Jurisdiction Commons^™

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Modern Waste Law, Bankruptcy, And Residential Mortgages, Jill M. Fraley

Cardozo Law Review

Around the time of the subprime mortgage collapse, lenders began in earnest to sue borrowers by adapting the traditional law of waste. Today, these claims continue to rise in frequency and to expand to more jurisdictions. Lender waste claims provide a "work around" for state mortgage laws that prohibit personal deficiency judgments after foreclosure and are potentially non-dischargeable in bankruptcy.

While a recent wave of scholarship has addressed the problems of how the bankruptcy system handles mortgages, scholars have not yet explored the use of waste actions by lenders and how waste judgments intersect with bankruptcy and foreclosure. Using new …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Introductory Remarks From The Festschrift Organizer, Richard Weisberg

Cardozo Law Review

On October 11, 2018, a group of scholars from around the world gathered at Cardozo to celebrate the writings of Professor Arthur Jacobson. A fair sampling of their remarks in his honor follows in this special number of the Cardozo Law Review. Thanks for the event itself and the proceedings of the 11 th of October are due Dean Melanie Leslie, Josephine Tirado, Michael Pantazakos, my research assistants Catherine Weiss and Scott Christopher, and the editors of the Law Review.

Persecution Restitution: Removing The Jurisdictional Roadblocks To Torture Victim Protection Act Claims, Michael J. Stephan

Brooklyn Law Review

The Center for Victims of Torture estimates that as many as 1.3 million torture victims are living in the United States, but few of them have ever sought recourse against their offenders. Instead, most victims of torture flee the region where they are at risk of being further victimized and seek refuge in the United States. Fortunately, the United States provides a judicial method of recovery for those who have suffered, even when that suffering took place abroad at the hands of a foreign individual. The Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, or TVPA, allows torture victims to pursue damages …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Too Big For Personal Jurisdiction? A Proposal To Hold Companies Accountable For In-State Conduct In Accordance With Due Process Principles, Polina Pristupa

Cardozo Law Review

This Note discusses the potential negative effects that BMS can have on future plaintiffs' ability to sue large corporations in states where the corporations have a major presence but in which they are neither incorporated nor headquartered. Part I outlines the history of personal jurisdiction case law. Part II looks to the different approaches that the majority and dissenting opinions in BMS took in examining the question of jurisdiction. It also looks at the sliding scale test that the California Supreme Court used to allow the nonresident plaintiffs to sue within the state's courts. Section II.B then considers the effect …

Choice Of Law And The Right Of Publicity: Rethinking The Domicile Rule, Mary Lafrance

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Guidelines And Best Practices For Large And Mass-Tort Mdls (Second Edition), Bolch Judicial Institute

Bolch Judicial Institute Publications

Mass-tort MDLs dominate the federal civil docket, yet they present enormous challenges to transferee judges assigned to manage them. There is little official guidance and no rules specific to the management of mass-tort MDLs, often requiring the transferee judge to develop procedures out of whole cloth.

Beginning in 2013, the Bolch Judicial Institute (then the Center for Judicial Studies) sought to address this issue through a series of annual bench-bar conferences. From these conferences came the Guidelines and Best Practices for Large and Mass-Tort MDLs document — now in its Second Edition — which is designed to help judges and …

Minimum Virtual Contacts: A Framework For Specific Jurisdiction In Cyberspace, Adam R. Kleven

Michigan Law Review

As the ubiquity and importance of the internet continue to grow, courts will address more cases involving online activity. In doing so, courts will confront the threshold issue of whether a defendant can be subject to specific personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, however, has yet to speak to this internet-jurisdiction issue. Current precedent, when strictly applied to the internet, yields fundamentally unfair results when addressing specific jurisdiction. To better achieve the fairness aim of due process, this must change. This Note argues that, in internet tort cases, the “express aiming” requirement should be discarded from the jurisdictional analysis and that …

Curbing Remedies For Official Wrongs: The Need For Bivens Suits In National Security Cases, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

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 …

How A Class Action Plaintiff's Request For Attorney's Fees Can Prevent Mootness Despite A Defendant's Tender Of Damages, Lyuba Shamailova

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Terra Firma As Open Seas: Interpreting Kiobel In The Failed State Context, Drew F. Waldbeser

Indiana Law Journal

This Note will ultimately argue that, despite the expansive language in Kiobel, the Court’s reasoning does not necessarily foreclose all “foreign-cubed” claims. Suits alleging human rights violations originating from conduct that took place in failed states avoid the concerns the Court emphasized in Kiobel. The Court should allow jurisdiction for human rights offenses in failed states, despite their “foreign-cubed” nature, because the already existing rationale for allowing jurisdiction for international piracy offenses is highly analogous.

Part I of this Note explores the ATS jurisprudence leading up to and including Kiobel. Besides exploring the tensions and policy interests courts are grappling …

Trending @ Rwu Law: Professor Tanya Monestier's Post: Is Corporate Registration A Proper Basis For General Jurisdiction?: 02-09-2016, Tanya Monestier

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

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 …

Kiobel And Extraterritoriality: Here, (Not) There, (Not Even) Everywhere, Edward T. Swaine

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Personal Jurisdiction Based On The Local Effects Of Intentional Misconduct, Allan Erbsen

William & Mary Law Review

Intentional misconduct frequently has extraterritorial consequences. Terrorist attacks, toxic pollution, civil rights violations, and other intentional torts can cause harm within a state despite originating outside the state. Those harms raise a vexing constitutional question: when do the local effects of intentional wrongdoing authorize personal jurisdiction over a defendant whose conduct occurred outside the forum? The answer has several significant implications. Granting or denying jurisdiction can support or undermine regulatory interests by allocating power between states, imposes burdens on the parties that can impede access to justice, and alters risk assessments that shape both socially desirable and socially destructive behavior.

Person V. Potential: Judicial Struggles To Decide Claims Arising From The Death Of An Embryo Or Fetus And Michigan's Struggle To Settle The Question, Dena M. Marks

Akron Law Review

“Death is well understood; it’s life that isn’t.” We recognize death, but state by state, courts struggle to understand life when called on to determine whether their states’ wrongful death acts apply after the death of an embryo or fetus. These struggles arise because, for the most part, state legislatures have failed to clarify whether a cause of action may be maintained under their wrongful death acts for the death of an embryo or fetus. This failure has lead to inconsistent and unfair results, often allowing the tortfeasor to benefit from causing the greater harm of death, when the tortfeasor …

Filartiga V. Pena-Irala: International Justice In A Modern American Court?, Josef Rohlik

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Filartiga V. Pena-Irala: Comments On Sources Of Human Rights Law And Means Of Redress For Violations Of Human Rights, Gabriel M. Wilner

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Foreign Sovereign Immunity - Whether United States Embassies Are Jurisdictional Territory Under The Non-Commercial Tort Exception Of The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Jill M. Conley

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.

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.

The Hague Evidence Convention In U.S. Courts: Aerospatiale And The Path Not Taken, Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale V. U.S. District Court For The Southern District Of Iowa, 107 S. Ct. 2542 (1987), Roger C. Wilson

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

We Should Use 'Cause Of Action' More Carefully: A Review Of John F. Preis, How The Federal Cause Of Action Relates To Rights, Remedies, And Jurisdiction, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

Hitting A Home Run In Your Writing, David Spratt

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Brief For Respondent. United States V. Wong, 134 S.Ct. 2873 (2014) (No. 13-1074), 2014 Wl 5804278, Eric Schnapper, Tom Steenson, Beth Creighton, Michael Rose

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Is the six-month limit on filing suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2401(b), jurisdictional?

2. If the six-month limit for filing suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2401(b), is not jurisdictional, is it subject to equitable tolling?

Unequal Protection Under The Law: Why Fda Should Use Negotiated Rulemaking To Reform The Regulation Of Generic Drugs, Marie Boyd

Cardozo Law Review

The duty to ensure the safety of drug products, through adequate warnings or other means, should ultimately rest with the drug's manufacturer regardless of whether the drug is a generic drug or a brand-name drug. Recent U.S. Supreme Court holdings, however, suggest that while the manufacturer of a brand-name drug is always responsible for its label's content, this is not the case for generic drugs. In addition, by holding that failure-to-warn claims against generic drug manufacturers based on state law are preempted, the Court has removed the protections and compensation that state tort law can provide consumers of generic drugs …