, despite the West Tankers decision, parties are still not free to breach the terms of an arbitration agreement. On the contrary, there has been a strong trend by English courts to find ways of preventing parties from breaching such agreements. In short, this article serves to quell the panic and elucidate that the West Tankers decision is not a nail in the coffin, but rather a mechanism to reiterate European courts' dedication to ensuring that arbitration provisions remain a potent force against economic infidelity. Part II of this article will provide a brief background of anti-suit …

Waiving Rights Goodbye: Class Action Waivers In Arbitration Agreements After Stolt-Nielsen V. Animalfeeds International , Diana M. Link, Richard A. Bales

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This article first argues that to determine the enforceability of a class action waiver, courts should take a "totality of the circumstances" approach rather than adopting a bright-line rule. A set of defined factors that also allows courts to consider real-world issues facing litigants will provide a substantial framework for courts to interpret this area of the law and will lead to more consistent and well-reasoned outcomes in the future. These factors include: the probable size of each class member's individual recovery, the potential for retaliation against class members, the awareness of potential class members that their rights have been …

The Assault Of Jamie Leigh Jones: How One Woman's Horror Story Is Changing Arbitration In America, Jeffrey Adams

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This article examines Jones v. Halliburton Co., the "Al Franken Amendment" to the 2010 U.S. Defense Department Budget (Franken Amendment) that was created in response to Jones, and the impact that both could have on mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts in the future. Part II recounts the troubling events that led to Jones and the inclusion of the Franken Amendment in the 2010 Defense Department Budget. Part III details the arguments made for and against the inclusion of the Franken Amendment. Part IV analyzes the impact that the Franken Amendment could have on mandatory arbitration clauses in contacts in …

A Tort Statute, With Aliens And Pirates, Eugene Kontorovich

Faculty Working Papers

The pirates of the Caribbean are back. Not in another fantastical film but in the litigation over the reach of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). For the first time since they dealt with the legal issues raised by a wave of maritime predation in the Caribbean in the early nineteenth century, Supreme Court justices are seriously discussing piracy. This crime has emerged as the test case for evaluating the major controversies about the reach of the statute -- namely, extraterritorial application and the existence of corporate liability. At oral argument in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Shell, justices of all persuasions …

Discretion, Delegation, And Defining In The Constitution's Law Of Nations Clause, Eugene Kontorovich

Faculty Working Papers

Never in the nation's history has the scope and meaning of Congress's power to "Define and Punish. . . Offenses Against the Law of Nations" mattered as much. The once obscure power has in recent years been exercised in broad and controversial ways, ranging from civil human rights litigation under the Alien Tort Statue (ATS) to military commissions trials in Guantanamo Bay. Yet it has not yet been recognized that these issues both involve the Offenses Clauses, and indeed raise common constitutional questions.First, can Congress only "Define" offenses that clearly already exist in international law, or does it have discretion …

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 …

Introduction, Paul Finkelman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Article Iii And Removal Jurisdiction: The Demise Of The Complete Diversity Rule And A Proposed Return To Minimal Diversity, Rodney K. Miller

Oklahoma Law Review

The complete diversity rule is broken. Although easily applied in theory (federal courts can exercise subject matter jurisdiction over an action on diversity grounds only when no party is of the same citizenship as any adverse party), over time the number of judicially and legislatively created exceptions to the rule, as well as their varying and inconsistent application by the federal courts, has created an environment in which similarly situated parties are treated differently based solely on the forum in which the litigation is brought. In the removal context, depending upon the forum in which an action is filed, a …

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 …

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 …

No History, No Certainty, No Legitimacy . . . No Problem: Originalism And The Limits Of Legal Theory, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

Professor Martin H. Redish is on the warpath. Like General Sherman marching toward Atlanta (or Justin Tuck marching toward Tom Brady), Professor Redish, together with Matthew Arnould,1 lays waste to every constitutional theory that he encounters. Originalism, with its “belief that constitutional interpretation should be characterized exclusively by an effort to determine the Constitution’s meaning by means of some form of historical inquiry,”2 generates “an often contrived and opaque veil of historical inquiry”3 that provides “an ideal smokescreen behind which judges may pursue their personal[,] moral, political[,] or economic goals with relative impunity.”4 Nontextual theories, for their part, “permit[] selective …

Advisory Adjudication, Girardeau A. Spann

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court decision in Camreta v. Greene is revealing. The Court first issues an opinion authorizing appeals by prevailing parties in qualified immunity cases, even though doing so entails the issuance of an advisory opinion that is not necessary to resolution of the dispute between the parties. And the Court then declines to reach the merits of the underlying constitutional claim in the case, because doing so would entail the issuance of an advisory opinion that was not necessary to the resolution of the dispute between the parties. The Court's decision, therefore, has the paradoxical effect of both honoring …

Back To The Drawing Board: Re-Examining Accepted Premises Of Regional Circuit Structure, Martha Dragich

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

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 …

Agency Independence After Pcaob, Kevin M. Stack

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Israel's Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction: An Empirical Study, Theodore Eisenberg, Talia Fisher, Issi Rosen-Zvi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This Essay reports the results of an empirical study of the Israel Supreme Court (ISC). It covers the outcomes of 3,562 cases (as of this writing), all decided in 2006 and 2007, and describes the cases by subject area, litigant-pair characteristics, and source of jurisdiction - mandatory or discretionary. In mandatory-jurisdiction cases ending with clear affirmances or reversals, the ISC affirmed lower court rulings in about 75% of district court criminal case appeals and about 67% of district court civil case appeals. In discretionary- jurisdiction cases, the ISC rarely granted review. It agreed to review about 6 % of petitions …

Rethinking The Sovereign Status Of The Holy See: Towards A Greater Equality Of States And Greater Protection Of Citizens In United States Courts, James Fantau

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The note advocates for the reclassification of the Holy See from a sovereign state to an instrumentality under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). This change would enhance legal accountability, particularly in cases involving sexual abuse scandals, by allowing plaintiffs to sue the Holy See more effectively. The argument is based on legal tests, including the core functions test and the legal characteristics test, which suggest that the Holy See functions more as an instrumentality of the Vatican City State rather than a sovereign entity.

The Structural Safeguards Of Federal Jurisdiction, Tara Leigh Grove

Faculty Publications

Scholars have long debated Congress’s power to curb federal jurisdiction and have consistently assumed that the constitutional limits on Congress’s authority (if any) must be judicially enforceable and found in the text and structure of Article III. In this Article, I challenge that fundamental assumption. I argue that the primary constitutional protection for the federal judiciary lies instead in the bicameralism and presentment requirements of Article I. These Article I lawmaking procedures give competing political factions (even political minorities) considerable power to “veto” legislation. Drawing on recent social science and legal scholarship, I argue that political factions are particularly likely …

A Realist Defense Of The Alien Tort Statute, Robert Knowles

Law Faculty Publications

This Article offers a new justification for modern litigation under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), a provision from the 1789 Judiciary Act that permits victims of human rights violations anywhere in the world to sue tortfeasors in U.S. courts. The ATS, moribund for nearly 200 years, has recently emerged as an important but controversial tool for the enforcement of human rights norms. “Realist” critics contend that ATS litigation exasperates U.S. allies and rivals, weakens efforts to combat terrorism, and threatens U.S. sovereignty by importing into our jurisprudence undemocratic international law norms. Defenders of the statute, largely because they do not …

Standing On A Spectrum: Third Party Standing In The United States, Canada, And Australia, Gwendolyn Mckee

Barry Law Review

This article examines third party standing cases in the United States, Canada, and Australia. It demonstrates that third party standing can only be understood with reference to the role of modern courts in broad-based, constitutional style rights protection. This type of protection has been the main factor driving courts to create exceptions to the traditional standing requirements. It is only once these exceptions have been established that a court begins to consider allowing third party standing in cases that do not involve rights. The effects of this theory can be seen in the three countries examined in this article.

The Reason Behind The Rules: From Description To Normativity In International Criminal Procedure, Noah Weisbord

Faculty Publications

As the International Criminal Court (ICC) continues to mature in its practices, it provokes discussion on whether the comfortable framework of adversarial and inquisitorial systems should be used to evaluate an institution that exists in a fundamentally different context from that of national criminal justice systems. In order to avoid entangling the ICC in rules that are not tailored to fit its specific goals and institutional context, the normative purposes underlying procedural rules derived from domestic institutions should be reexamined.

This article draws out basic principles that may be of use in reexamining the reasoning behind the rules of procedure …

Differentiating The Federal Circuit, Elizabeth I. Winston

Scholarly Articles

In 1982, Congress created the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Often referred to as an experiment, the Federal Circuit has flourished. Born again from the ashes of its predecessors, the aptly nicknamed Phoenix Court continues to grow in significance, stature, and strength. As it grows, however, the court remains rooted in its history and in its unique nature. This Article explores the Federal Circuit’s structure and its impact on the development of Federal Circuit jurisprudence. The Federal Circuit is distinguishable by more than its national jurisdiction – the very essence of the court sets it apart …

Global Problems In Domestic Courts, Ralf Michaels

Faculty Scholarship

We face an increasing number of problems that are essentially global in nature because they affect the world in its entirety: global cartels, climate change, crimes against humanity; to name a few. These problems require world courts, yet world courts in the institutional sense are largely lacking. Hence, domestic courts must function, effectively, as world courts. Given the unlikelihood of effective world courts in the future, our challenge is to establish under what conditions domestic courts can play this role of world courts effectively and legitimately.

Forum, Federalism, And Free Markets: An Empirical Study Of Judicial Behavior Under The Dormant Commerce Clause Doctrine, Mehmet K. Konar-Steenberg, Anne F. Peterson

Faculty Scholarship

This study examines judicial behavior under the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine by drawing on an original database of 459 state and Federal appellate cases decided between 1970 and 2009. The authors use logit regression to show that state judges are more likely to uphold state and local laws against dormant Commerce Clause attack than their Federal judicial counterparts, a result that is consistent with the interstate rivalry issues animating the doctrine. The study also finds that Republican-dominated judicial panels at the state level are more likely to side with tax challengers invoking the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine than are Democratic …

Prosecuting Federal Crimes In State Courts, Michael G. Collins, Jonathan R. Nash

Faculty Articles

Despite the ancient maxim that the courts of one sovereign will not “execute the penal laws of another,” they sometimes do. For example, federal courts can hear state-law criminal prosecutions of federal officers for acts taken in the course of their duties that are brought initially in state court and are then removed to federal court. In addition, some states now open their courthouse doors to officials from other states to pursue tax enforcement actions against delinquent taxpayers. But states still do not (and perhaps cannot) entertain prosecutions of fugitives solely for crimes committed in another state because the Constitution …

American Academy Of Religion V. Napolitano, Margaret Laufman

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Common Procedural And Jurisdictional Pitfalls To Avoid In Practicing Before The Arkansas Supreme Court, Megan Hargraves

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

After The Ecj's West Tankers: The Clash Of Civilizations On The Issue Of An Anti-Suit Injunction, Grace Gunah Kim

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

This Note argues that the ECJ's West Tankers decision to ban an anti-suit injunction in Europe, coupled with the recent European Commission's reform proposals to govern arbitration within the jurisdictional framework of the Brussels Regulation No. 44/ 2001 ("Brussels Regulation"), directly clash with the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards ("New York Convention") and practically amount to a blanket rule that bars English courts from upholding arbitration agreements.

Untangling The Twists Of Habeas Corpus, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

Take it from me. The one job you don't want is sorting out federal habeas corpus. By all accounts, existing arrangements are an unrelieved disaster. Yet now come Nancy King and Joseph Hoffmann with a valiant effort to set things in order. Their book describes habeas corpus as the writ currently stands, offers explanations of why and how we have come to this pass, and, most important, advances a definite plan of action for habeas in criminal cases-a way to fix what so desperately needs fixing. This is a good book, a valuable book. It is informative, essentially accurate in …