Courts Commons^™

Child Custody - Jurisdiction And Procedure, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

Custody determinations traditionally have comprised a subcategory of litigation under the Pennoyer v. Neff exception for proceedings relating to status. Of course, states have the power to decide the status of their domiciliaries. It was natural, therefore, for the courts and scholars of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to consider domicile the sole basis of jurisdiction in custody matters. Gradually, judges and scholars began to challenge the notion that domicile was the sole basis and courts began to apply other bases, such as the child's presence in the state or personal jurisdiction over both parents. One commentator suggests that …

A House Of Lords' Judgment, And Other Tales Of The Absurd, Alan Watson

Scholarly Works

In this paper I want to look at four approaches to deciding a case in different societies-contemporary England, uncodified civil or 'mixed' law systems (with an example from 17th century Scot-land and another from early 20th century South Africa), 19th century France after codification, 15th century Germany with a glance at 13th and 14th century Spain-where the attempt is made each time to reach the correct decision by applying the mental process thought most appropriate. None of the approaches examined here is result-oriented, and to outsiders, especially to lawyers brought up in a different legal culture, the mental process seems …

Why Professor Redish Is Wrong About Abstention, Michael Wells

Scholarly Works

Most critics of the Supreme Court's abstention doctrines have attacked the substantive merits of rules that channel constitutional litigation away from federal courts and into state courts instead. In a recent article, Martin Redish raises an interesting objection to abstention from a different perspective. He addresses the institutional legitimacy of the rules and contends that whatever their merits, rules like these should be made only by Congress and not the Supreme Court, for they contravene Congress' intent to grant federal courts jurisdiction over constitutional claims against state actors. Part I of this article describes the context in which the choice …

A Conceptual Framework For Extradition And Jurisdiction Over Extraterritorial Crime, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

International law is the language by which nations assert and attempt to resolve competing legal interests. As with any other language, if the definitions of essential concepts become muddled, it is difficult to communicate. The traditional bases of jurisdiction over extraterritorial crime are essential concepts in the language of international law. The decision to grant or deny extradition, for example, often depends on whether the interested nation recognizes the basis of jurisdiction asserted by another. Confusion over the traditional bases of jurisdiction therefore risks disagreement over and denial of extradition.

United States courts have recently expanded the traditional bases of …

Medical Dependency In Arizona, Mary E. Berkheiser

Scholarly Works

Analysis of In re Cochise County Juvenile Action No. 5666-J, 650 P.2d 459 (Ariz. 1982).

United States Jurisdiction Over Extraterritorial Crime, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

The term jurisdiction may be defined as the authority to affect legal interests -- to prescribe rules of law (legislative jurisdiction), to adjudicate legal questions (judicial jurisdiction) and to enforce judgments the judiciary made (enforcement jurisdiction). The definition, nature and scope of jurisdiction vary depending on the context in which it is to be applied. United States domestic law, for example, defines and applies notions of jurisdiction pursuant to the United States constitutional provisions relating to the separation of powers. Within the United States, jurisdiction is defined and applied in a variegated fashion depending on whether a legal problem is …

The Role Of Comity In The Law Of Federal Courts, Michael L. Wells

Scholarly Works

Considerations of comity often require federal courts to defer to state courts when federal issues could be raised in state proceedings. Contexts in which such deference is required include Younger abstention, habeus corpus exhaustion and procedural default, and Pullman and Burford abstention. In this Article, Professor Wells demonstrates that the Supreme Court's opinions fail to make a distinction between cases where comity requires restraint and those where it does not. The Court's motive in invoking comity is not to decrease access to federal courts, but instead to strike a compromise between the individual's interest in a federal forum and the …

Extradition Between France And The United States: An Exercise In Comparative And International Law, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

In 1878 Cardaillac defined extradition as “the right for a State on the territory of which an accused or convicted person has take refuge, to deliver him up to another State wich has requisitioned his return and is competent to judge and punish him.” The term “extradition” was imported to the United States from France, where the decret-loi of Febraury 19, 1791, appears to be the first official document to have used the term. The term is not found in treaties or conventions until 1828. The Latin equivalent to extradition, “tradere”, is not found in early Latin works, but the …

Preliminary Injunctions And Abstention: Some Problems In Federalism, Michael L. Wells

Scholarly Works

Suppose a federal district court faces a challenge to state action that presents an unsettled issue of state law, a federal constitutional issue, and a plaintiff who will be irreparably harmed if the state is not immediately enjoined. May the court abstain from a decision on the merits, remand the case to the state courts for resolution of the state law issue, and yet grant a preliminary injunction against the challenged state action? Does it follow from the paucity of reported opinions coupling such interim relief with abstention that such a procedure is inconsistent with the policies underlying the abstention …

Hawkins V. Town Of Shaw: The Court As City Manager, C. Ronald Ellington, Lawrence F. Jones

Scholarly Works

For over one hundred years Congress and the federal courts have pursued the goal of racial equality in the United States. In areas such as voting rights, public accommodations, and housing, Congress and the courts have interacted closely, with broad judicial interpretations upholding major remedial legislation. Moreover, when confronted by official state sources of racial discrimination, courts have traditionally responded to the clear command of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment without awaiting congressional action. Brown v. Board of Education stands as perhaps the best known instance in which a court has, on its own, ordered the elimination …

The Federal Anti-Injunction Statute In The Aftermath Of Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, John Daniel Reaves, David S. Golden

Scholarly Works

Last Term the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. This case involved the present anti-injunction statute, section 2283 of Title 28, which forbids federal court injunction of state court proceedings. Mr. Justice Black, writing for the majority, traced the roots of the statute's predecessor into the "fundamental constitutional independence of the states and their courts." He hinted that the act grew out of concern for constitutional inviolability of a state court's adjudicative process. Mr. Justice Black went on to announce that the anti-injunction statute is absolute; no judicially created exceptions …