Jurisdiction Commons^™

Personal Jurisdiction And The "Interwebs", Alan M. Trammell, Derek E. Bambauer

Scholarly Articles

For nearly twenty years, lower courts and scholars have struggled to figure out how personal jurisdiction doctrine should apply in the Internet age. When does virtual conduct make someone amenable to jurisdiction in any particular forum? The classic but largely discredited response by courts has been to give primary consideration to a commercial Web site’s interactivity. That approach distorts the current doctrine and is divorced from coherent jurisdictional principles. Moreover, scholars have not yielded satisfying answers. They typically have argued either that the Internet is thoroughly exceptional and requires its own rules, or that it is largely unexceptional and can …

A Tale Of Two Jurisdictions, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarly Articles

The Supreme Court has recently clarified one corner of personal jurisdiction—a court’s power to hale a defendant into court—and pointed the way toward a coherent theory of the rest of the doctrine. For nearly seventy years, the Court has embraced two theories of when jurisdiction over a defendant is permissible. The traditional theory, general jurisdiction, authorizes jurisdiction when there is a tight connection between the defendant and the forum. The modern theory, specific jurisdiction, focuses more on the connection between the lawsuit itself and the forum. Although the two theories should have developed in tandem, the doctrine has become a …

Isolating Litigants: A Response To Pamela Bookman, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarly Articles

In a recent article, Litigation Isolationism, Pamela Bookman identifies a phenomenon that similarly changes hue depending on one’s perspective or disposition. Bookman argues that four doctrines (personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, abstention comity, and the presumption against extraterritoriality) conspire to make U.S. courts significantly less hospitable to transnational litigation. In Bookman’s assessment, such isolationism is counterproductive because the doctrines often fail to vindicate their stated goals of respecting the separation of powers, international comity, and defendants’ interests. The article is crisp and elegant. It synthesizes disparate areas of law to elucidate a broader development in civil litigation. And it makes …

Pennoyer Strikes Back: Personal Jurisdiction In A Global Age, William V. Dorsaneo Iii

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The primary purpose of this Article is to evaluate the four most recent Supreme Court decisions on personal jurisdiction and situate those decisions within the history of Supreme Court personal jurisdiction jurisprudence. Starting with the seminal case of Pennoyer v. Neff, personal jurisdiction jurisprudence has been remarkably kaleidoscopic,with the Supreme Court intervening at various intervals to redefine the law in broad strokes, while zigzagging from one doctrinal position to another and thereby leaving lower courts to hash out the application of an evolving personal jurisdiction doctrine to varying fact patterns. I will divide this jurisprudential history into two main groups …

The Value Of Uncertainty, Cathy Hwang, Benjamin P. Edwards

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court's New Approach To Personal Jurisdiction, Bernadette Bollas Genetin

Akron Law Faculty Publications

In the Supreme Court’s recent general jurisdiction cases, it narrowed general jurisdiction in accord with a “reasonableness” approach to jurisdiction that is consistent with International Shoe’s so-called “forward-looking” face. In the Court’s most recent specific jurisdiction case, Walden v. Fiore, the Court took steps toward assessing specific jurisdiction under a reasonableness analysis, but it ultimately reunited the antagonistic “reasonableness” and territorial power theories to impose artificial limits on specific jurisdiction. The newly narrowed general jurisdiction will not often be available as a “safety valve” to provide jurisdiction in some cases in which jurisdiction would be reasonable under the circumstances. This …

Five Questions After Atlantic Marine, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s Atlantic Marine ruling did a lot to clear up the law of forum selection. But it also left a number of live questions in place. This essay briefly discusses five of them. When a party wants to move a case to the selected forum, what procedures can it use, other than venue transfer or forum non conveniens? When is a forum selection clause valid and enforceable, as a matter of state or federal law? If the clause isn’t valid, should a federal court still give it any weight? What if there are multiple parties or claims, and …

Brief Of Thirty-Four Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellants: Altera Corp. V. Papst Licensing Gmbh, Christopher B. Seaman

Scholarly Articles

The amici curiae are law professors who teach and write on civil procedure and/or patent law and policy. As such, amici are interested in the effective functioning of the courts and the patent system in general. Amici believe that this Court’s rigid rule restricting personal jurisdiction in patent declaratory judgment actions both flouts Supreme Court precedent and frustrates the public policy of clearing invalid patents. Although amici hold different views on other aspects of modern patent law and policy, they are united in their professional opinion that this Court should overturn its inflexible jurisdictional rule.

Lawrence V. Texas: The Decision And Its Implications For The Future, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

To Be Or Not To Be: The Forum Non Conveniens Performance Acted Out On Anglo-American Courtroom Stages, Alan Reed

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Confusing Standards For Discretionary Review In Washington And A Proposed Framework For Clarity, Judge Stephen Dwyer

Seattle University Law Review

It has now been more than thirty-five years since the Washington Rules of Appellate Procedure (RAP) became effective in 1976 and replaced all prior rules governing appellate procedure. One significant change that those rules made was to clearly describe and delineate a procedural mechanism for seeking interlocutory review of trial court decisions. The ultimate effect on practitioners is both obvious and unavoidable. Many lawyers, rather than stake out a clear position regarding the applicability of the various considerations governing discretionary review, simply argue that any and every consideration that is even arguably applicable is satisfied by the trial court’s determination. …

Vladimir Putin And The Rule Of Law In Russia, Jeffrey Kahn

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Federal Rules At 75: Dispute Resolution, Private Enforcement Or Decisions According To Law?, James R. Maxeiner

Georgia State University Law Review

This essay is a critical response to the 2013 commemorations of the75th anniversary of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were introduced in 1938 to provide procedure to decide cases on their merits. The Rules were designed to replace decisions under the “sporting theory of justice”with decisions according to law.

By 1976, at midlife, it was clear that they were not achieving their goal. America’s proceduralists split into two sides about what to do. One side promotes rules that control and conclude litigation: e.g.,plausibility pleading, case management, limited discovery, cost indemnity for discovery, and summary …

Division Of Labor: The Modernization Of The Supreme Court Of Georgia And Concomitant Workload Reduction Measures In The Court Of Appeals, Kyle G.A. Wallace, Andrew J. Tuck, Max Marks

Georgia State University Law Review

This article addresses two distinct yet interrelated topics: the arcane and unnecessarily complex jurisdictional division between the Georgia Supreme Court and Georgia Court of Appeals, and the excessive caseload at the Georgia Court of Appeals.

In Part I.A., this article discusses Georgia’s appellate system—its history, the jurisdictional division that arose, the confusion the current jurisdictional framework creates, and the limitations and burdens it places on Georgia’s highest court. In Part I.B., the article discusses the current caseload at the Court of Appeals and the burden any jurisdictional reforms would have on the Court of Appeals. In Part II, the article …

Historical Antecedents Of Challenges Facing The Georgia Appellate Courts, Michael B. Terry

Georgia State University Law Review

The Georgia appellate courts face challenges common to many courts in these days of reduced governmental resources. At the same time, the Georgia appellate courts face unusual challenges that can be traced to their historical antecedents and one unique constitutional provision: the “Two-Term Rule.” Just as “[t]he law embodies the story of a nation’s development through many centuries,” the current rules and practices of both the Supreme Court of Georgia and the Court of Appeals of Georgia embody the story of the development of those courts since their founding.

Several aspects of the history of the courts directly impact the …

In Personam And Beyond The Grasp: In Search Of Jurisdiction And Accountability For Foreign Defendants, Andrew F. Popper

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Waving Goodbye To Non-Waivability: The Case For Permitting Waiver Of Statutory Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Defects, Jessica Berch

McGeorge Law Review

No abstract provided.

Resoling International Shoe, Donald L. Doernberg

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Goodyear Dunlop Tire Operations, S.A. v. Brown and Daimler AG v. Bauman sharply restricted general jurisdiction over corporations, limiting it to a corporation’s (1) state of incorporation, (2) state of principal place of business, or (3) another state where the corporation is “essentially at home.” The Court analogized the first two categories to an individual’s domicile. The Court made clear that the third category is very small, leading Justice Sotomayor, in her opinion concurring in the judgment, to charge that the Court had made many corporations “too big for general jurisdiction.” It is noteworthy that although the Court used the …

Seeking Justice In The Empire State: Court Of Appeals Broadens The Reach Of Long Arm Jurisdiction And Clarifies The Statutory Guidelines For Application Of Cplr Section 302(A)(1), Jay C. Carlisle

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This article will discuss developments in long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR section 302(a)(1)1 and analyze the recent New York State Court of Appeals‘s thoughtful and instructive decision in Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL. Licci decided the question of whether a non-domiciliary‘s maintenance of a bank account in New York constituted a “transaction of business” out of which the plaintiff‘s claims arose under the state‘s long-arm statute. The Licci plaintiffs had alleged that the defendant funded a terrorist organization responsible for the injuries and deaths of certain plaintiffs and decedents they represented. The Licci opinion did not decide …

Remanding Multidistrict Litigation, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Scholarly Works

Multidistrict litigation has frequently been described as a “black hole” because transfer is typically a one-way ticket. The numbers lend truth to this proposition. As of 2010, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remanded only 3.425% of cases to their original districts. That number dwindled to 3.1% in 2012, and to a scant 2.9% in 2013. Retaining cases in hopes of forcing a global settlement can cause a constellation of complications. These concerns range from procedural justice issues over selecting a forum and correcting error, to substantive concerns about fidelity to state laws, to undermining democratic participation ideals fulfilled through …

Maryland Personal Jurisdiction Law In The Cyberspace Content, Saad Gul

University of Baltimore Law Forum

A century ago, personal jurisdiction largely hinged on a simple litmus test: the defendant’s presence in the forum state. The issue of personal jurisdiction gained prevalence as the nation evolved from its earlier days of detached, semi-sovereign entities, whose citizens rarely interacted, to a nation where interstate commerce had increased, with interstate litigation growing correspondingly. In Pennoyer v. Neff, the Supreme Court of the United States effectively limited a state’s jurisdiction to persons physically present within its territorial borders. However, in today’s increasingly interconnected world, physical presence appears to represent an anachronism set in the post-Civil War, horse-and-buggy America of …

Jurisdiction And The Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments, Tanya Monestier

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Kryptonite For Cafa?, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

This essay — for the Review of Litigation’s symposium issue on the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and accompanying panel at the 2013 annual meeting of the Association of American Law Schools — explores the tension between CAFA and the Erie doctrine. CAFA was designed to expand federal diversity jurisdiction over high-stakes state-law class actions and, thereby, allow federal judges to decide class certification pursuant to federal law. The Erie doctrine, by contrast, aims to discourage vertical forum shopping by requiring federal courts hearing state-law claims to follow state law. Put the two together, and the result could be that …

Erie's International Effect: A Reply, Donald Earl Childress Iii

NULR Online

No abstract provided.

The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act: Thirty Years Later And Of No Effect? Where Can The Unwed Father Turn?, Rebecca Miller

Pepperdine Law Review

In 1980, the federal government passed the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), designed to prevent parents from attempting to “forum shop” to gain an advantage in custody disputes. A recent Utah Supreme Court decision held that jurisdiction challenges under the PKPA are waived if not raised in the lower court. This Article argues that this decision runs counter to the purpose behind the PKPA and sets a dangerous precedent. It calls for the Supreme Court to interpret the ambiguous provisions of the PKPA to resolve inconsistent rulings and protect the rights of unwed fathers.

Civil Procedure—Be More Specific: Vague Precedents And The Differing Standards By Which To Apply “Arises Out Of Or Relates To” In The Test For Specific Personal Jurisdiction, Ryne H. Ballou

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Twin Aims Of Erie, Michael S. Green

Faculty Publications

We all remember the twin aims of the Erie rule from first-year civil procedure. A federal court sitting in diversity must use forum state law if it is necessary to avoid 'forum shopping" and the "inequitable administration of the laws." This Article offers a reading of the twin aims and a systematic analysis of their proper role in federal and state court. I argue that the twin aims apply in diversity cases not because they protect state interests, but because they serve the federal purposes standing behind the diversity statute. So understood, they are about separation of powers, not federalism. …

Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Permissive Counterclaims And Set Offs: A Misconception, Douglas D. Mcfarland

Mercer Law Review

In the years prior to 1990, courts extended federal jurisdiction over joined claims and parties in an orderly system. Pendent jurisdiction allowed a plaintiff to join a state law theory of recovery to a federal question theory in the complaint when both arose from a "common nucleus of operative fact."Ancillary jurisdiction allowed a defendant to join a state law claim to a federal claim in a civil action when both arose from the same "transaction or occurrence." Since a compulsory counterclaim arose from the same "transaction or occurrence" and a permissive counterclaim did not, courts had no difficulty in holding …

Muko And Conex: The Third Circuit Responds To Connell , Robert A. King, Melvin L. Moser

Pepperdine Law Review

The authors discuss the application of federal antitrust laws to organized labor. The article, written for practitioners, defines the elements necessary to obtain a recovery in labor antitrust actions. The authors analyze the standard of review, burden of proof and the elements which the unions must show in order to be exempted from antitrust law. The focal point of the article is the comparison between the Supreme Court's most recent discussion of the labor exemption in Connell Construction Co. v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union 100 and the Third Circuit's application of that exemption in Larry V. Muko v. Southwestern …

A Reappraisal Of General And Limited Jurisdiction In California , Thomas Kallay

Pepperdine Law Review

The ability of a California court to assert jurisdiction over business enterprises currently depends upon how the court characterizes the nature and extent of the business's activities within the state. If the in-state business activities of a particular concern are extensive, California courts will exercise all-encompassing general jurisdiction over the cause of action, but if the activities are insufficient to warrant the exercise of general jurisdiction, which has been invariably the case, the court will then turn to a consideration of limited jurisdiction, which jurisdiction depends upon the quality and nature of the business's activities in the forum in relation …