Courts Commons^™

Open And Shut: Non-Removal Statutesand Door-Closing Penalties, Isaac Zwerling

Pepperdine Law Review

There is a longstanding tension in the Court’s treatment of non-removal statutes and door-closing penalties. On the one hand, the Court has held non-removal statutes—business registration statutes that condition a foreign corporation’s license on that corporation’s right to remove cases brought against it to federal court—pose an unconstitutional limit on federal court access. On the other, the Court has extended door-closing penalties statutes prohibiting unregistered foreign corporations from initiating an action in the forum state—to federal courts sitting in diversity. This Article surveys how the Court arrived at this puzzling result. It does so by analyzing each line of cases …

الدفع بعدم الإختصاص في قانون الإجراءات المدنية الإماراتي, أحمد حجال

Proche-Orient, Études juridiques

This study addresses the procedural regime of the objection to jurisdiction, which is one of the procedural defenses that raise in the UAE law the issue of the applicable procedural rules. Before which courts and at what stage of the litigation this defense can be raised, and who is the party entitled to raise it? May or should the court raise it proprio motu? Did the Emirati law adopt the traditional categorization of objections to jurisdiction, that is founded on the jurisdiction rules as such? The rules of absolute jurisdiction are the ones whose violation results in a lack …

Asarco Delenda Est, John Greabe

West Virginia Law Review

ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish is the most important Supreme Court decision addressing the adjudication in state courts of federal claims that Article III’s case-or-controversy requirements would bar lower federal courts from hearing. But there are two serious problems with the reasoning of ASARCO: one involving an error of omission and the other an error of commission. ASARCO’s error of omission is its apparent assumption that a party barred from asserting a federal claim in federal court because of a lack of redressable Article III injury caused by the conduct complained of should face no barriers to obtaining relief on the …

How To Apply Hertz Corp. V. Friend In The Age Of Remote Work, John Andrikos

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

The widespread adoption of remote work in the United States has strained the workability of the nerve center test of Hertz Corp. v. Friend. This comment analyzes how federal courts have applied the nerve center test to fact patterns involving partially or fully remote corporations. Further, it proposes a novel solution to this jurisdictional problem: the Key Person Test.

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.

Extending The Smith V. Hooey Duty To The Holding Jurisdiction, Ronald D. Russell

Maine Law Review

The right to a speedy trial has been an integral part of the Anglo-American legal system since its foundation. The first statement of this guarantee seems to be in the codification of basic rights included in the Magna Charta. It was incorporated into the earliest laws of colonial America and later expressed in the sixth amendment to the Constitution. In Klopfer v. North Carolina, the United States Supreme Court stated, "The history of the right to a speedy trial and its reception in this country clearly establish that it is one of the most basic rights preserved by our Constitution." …

Extending The Smith V. Hooey Duty To The Holding Jurisdiction, Ronald D. Russell

Maine Law Review

The right to a speedy trial has been an integral part of the Anglo-American legal system since its foundation. The first statement of this guarantee seems to be in the codification of basic rights included in the Magna Charta. It was incorporated into the earliest laws of colonial America and later expressed in the sixth amendment to the Constitution. In Klopfer v. North Carolina, the United States Supreme Court stated, "The history of the right to a speedy trial and its reception in this country clearly establish that it is one of the most basic rights preserved by our Constitution." …

Preclusive Jurisdictional Dismissals, Kevin Song

Northwestern University Law Review

Every litigant deserves their day in court. At the same time, litigants cannot endlessly go to court on the same matter. A complex body of preclusion law balances these fundamental tenets by examining when adjudication of a matter precludes subsequent relitigation. This body of law has evolved over time to preserve the day-in-court ideal in a way that is sensitive to the threats that relitigation present to judicial efficiency, fair adjudication, and repose. Modern preclusion law has settled on a pragmatic approach: where a court has issued a final judgment on the merits but erroneously assumed jurisdiction, relitigation may still …

The Role Of Foreseeability In Jurisdictional Inquiry: Tyson V. Whittaker & Son, Inc., Philip M. Coffin Iii

Maine Law Review

When defining the extent of their jurisdiction over nonresident defendants, state courts must be ever mindful of the principle that "all assertions of state-court jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the standards set forth in International Shoe and its progeny. In deciding jurisdictional issues against this background of Supreme Court decisions, many courts have had considerable difficulty in ascertaining the precise extent of the amorphous and discretionary standards set forth in International Shoe and subsequent cases. In the recent decision of Tyson v. Whitaker & Son, Inc., the Maine Supreme Judicial Court was put to this task in deciding whether …

Calling On Congress: Use The Spending Clause To Keep Juveniles In Juvenile Court, Erin Fitzgerald

Pepperdine Law Review

Recently, juvenile justice reformers have had great success in expanding the reach of the juvenile court. Over the last two decades, many states have raised their age of majority, bringing older teens and young adults under the jurisdictional umbrella of the juvenile court. Likewise, many states have amended their transfer statutes, making transferring juveniles from juvenile court to adult criminal court more difficult. The success of these reforms is largely due to the relentless work of dedicated juvenile justice advocates and scholars. The “raise-the-age” movement and work to limit juvenile transfers has undoubtedly helped to retain more youthful offenders within …

Erie And Enforceability Of Forum Selection Clauses, Patrick Woolley

American University Law Review

Whether and to what extent state law governs the contractual validity of forum selection clauses in federal court remains highly contested. This Article argues for a two-part answer.

State law should govern whenever a party seeks a § 1404(a) transfer of venue within the federal judicial system. The Court has insisted that the choice-of-law rules of the state to which the suit is transferred govern when transfer is required by a contractually valid clause. That insistence accords with the Erie policy of vertical uniformity between state and federal courts only if the law of the state in which the transferring …

Is Federal Question Jurisdiction Arising Or Setting, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

In this essay, I respond to Professor Arthur D. Hellman. Hellman argues that "there is reason to be concerned that the [federal] judicial system falls short of the Framers' expectations--primarily by denying many litigants in cases presenting federal questions 'their real day in an Article III court,' but also by fostering 'balkanization' rather than uniformity in the interpretation of federal law." It is a privilege to comment upon Hellman's thoughtful piece. In doing so, I begin by questioning the value of originalist interpretations of Article III jurisdiction both descriptively and normatively. I then turn to an intra-originalist critique that paints …

A Critical Juncture: The Convergence Of Natural Resource Management And Tribal Sovereignty, Anna Aleta Butterfield

Graduate Student Portfolios, Professional Papers, and Capstone Projects

This portfolio reflects the work I’ve done in my four years as a dual degree student, pursuing a Master of Science in Environmental Studies and a juris doctorate degree, and focuses on policies and laws surrounding natural resource management. It touches on how those policies relate to and expand or constrict the exercise of sovereignty by indigenous populations.

This piece first considers the effects of plastic on salmon populations and those indigenous groups that rely on salmon for subsistence and cultural purposes. The remaining three pieces focus on various aspects of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes - Montana Water …

State V. Harding: Municipal Police Authority And The Fresh Pursuit Statute, David S. Schuman

Maine Law Review

As early as 1551, during the reign of King Edward VI, courts held at common law that, except in cases of fresh pursuit, the power of a sheriff or justice of the peace does not extend beyond his jurisdiction. Recognizing the importance of jurisdictional boundaries as limits on a sheriff's authority, the Barons of the Exchequer denounced the possibility of "two several sheriffs in one same county," observing that "in this realm there are divers authorities, and none may exceed his limits or bounds." Modern state statutes setting forth the powers of local police continue to limit the extra-jurisdictional authority …

Rwu Law Alumni Newsletter December 2024, Roger Williams University School Of Law, Pbn Connect, Edward Fitzpatrick, Danna Lorch

RWU Law

No abstract provided.

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.

Problem-Solving Courts And The Outcome Oversight Gap, Erin R. Collins

Law Faculty Publications

Drug courts-and the litany of other problem-solving courts that soon followed in their wake-began as a series of small-scale judicial experiments in criminal punishment reform. They were earnest efforts by criminal court judges to redress an issue that they were well-equipped to see: many people were returning to their courtrooms time and again, often for low-level drug charges, and at a time when court dockets were ballooning because of tough-on-crime arrest and prosecution policies. Early drug court judges combined their power to punish with their authority to control their dockets to create specialized court calendars aimed at providing substance abuse …

Altered Stakes: Reimagining The Amount-In-Controversy Requirement, Steven Gensler, Roger Michalski

Faculty Articles

Which state-law cases should Congress allow into federal court? Congress's answer has always been "only the big ones." This article revisits the choice to limit diversity jurisdiction to higher-value cases and critically examines how Congress has approached setting the amount threshold. It surveys alternate ways Congress could use case value to sort which cases make it into the diversity docket. We explore lotteries, auctioning access to the highest bidder, setting an amount in controversy maximum rather than the current minimum, pegging the jurisdictional amount to the minimum wage or the cost of a hamburger, employing relative measures that use multiples …

Standing Without Injury, Jonathan Adler

Faculty Publications

This Article seeks to assess Judge Newsom’s proposed injury-less approach to standing in federal court. Part I of this Article provides a brief overview of current standing doctrine, the requirements of standing consolidated in Lujan, and how these requirements have been interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court. Part II describes Judge Newsom’s critique of contemporary standing doctrine and outlines the two primary components of his proposed alternative: 1) elimination of the standing requirement in favor of a simple cause-of-action requirement and 2) recognition of an external constraint on standing derived from Article II, rather than Article III.

Part …

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, …

Jefferson's Ghost: The Local Action Rule In Federal Courts, Jeffrey L. Rensberger

Cardozo Law Review

The local action rule required that certain actions concerning real property be adjudicated in the federal court in the state (and perhaps the district) containing the property. This rule had been apart of the law of the United States since the early days of the nation. In 2011, Congress eliminated the local action rule as a matter of venue. But some courts have held that the local action rule pertains to subject matter jurisdiction, not merely venue, and that it survived Congress's elimination of the venue aspect of the rule. This is wrong as to cases in federal court involving …

Forum Fights And Fundamental Rights: Amenability’S Distorted Frame, James P. George

Faculty Scholarship

Framing—the subtle use of context to suggest a conclusion—is a dubious alternative to direct argumentation. Both the brilliance and the bane of marketing, framing also creeps into supposedly objective analysis. Law offers several examples, but a lesser known one is International Shoe’s two-part jurisdictional test. The framing occurs in the underscoring of defendant’s due process rights contrasted with plaintiff’s “interests” which are often dependent on governmental interests. This equation ignores, both rhetorically and analytically, the injured party’s centuries-old rights to—not interests in—a remedy in an open and adequate forum.

Even within the biased frame, the test generally works, if not …

Service Out Under The New Rules Of Court, Ian Mah, Aaron Yoong

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

The new Rules of Court 2021 seek to provide a more accessible and efficient justice system. The extensiveness of the overhaul, however, brings with it as much unfamiliarity as excitement. This legislation comment examines the changes in the provisions governing service out of jurisdiction and argues that the textual changes also effect substantive changes to how the law is applied. This comment also explores the related issues on the grant of Mareva injunctions in aid of foreign proceedings under the new Rules of Court 2021.

American University Law Review Keynote Address, Erwin Chemerinsky

American University Law Review

My talk this morning focuses on the agenda of the current Roberts Court. I think that every Supreme Court can be said to have an agenda. Sometimes it seems conscious and deliberate, apparent from the outset. Sometimes it seems to evolve and only becomes obvious later.

Catch And Release Jurisdiction, Adam B. Sopko

Michigan Law Review Online

In Catch and Kill Jurisdiction, Professor Zachary Clopton sheds light on an increasingly common phenomenon in which federal courts are expanding the power of the federal judiciary in a way that frustrates the enforcement of substantive rights. Federal courts expansively interpret their jurisdiction to reach cases that arguably belong in state court, then apply federal procedural doctrines to dismiss the cases on non-merits grounds. First catch, then kill. Clopton argues we find catch and kills when the federal court system is not overly burdened and in areas where federal judges are “hostile” to a class of claims or litigants. Catch …

Maintaining Due Process By Extending Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. To Federal Class Actions, Felicia D. Sych

American University Law Review

In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its seminal decision in Bristol Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, subsequently altering the scope of personal jurisdiction and further narrowing its interpretation of specific jurisdiction. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. held that a state court can only assert specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant when there is a meaningful nexus between the forum state and the claims at issue. The Court purposefully refrained from deciding whether its holding applies to federal courts adjudicating federal class actions. After denying a petition for writ of certiorari to resolve the issue in 2021, the question …

What It Takes: A Statistical Analysis Of Arkansas Supreme Court’S Petition For Review Process, Justice Rhonda Wood, Jessica Finan Patterson, Brian W. Johnson

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

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 …

Solving The Procedural Puzzles Of The Texas Heartbeat Act And Its Imitators: The Potential For Defensive Litigation, Charles W. "Rocky" Rhodes, Howard M. Wasserman

SMU Law Review

The Texas Heartbeat Act (SB8) prohibits abortions following detection of a fetal heartbeat, a constitutionally invalid ban under current Supreme Court precedent. But the law adopts a unique enforcement scheme—it prohibits enforcement by government officials in favor of private civil actions brought by “any person,” regardless of injury. Texas sought to burden reproductive-health providers and rights advocates with costly litigation and potentially crippling liability.

In a series of articles, we explore how SB8’s exclusive reliance on private enforcement creates procedural and jurisdictional hurdles to challenging the law’s constitutional validity and obtaining judicial review. This piece explores defensive litigation, in which …

State Responsibility For International Bail-Jumping, Robert Currie, Elizabeth Matheson

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Over the last decade, there has been a spate of incidents in Canada and the United States involving Saudi Arabian nationals who, while out on bail for predominantly sexual crimes, were able to abscond from the countries despite having surrendered their passports. Investigation has revealed evidence supporting a reasonable inference that the government of Saudi Arabia has, in fact, assisted its nationals to escape on these occasions. This article makes the case that this kind of conduct amounts not just to unfriendly acts but also to infringements upon the territorial sovereignty of both states and serious breaches of the international …