Jurisdiction Commons^™

Personal Jurisdiction And National Sovereignty, Ray Worthy Campbell

Washington and Lee Law Review

State sovereignty, once seemingly sidelined in personal jurisdiction analysis, has returned with a vengeance. Driven by the idea that states must not offend rival states in their jurisdictional reach, some justices have looked for specific targeting of individual states as individual states by the defendant in order to justify an assertion of personal jurisdiction. To allow cases to proceed based on national targeting alone, they argue, would diminish the sovereignty of any state that the defendant had specifically targeted.

This Article looks for the first time at how this emphasis on state sovereignty limits national sovereignty, especially where alien defendants …

Institutional Loyalty And The Design Of Partisan Gerrymandering Adjudication In The Federal Courts, Michael E. Solimine

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

In 2019 the Supreme Court held in Rucho v. Common Cause that challenges in federal court to partisan gerrymandering were nonjusticiable political questions. Writing for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern that frequently deciding such cases would politicize the Court itself. Such expressions seem to fit well within the characterization of the Chief Justice as an institutionalist concerned with the legitimacy and reputation of the federal courts. This article addresses how the unique design and procedures of gerrymandering litigation in federal courts ought to inform such institutional loyalty arguments. Those features include that such cases are litigated …

In Memory Of Professor James E. Bond, Janet Ainsworth

Seattle University Law Review

Janet Ainsworth, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law: In Memory of Professor James E. Bond.

Reign Of Error: District Courts Misreading The Supreme Court Over Rooker–Feldman Analysis, Thomas D. Rowe Jr., Edward L. Baskauskas

Faculty Scholarship

Seventeen decisions in nine U.S. district courts from 2006 through 2019 have taken a demonstrably misgrounded starting point for Rooker–Feldman analysis. The cases have read language from a 2006 Supreme Court opinion, in which the Court quoted criteria stated by the lower court, as their guideline. But the Court summarily vacated the lower court’s judgment, and it had previously articulated, and has repeated, different criteria for federal courts to follow. The district-court decisions all appear to have reached correct results, but the mistake about criteria should be recognized and avoided as soon as possible before it creates potential mischief. And …

Snap Removal: Concept; Cause; Cacophony; And Cure, Jeffrey W. Stempel, Thomas O. Main, David Mcclure

Scholarly Works

So-called “snap removal” – removal of a case from state to federal court prior to service on a forum state defendant – has divided federal trial courts for 20 years. Recently, panels of the Second, Third and Fifth Circuits have sided with those supporting the tactic even though it conflicts with the general prohibition on removal when the case includes a forum state defendant, a situation historically viewed as eliminating the need to protect the outsider defendant from possible state court hostility.

Consistent with the public policy underlying diversity jurisdiction – availability of a federal forum to protect against defending …

Foreword, National Injunctions: What Does The Future Hold?, Suzette Malveaux

Publications

This Foreword is to the 27th Annual Ira C. Rothgerber Jr. Conference, National Injunctions: What Does the Future Hold?, which was hosted by The Byron R. White Center for the Study of American Constitutional Law at the University of Colorado Law School, on Apr. 5, 2019.

Fraudulent Joinder, Federalism, And The Twombly/Iqbal Problem, Charles W. Oldfield

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Machine Learning And The New Civil Procedure, Zoe Niesel

Faculty Articles

There is an increasing emphasis in the legal academy, the media, and the popular consciousness on how artificial intelligence and machine learning will change the foundations of legal practice. In concert with these discussions, a critical question needs to be explored-As computer programming learns to adjust itself without explicit human involvement, does machine learning impact the procedural practice of law? Civil procedure, while sensitive to technology, has been slow to adapt to change. As such, this Article will explore the impact that machine learning will have on procedural jurisprudence in two significant areas-service of process and personal jurisdiction.

The Article …

Experiments With Suppression: The Evolution Of Repressive Legality In Britain In The Revolutionary Period, Christopher M. Roberts

Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review

This article is concerned with the structure of repressive governance, and how it has evolved historically. It examines this theme through an exploration of the manner which repressive laws and institutions evolved in Britain over the course of the late eighteenth century. In particular, it reviews the various measures that British authorities utilized and relied upon in order to confront a growing wave of calls for social and political reforms. These included a policy of aggressive prosecutions of dissidents; the creation of new institutions such as the Home Office designed to enhance the powers of the central authorities; extralegal measures …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Tricarichi V. Coöperatieve Rabobank, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 73175 (May 2, 2019), John Bays

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) Walden v. Fiore did not overrule Davis v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, meaning that Nevada, under its long-arm statute, recognizes conspiracy-based theory personal jurisdiction and utilizes the conspiracy jurisdiction test as laid out in Gibbs v. Prime Lending and (2) Tricarichi failed to establish personal jurisdiction under either specific or conspiracy theory personal jurisdiction due to an inability to provide sufficient evidence connecting the respondents actions to Nevada.

Due Process Supreme Court Rockland County

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Queens County

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Territorial Reach Of Federal Courts, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

Federal courts exercise the sovereign authority of the United States when they assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant. As components of the national sovereign, federal courts' maximum territorial reach is determined by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which permits jurisdiction over persons with sufficient minimum contacts with the United States and over property located therein. Why, then, are federal courts limited to the territorial reach of the states in which they sit when they exercise personal jurisdiction in most cases? There is no constitutional or statutory mandate that so constrains the federal judicial reach. Rather, it is by operation …

An Organizational Account Of State Standing, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

Again and again in regard to recent high-profile disputes, the legal community has tied itself in knots over questions about when state plaintiffs should have standing to sue in federal court, especially in cases where they seek to sue federal-government defendants. Lawsuits challenging everything from the Bush administration’s environmental policies to the Obama administration’s immigration actions to the Trump administration’s travel bans have become mired in tricky and technical questions about whether state plaintiffs belonged in federal court.

Should state standing cause so much controversy and confusion? This Essay argues that state plaintiffs are far more like at least one …

Categorical Confusion In Personal Jurisdiction Law, Todd Peterson

Washington and Lee Law Review

In Part I, the Article discusses the history of the U.S. Supreme Court’s substantive due process limitations on personal jurisdiction and, in particular, the standards for corporate-activities-based jurisdiction before the Court’s recent cases on that issue. Part II discusses the Court’s failure to provide a convincing theoretical justification for imposing substantive due process limitations on personal jurisdiction. It also discusses the consequences of that failure in three doctrinal areas of personal jurisdiction law, the traditional basis of service on an individual in the forum state, specific jurisdiction and corporate-activities-based jurisdiction. Part III then analyzes in detail the four recent Supreme …

If The Shoe Fits: Rethinking Minimum Contacts And The Fsia Commercial Activity Exception, Jacqueline M. Fitch

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

The question explored in this Note is whether, under the direct effect clause of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act commercial activities exception, a foreign sovereign must have minimum contacts with the United States in order for a U.S. court to assert personal jurisdiction over the entity. Examining personal jurisdiction over foreign states under the direct effect clause requires exploring the interaction between constitutional law and principles of international law. The minimum contacts analysis highlights the tension between applying constitutional due process protection to a foreign state, while simultaneously asserting jurisdiction over its commercial activities. Denying jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign …

Apparently, There Are Places Like Home: A Path To Propriety For Consent-By-Registration Jurisdiction In The Third Circuit, Brett E. Broczowski

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Removal Without Approval? Corporate Litigative Authority To Consent To Federal Removal Where Adverse Parties Are Co-Equal Shareholder Co-Directors, James M. Mcclure

William & Mary Business Law Review

The Case of Swart v. Pawar involved a novel question of law: can a president of a corporation claim authority on behalf of that corporation to consent to federal removal in a suit against a co-equal shareholder co-director even though that president lacks board approval or explicit authority from the business’s bylaws or charter? To address this question, the parties in Swart analogized removal to suit initiation and defense. Since the federal courts hearing the case did not assess the validity of these analogical arguments or a president’s removal authority generally, this Note evaluates the analogies as well as several …

Licensing Paralegals To Practice Law: A Path Toward Bridging The Justice Gap In Minnesota, Conner Suddick

Departmental Honors Projects

There are few legal avenues for low-income and other marginalized groups in the United States to seek civil justice. A lack of legal assistance in civil issues can be detrimental to a person’s health and wellbeing. Given this reality, the legal profession must broaden its capacity to serve these needs, and one path is to embrace the aid of paralegals. In 2016, the legal community of Minnesota had conversations about whether the state should provide limited licenses to paralegals. To study models from across the country, the Minnesota State Bar Association (MSBA) formed the Alternative Legal Models Task Force. In …

Has Shoe Run Its Course?, David W. Ichel

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Jurisdiction In The Trump Era, Scott Dodson

Fordham Law Review

The election of Donald Trump as President of the United States induced immediate speculation about how his tenure would affect various areas of the law. In civil-procedure circles, the intuition is that his status as a probusiness, antiregulation Republican seems likely to push procedural doctrine generally in pro-defendant directions. That intuition seems sound in the specific procedural subtopic of jurisdictional doctrine relating to forum selection. In this Essay, I document recent pre-Trump, pro-defendant trends in personal jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction, and I detail how those trends impose significant burdens on plaintiffs. I then explain why the remainder of Trump’s presidency …