Jurisdiction Commons^™

Whose Law Of Personal Jurisdiction? The Choice Of Law Problem In The Recognition Of Foreign Judgements, Tanya Monestier

Law Faculty Scholarship

It is black-letter law that in order to recognize and enforce a foreign judgment, the rendering court must have had personal jurisdiction over the defendant. While the principle is clear, it is an open question as to whose law governs the question of personal jurisdiction: that of the rendering court or that of the recognizing court. In other words, is the foreign court's jurisdiction over the defendant governed by foreign law (the law of F1), domestic law (the law of F2), or some combination thereof? While courts have taken a number of different approaches, it seems that many courts regard …

Foreign Judgments In Florida Bankruptcy Courts: Choice Of Law, Statutes Of Limitations, And Other Unresolved Issues, Michael Raudebaugh

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.

To Waive Or Not To Waive? Filing Deadlines And Hearing Requests In Administrative Adjudications, Alice Booher Johnson

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

In Part II of this Article, I provide an overview of subject matter jurisdiction in relation to filing timeframes. I review the distinction between original and appellate jurisdiction using Maryland case law and a sample survey of other state case law to provide background to the question of filing deadlines and hearing requests in administrative adjudications. In Part III of this Article, I elaborate upon Supreme Court precedent on administrative filing deadlines. In Part IV of this Article, I analyze the nature of filing deadlines for hearing requests before various state agencies, with an emphasis on Maryland’s scheme. The case …

Judicial Recusation In The Federal Republic Of Germany, Sigmund A. Cohn

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Voting Rights Act And The "New And Improved" Intent Test: Old Wine In New Bottles, Randolph M. Scott-Mclaughlin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Misconduct - A Plaintiff's Point Of View, Part Ii, John Williams

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Misconduct - A Plaintiff's Point Of View, Fred Brewington

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Prosecution And Section 1983, Barry C. Scheck

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Procedural Due Process Claims, Erwin Chemerinsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Section 1983 Custom Claims And The Code Of Silence, Myriam Gilles

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Submerged Precedent, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Faculty Scholarship

Numerous studies have pointed to the skewed picture of trial courts' workload, management, and disposition of cases that exists from examining Westlaw and Lexis opinions alone, akin to navigating the iceberg from its tip.⁴ But submerged precedent pushes docketology in an uncharted direction by identifying a mass of reasoned opinions-putative precedent and not mere evidence of decision-making-that exist only on dockets. Submerged precedent thus raises the specter that docket-based research may be necessary in some areas to ascertain an accurate picture of the law itself not just trial courts' administration of it.

The existence of a submerged body …

What Remains Of Vicarious Jurisdiction For Establishing General Jurisdiction Over Corporate Defendants After Daimler Ag V. Bauman?, Keri Martin

Seton Hall Circuit Review

No abstract provided.

A Crackerjack Of A Sea Yarn: The Triumphs, Tributes And Trials Of Treasure Hunter Tommy Thompson, Taylor Simpson-Wood

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Necessary Narrowing Of General Personal Jurisdiction, William Grayson Lambert

Marquette Law Review

General personal jurisdiction allows a court to issue a binding judgment against a defendant in any case, even if the facts giving rise to the case are unrelated to that forum. In the six decades after International Shoe v. Washington, courts held that general jurisdiction existed whenever a defendant had substantial continuous and systemic contacts with the forum. This rule was narrowed significantly in 2011, however, when the Supreme Court in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown held that general jurisdiction was properly exercised only when a defendant had sufficient contacts to be “at home” in the forum.

Neutralizing The Stratagem Of “Snap Removal”: A Proposed Amendment To The Judicial Code, Arthur Hellman, Lonny Hoffman, Thomas D. Rowe Jr., Joan Steinman, Georgene Vairo

Faculty Scholarship

The “Removal Jurisdiction Clarification Act” is a narrowly tailored legislative proposal designed to resolve a widespread conflict in the federal district courts over the proper interpretation of the statutory “forum-defendant” rule.

The forum-defendant rule prohibits removal of a diversity case “if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the [forum state].” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) (emphasis added). Some courts, following the “plain language” of the statute, hold that defendants can avoid the constraints of the rule by removing diversity cases to federal court when a citizen of the forum state has …

Paterno V. Laser Spine Institute: Did The New York Court Of Appeals' Misapplication Of Unjustified Policy Fears Lead To A Miscarriage Of Justice And The Creation Of Inadequate Precedent For The Proper Use Of The Empire State’S Long-Arm Statute?, Jay C. Carlisle, Christine M. Murphy, Kiersten M. Schramek, Marley Strauss

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This article discusses CPLR section 302(a)(1) as applied by the New York State Court of Appeals in Paterno v. Laser Spine Institute. The Paterno Court failed to properly apply a statutory jurisdictional analysis by conflating it with a due process inquiry. Also, the Court unnecessarily balanced the interests of the Empire State's citizens in having a forum for access to justice with unjustified policy fears of potential costs to the state from assertions of in personam jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court's policy focus4 on the protection of medical doctors from lawsuits and the prevention of “floodgate” litigation which would adversely affect …

A Further Note On Federal Causes Of Action, John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

In the article, I argue that federal causes of action ought to be treated as (1) distinct from substantive rights, (2) synonymous with the availability of a remedy (but not whether a remedy will in fact issue) and (3) distinct from subject matter jurisdiction (unless Congress instructs otherwise). This thesis is built principally on a historical recounting of the cause of action from eighteenth century England to twenty-first century America. In taking an historical approach, I did not mean to argue that federal courts are bound to adhere to centuries-old conceptions of the cause of action. I merely used history …

The Preliminary Injunction Standard In Diversity: A Typical Unguided Erie Choice, David E. Shipley

Georgia Law Review

The standard for granting preliminary injunctions in some states is not the same as the preliminary injunction standard that is followed in the federal district courts in the federal circuit where the state is located. For example, the interlocutory injunction standard in Georgia's superior courts is not as demanding as the preliminary injunction standard in Georgia's federal courts. Although state and federal courts in Georgia consider four similar factors in deciding whether to grant or deny provisional injunctive relief, a balancing or sliding scale approach can be used in Georgia's courts; the moving party need not prove all four of …

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 …

Erie And Preemption: Killing One Bird With Two Stones, Jeffrey Rensberger

Indiana Law Journal

The Supreme Court has developed a standard account of the Erie doctrine. The Court has directed different analyses of Erie cases depending upon whether the federal law in question is in the form of a federal rule (or statute) or is instead a judge-made law. But the cases applying the doctrine are difficult to explain using the standard account. Although the Court and commentators have noted that Erie is a type of preemption, they provide little, if any, rigorous analysis of Erie in light of preemption doctrines. This Article attempts to fill that void, offering an extended analysis of Erie …

Summary Of Catholic Diocese Of Green Bay, Inc. V. John Doe 119, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (May 28, 2015), Adam Wynott

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held a plaintiff must prove sufficient contacts with the jurisdiction in order to establish personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Without proof of sufficient contacts, Nevada courts do not have personal jurisdiction over a foreign Catholic diocese. The Court reversed the district court’s decision.

Foreign Sovereign Immunity - Rex V. Cia. Pervana De Vapores, S.A., Richard O. Ward

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Minimum Contacts Jurisdiction Under The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Eric Johnson, Chrisanne Worthington

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

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 …

Atlantic Marine Through The Lens Of Erie, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Atlantic Marine clarified several things about the enforcement of forum-selection clauses in federal court. But something important was missing from Justice Alito's opinion — the Erie doctrine. Erie, of course, helps to determine the applicability of state law in federal court, and state law potentially has a lot to say about contractual forum-selection clauses. Indeed, Erie was front and center the last time the Court confronted the enforcement of forum-selection clauses in federal court, when it decided Stewart Organization v. Ricoh a quarter century ago.

This article for the Hastings Law Journal's symposium on …

Digging Up The Corp(Ses): Holston Investments V. Lanlogistics Corp. And The Continuing Struggle To Determine The Citizenship Of Dissolved And Inactive Corporations For The Purposes Of Diversity Jurisdiction, Nicholas W. Roosevelt

Northwestern University Law Review

Since the early 1990s, the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have been divided on how to determine the citizenship of dissolved or inactive corporations for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, courts of appeals addressing the issue had settled on one of three conclusions: (1) citizenship should be determined only by the corporation’s state of incorporation; (2) citizenship should be determined both by the corporation’s state of incorporation and its last principal place of business; or (3) citizenship should always be determined by the corporation’s state of incorporation, but only be determined by principal …

Removal Jurisdiction Over Mass Actions, Mallory A. Gitt

Washington Law Review

The mass action provision in the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 provides a federal forum for certain state court litigation that resembles class actions but otherwise could not be removed. The provision is triggered when state court plaintiffs propose a joint trial of common legal or factual issues. But defining what constitutes that triggering event has proved difficult for federal courts. They have not used a uniform framework to determine when they have subject matter jurisdiction over the purported mass action, and have lacked a common interpretation of the statutory language to begin the inquiry. That lack of coherence …

International Mass Tort Litigation: Forum Non Conveniens And The Adequate Alternative Forum In Light Of The Bhopal Disaster, Stephen L. Cummings

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Reflections On Judicial Jurisdiction In International Cases, Gary B. Born

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

How Congress Should Fix Personal Jurisdiction, Stephen E. Sachs

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.