Jurisdiction Commons^™

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University 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.

Malaysia Historical Salvors Revisited:, John P. Given

Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review

No abstract provided.

Recovering Misdirected Trust Assets In The Face Of Torrens Indefeasibility, Alvin W. L. See

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

Where misdirected trust asset consists of, or becomes invested in,registered land, whether the beneficiary could recover it from the recipient isdoubtful given that the Torrens system, through the principle ofindefeasibility, effects a substantial reversal of the priority rules under thegeneral law. The key to unravelling the seemingly contradictory cases on thistopic is to be sensitive to the diversity in drafting and interpretation of thedifferent Torrens legislations, with particular focus on whether the principleof indefeasibility also protects registered volunteers. Through a comparative studyof the Torrens jurisdictions in Australia and Singapore, this article highlightshow the position differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and …

Venezuela Undermines Gold Miner Crystallex's Attempts To Recover On Its Icsid Award, Sam Wesson

Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Forum Selection Clauses Meet Choice Of Law Clauses, Tanya Monestier

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Forum Selection Clauses And Consumer Contracts In Canada, Tanya Monestier

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

When Courts Run Amuck: A Book Review Of Unequal: How America's Courts Undermine Discrimination Law By Sandra F. Sperino And Suja A. Thomas (Oxford 2017), Theresa M. Beiner

Texas A&M Law Review

In Unequal: How America’s Courts Undermine Discrimination Law (“Unequal”), law professors Sandra F. Sperino and Suja A. Thomas provide a point-by-point analysis of how the federal courts’ interpretations of federal anti-discrimination laws have undermined their efficacy to provide relief to workers whose employers have allegedly engaged in discrimination. The cases’ results are consistently pro-employer, even while the Supreme Court of the United States—a court not known for being particularly pro-plaintiff—has occasionally ruled in favor of plaintiff employees. The authors suggest some reasons for this apparent anti-plaintiff bias among the federal courts, although they do not settle on a particular reason …

Lobbying As A Strategy For Tribal Resilience, Kirsten Matoy Carlson

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

United States V. Osage Wind, Llc, Summer Carmack

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Osage Nation, as owner of the beneficial interest in its mineral estate, issues federally-approved leases to persons and entities who wish to conduct mineral development on its lands. After an energy-development company, Osage Wind, leased privately-owned surface lands within Tribal reservation boundaries and began to excavate minerals for purposes of constructing a wind farm, the United States brought suit on the Tribe’s behalf. In the ensuing litigation, the Osage Nation insisted that Osage Wind should have obtained a mineral lease from the Tribe before beginning its work. In its decision, the Tenth Circuit applied one of the Indian law …

Whose Law Of Personal Jurisdiction? The Choice Of Law Problem In The Recognition Of Foreign Judgments, Tanya J. Monestier

Journal Articles

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 …

Convention Providing A Uniform Law On The Form Of An International Will: Problems With State Probate Law, Jack N. Sibley

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Am. First Fed. Credit Union V. Soro, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 73 (Sep. 24, 2014), Katherine Maher

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that a contract clause in which the parties “submit themselves to the jurisdiction of” another state, without more exclusive language, is permissive and does not result in a mandatory forum selection clause.

European Economic Communities - European Court Of Justice - Convention On Jurisdiction And The Enforcement Of Judgments In Civil And Commercial Matters - Court Independently Defines Phrase "Sale On Installment Credit Terms" To Limit Jurisdictional Advantage To Private Final Consumers, Elizabeth Grant Kline

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Governing Law On Forum-Selection Agreements, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The task of determining which law governs a contractual choice-of-forum clause is an enigma to courts. The key to its solution lies at the very heart of the subject, where one encounters its most celebrated riddle: Which law governs when the parties have also agreed to a choice-of-law clause-that is, does a court first test the forum-selection clause under the law of the seised forum, or does one first look at the parties' choice of law to apply the chosen law to the forum-selection clause?

This chicken-or-egg mystery throws courts into contortions. Prior commentators have opted for the chosen law. …

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act - Immunity Exception Provisions Of § 1330(A) - Harris Corp. V. National Iranian Radio & Television, Melanie Howell

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Annual Survey Of Developments In International Trade Law: 1983, Georgia Journal Of International And Comparative Law

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Product Liability Law In Japan: An Introduction To A Developing Area Of Law, Younghee Jin Ottley, Bruce L. Ottley

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Petitioning Foreign Governments: The Act Of State And Noerr-Pennington Doctrines, Don R. Sampen

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Subject To Review? Consideration, Liquidated Damages And The Penalty Jurisdiction, Eliza Mik

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

The paper examines the relationship between what seem to be basic principles in contract law: "consideration need not be adequate" and "the rule against penalties applies only to sums payable on breach." The 'reluctant inspiration' lies in the recent Australian case of Andrews v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, which establishes that the absence of breach or an obligation to avoid the occurrence of an event upon which a sum becomes payable, does not render such sum incapable of being characterized as a penalty. This decision constitutes an unexpected divergence from the position in most other common law …

Putting The Cisg Where It Belongs: In The Uniform Commercial Code, Kina Grbic

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Decade Of Registered And Unregistered Design Rights Decisions In The Uk: What Conclusions Can We Draw For The Future Of Both Types Of Rights?, Estelle Derclaye

IP Theory

No abstract provided.

The Political Question Doctrine In Private Military Company Liability Cases: Defining Claims To Ensure Accountability, Joelle D. Keypour

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The note argues that the political question doctrine should be narrowly applied to private military companies (PMCs) to ensure accountability while preserving the separation of powers. It critiques the inconsistent application of the Baker v. Carr six-factor test in PMC cases, which often shields these entities from liability. The proposed solution is a dual classification system for claims—distinguishing between commercial-related and combat-related activities—to provide clarity and prevent abuse of the doctrine. This approach aims to balance judicial oversight with respect for executive authority in sensitive military matters.

An Ind. Run Around The U.C.C.: The Use (Or Abuse?) Of Indemnity, Paul J. Wilkinson

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Let's Talk About Text: Contracts, Claims, And Judicial Philosophy At The Federal Circuit, Andrew T. Langford

IP Theory

No abstract provided.

Judicial Policing Of Consumer Arbitration , Edward A. Dauer

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

Adhesive consumer arbitration agreements pose questions that go beyond the problems of adhesion contracting generally. This essay describes why standard-form consumer arbitration requirements may be particularly troublesome. Despite its superficial neutrality, arbitration between individual consumers and business entities may be systematically more favorable to the business entities. The rules of arbitration law, however, inhibit effective judicial policing of the consequences of those inequalities. The federal sources of arbitration law further diminish the ability of state-based contract law to police the more subtle abuses. The result is a particularly difficult jurisprudential problem with a specially weakened legal solution. This essay offers, …

First Options Of Chicago, Inc. V. Kaplan And The Kompetenz-Kompetenz Principle , Adrianna Dulic

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

In 1995, the United States Supreme Court in First Options of Chicago, Incorporated v. Kaplan considered whether arbitral tribunals or courts should have the primary power to decide if parties agreed to arbitrate the merits of the dispute and whether the court of appeals should accept the district court's findings of fact and law or apply a de novo standard of review. The Court unanimously held that, unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise, the question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate is to be decided by the court, not the arbitral tribunal. Furthermore, in such a case, …