Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Courts (26)
- Civil Procedure (19)
- Constitutional Law (17)
- Litigation (10)
- Legal Remedies (8)
-
- Legislation (8)
- State and Local Government Law (8)
- International Law (7)
- Torts (7)
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation (5)
- Business Organizations Law (5)
- Criminal Law (5)
- Law and Society (5)
- Conflict of Laws (4)
- Fourteenth Amendment (4)
- Human Rights Law (4)
- Judges (4)
- Jurisprudence (4)
- Juvenile Law (4)
- Banking and Finance Law (3)
- Bankruptcy Law (3)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (3)
- Criminal Procedure (3)
- Labor and Employment Law (3)
- President/Executive Department (3)
- Secured Transactions (3)
- Administrative Law (2)
- Air and Space Law (2)
- Keyword
-
- Jurisdiction (17)
- Litigation (7)
- Federal jurisdiction (6)
- Federalism (6)
- Remedies (4)
-
- Aliens (3)
- Antitrust (3)
- Bankruptcy (3)
- Business (3)
- Congress (3)
- Constitutional law (3)
- Federal Courts (3)
- Human rights (3)
- International law (3)
- Juvenile offenders (3)
- Legislation (3)
- Separation of powers (3)
- United States (3)
- United States Supreme Court (3)
- Abstention (2)
- Antitrust law (2)
- Article III (2)
- Civil Procedure (2)
- Comity (2)
- Constitution (2)
- Control (2)
- Corporation (2)
- Court (2)
- Courts (2)
- Crime (2)
Articles 1 - 30 of 58
Full-Text Articles in Jurisdiction
Open And Shut: Non-Removal Statutesand Door-Closing Penalties, Isaac Zwerling
Open And Shut: Non-Removal Statutesand Door-Closing Penalties, Isaac Zwerling
Pepperdine Law Review
There is a longstanding tension in the Court’s treatment of non-removal statutes and door-closing penalties. On the one hand, the Court has held non-removal statutes—business registration statutes that condition a foreign corporation’s license on that corporation’s right to remove cases brought against it to federal court—pose an unconstitutional limit on federal court access. On the other, the Court has extended door-closing penalties statutes prohibiting unregistered foreign corporations from initiating an action in the forum state—to federal courts sitting in diversity. This Article surveys how the Court arrived at this puzzling result. It does so by analyzing each line of cases …
Standing In The Shadows: Member Anonymity In Associational Standing Cases, Mitchell Brost
Standing In The Shadows: Member Anonymity In Associational Standing Cases, Mitchell Brost
Pepperdine Law Review
Associational standing serves several benefits for plaintiff members: associations often have expertise in a certain field that guides the representation of their members, they have greater resources that allow them to bring lawsuits in the first place, and they can serve as the public face of the lawsuit to shield the plaintiff member from serious retaliation that may result from bringing the claim. But due to some imprecise language in Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in Summers v. Earth Island Institute, circuit courts are divided over whether associational members can remain anonymous at all. Thus, individuals who have legitimate legal claims, …
Jealously Guarded: The Right To Trial By Jury In Federal Court Under California’S Unruh Civil Rights Act, Denis Bogatin
Jealously Guarded: The Right To Trial By Jury In Federal Court Under California’S Unruh Civil Rights Act, Denis Bogatin
Pepperdine Law Review
Since California adopted heightened pleading standards for high-frequency litigants alleging violations of the Unruh Act in state court, federal district courts have seen a surge of ADA and Unruh Act claims filed together to secure subject matter jurisdiction. Most courts dismissed the Unruh claims under their discretionary authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, but they remained divided on whether plaintiffs in these cases have a right to jury trial—statutory or constitutional. In 2025, the Ninth Circuit resolved part of the split in In re Tsay, holding that the Unruh Act provides a constitutional right to a jury trial because it …
Calling On Congress: Use The Spending Clause To Keep Juveniles In Juvenile Court, Erin Fitzgerald
Calling On Congress: Use The Spending Clause To Keep Juveniles In Juvenile Court, Erin Fitzgerald
Pepperdine Law Review
Recently, juvenile justice reformers have had great success in expanding the reach of the juvenile court. Over the last two decades, many states have raised their age of majority, bringing older teens and young adults under the jurisdictional umbrella of the juvenile court. Likewise, many states have amended their transfer statutes, making transferring juveniles from juvenile court to adult criminal court more difficult. The success of these reforms is largely due to the relentless work of dedicated juvenile justice advocates and scholars. The “raise-the-age” movement and work to limit juvenile transfers has undoubtedly helped to retain more youthful offenders within …
Pleading With Particularity: Decoding When Computer Fraud And Abuse Act Claims Must Comply With Rule 9(B), Brooke R. Newman
Pleading With Particularity: Decoding When Computer Fraud And Abuse Act Claims Must Comply With Rule 9(B), Brooke R. Newman
Pepperdine Law Review
The primary tool for litigating cybercrimes is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which Congress enacted in 1984 following increased computer misuse. Since its debut, the CFAA has undergone a series of amendments. The most noteworthy of which for civil litigators came in 1994 when Congress enacted a civil penalty for cybercrimes. Part of this penalty includes 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4), which prohibits fraudulent conduct in connection with computer usage. In recent years, litigators have weaponized § 1030(a)(4) to challenge a variety of conduct, most of which has nothing to do with cybercrimes. These filings have split district courts …
Is Snap Removal Unconstitutional?, Ryan H. Nelson
Is Snap Removal Unconstitutional?, Ryan H. Nelson
Pepperdine Law Review
In snap removal, an individual removes a civil action to federal district court from the courts of a state where one or more putative defendants are a citizen before any such putative defendant has been served with process. By removing before any forum-state defendants are served, the removal arguably eludes the forum-defendant rule, which prohibits removal based solely on the diversity or alienage jurisdiction statute if “any of the parties in interest properly . . . served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” For years, federal judges and legal academics have disputed …
Not "Indian" Enough: Freedmen, Jurisdiction, And Equal Protection, Ted Shepherd
Not "Indian" Enough: Freedmen, Jurisdiction, And Equal Protection, Ted Shepherd
Pepperdine Law Review
Beginning in the 17th century, many American Indians owned enslaved African workers. They stopped only at the end of the Civil War, when several Tribal Nations signed treaties with the federal government requiring them to emancipate their enslaved workers. The treaties also required the Nations to enroll these “Freedmen” and their descendants as full Tribal members. The Nations complied for a time, but then withdrew membership from the descendants in the 1970s. In 2017, however, a federal court required the Cherokee Nation to honor its treaty and grant the descendants of Cherokee Freedmen full Tribal membership, which it did. Despite …
The "Inherent Powers" Of Multidistrict Litigation Courts, Lynn A. Baker
The "Inherent Powers" Of Multidistrict Litigation Courts, Lynn A. Baker
Pepperdine Law Review
Mass tort multidistrict litigations (MDLs) involving thousands of claims present the judge with unique management issues. The MDL statute, in its scant two pages enacted in 1968, offers no guidance for the proper handling of these issues, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure speak to these issues only very generally through Rules 16 and 42. Thus, MDL judges have often invoked their “inherent powers” as authority when they take certain actions with significant implications for the parties and their attorneys. Not surprisingly, several of these actions and their underlying justifications have been controversial: (a) appointing lead attorneys; (b) ordering …
The Supreme Court, Article Iii, And Jurisdiction Stuffing, James E. Pfander
The Supreme Court, Article Iii, And Jurisdiction Stuffing, James E. Pfander
Pepperdine Law Review
Reflecting on the state of the federal judiciary in the aftermath of the Biden Commission report and subsequent controversies, this Article identifies problems with the current operation of both the Supreme Court and the lower courts that make up the Article III judicial pyramid. Many federal issues have been assigned to non-Article III tribunals, courts poorly structured to offer the independent legal assessment that such Founders as James Wilson prized as they structured the federal judiciary. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court devotes growing attention to a slice of highly salient public law questions, including those presented on the shadow docket, thereby …
Federalism Limits On Non-Article Iii Adjudication, F. Andrew Hessick
Federalism Limits On Non-Article Iii Adjudication, F. Andrew Hessick
Pepperdine Law Review
Although Article III of the Constitution vests the federal judicial power in the Article III courts, the Supreme Court has created a patchwork of exceptions permitting non-Article III tribunals to adjudicate various disputes. In doing so, the Court has focused on the separation of powers, concluding that these non-Article III adjudications do not unduly infringe on the judicial power of the Article III courts. But separation of powers is not the only consideration relevant to the lawfulness of non-Article III adjudication. Article I adjudications also implicate federalism. Permitting Article I tribunals threatens the role of state courts by expanding federal …
“Drive-By” Jurisdiction: Congressional Oversight In Court, Daniel Epstein
“Drive-By” Jurisdiction: Congressional Oversight In Court, Daniel Epstein
Pepperdine Law Review
On July 9, 2020, in Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP and Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts did not adequately consider the separation of powers concerns attendant to congressional subpoenas for presidential information. Given that the question presented in Mazars concerned whether Congress had a legitimate legislative purpose in subpoenaing the President’s personal records, the Supreme Court’s decision is anything but a model of clarity. The Court simultaneously opined that disputes “involving nonprivileged, private information” “do[ ] not implicate sensitive Executive Branch deliberations” while claiming “congressional subpoenas for the President’s information unavoidably pit …
Fight Or Flight: The Ninth Circuit's Advancement Of Textualism During An Era Of Intentionalism In United States V. Lozoya, Zachary Remijas
Fight Or Flight: The Ninth Circuit's Advancement Of Textualism During An Era Of Intentionalism In United States V. Lozoya, Zachary Remijas
Pepperdine Law Review
The modern complexities of global interaction and accessibility have recently forced some federal courts to reconsider standards for determining proper venue for criminal defendants who commit offenses while engaged in transportation, particularly those involving interstate commerce and crimes spanning multiple districts. These courts’ application of two adversarial schools of statutory interpretation—textualism and intentionalism—has driven conflict between textualist jurisdictions adhering to the plain meaning of established constitutional and statutory sources, and intentionalist jurisdictions refraining from the “creeping absurdity” of establishing venue for certain in-transit offenses under the literal meaning of such provisions. This Note endorses the sensibility and superiority of the …
The Problem Of Purely Procedural Preemption Presented By The Federal Hear Act, William L. Charron
The Problem Of Purely Procedural Preemption Presented By The Federal Hear Act, William L. Charron
Pepperdine Law Review
The underlying purpose of the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (the HEAR Act), which is to return Nazi-looted artwork to victims or their families, is undeniably laudable. Restituting Nazi-looted artwork is and has been a moral objective of this country since the conclusion of World War II. It is equally clear that victims and their families can often face obstacles to gathering evidence from the war that would demonstrate Nazi theft in court. The HEAR Act strives to address these concerns by imposing a federal statute of limitations over all state law causes of action that would enable …
Effects Of International Judgments Relating To Awards, Maxi Scherer
Effects Of International Judgments Relating To Awards, Maxi Scherer
Pepperdine Law Review
This Article looks at those judgments relating to international arbitral awards (award judgments) and, more precisely, at their extraterritorial effects. It analyzes whether an award judgment rendered in one jurisdiction has effects in other jurisdictions. For instance, if the award has been set aside6 in country A, does the set-aside judgment have effects on enforcement proceedings in country B? Similarly, if country C refuses to enforce an award on the basis that the tribunal has no jurisdiction, does this have a preclusive effect on enforcement proceedings pending in country D? These questions have been addressed in a number of recent …
The Competing Approaches To The Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act: A Fundamental Disagreement, Morgan Franz
The Competing Approaches To The Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act: A Fundamental Disagreement, Morgan Franz
Pepperdine Law Review
This Comment explores the history and reasoning behind a recent reexamination of the FTAIA in light of Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., examines both the propriety and the implications of the competing interpretations of the FTAIA, and argues that the resolution of the competing approaches is beyond the purview of the lower courts. Part II provides an overview of the extraterritorial reach of the Sherman Act leading up to the FTAIA, as well as the judicial treatment of the FTAIA prior to Arbaugh. Part III discusses the impact of Arbaugh and subsequent Supreme Court cases applying the “clearly states” …
The Doctrine Of Primary Jurisdiction: Was It Inverted?, Patrick Callahan
The Doctrine Of Primary Jurisdiction: Was It Inverted?, Patrick Callahan
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Application Of The Abstention Doctrine To Inverse Condemnation Actions In Federal Court , John T. Harris
Application Of The Abstention Doctrine To Inverse Condemnation Actions In Federal Court , John T. Harris
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Management's Right To Resort To Injunctive Relief And Self-Help In Order To Prevent Trespassory Union Activity: An Examination Of May Department Stores Co. V. Teamsters Union Local No. 743, Frank J. D'Oro Jr
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act: Thirty Years Later And Of No Effect? Where Can The Unwed Father Turn?, Rebecca Miller
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.
Trespassory Union Picketing On Private Property: Sears, Roebuck And Co. V. San Diego County District Council Of Carpenters - Bringing State Law To "No-Man's Land"?, Donald S. Jakubowski, Marni E. Byrum
Trespassory Union Picketing On Private Property: Sears, Roebuck And Co. V. San Diego County District Council Of Carpenters - Bringing State Law To "No-Man's Land"?, Donald S. Jakubowski, Marni E. Byrum
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Mexican-American Penal Sentences Treaty: A Run-On Sentence, Gary Gray
The Mexican-American Penal Sentences Treaty: A Run-On Sentence, Gary Gray
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Compendium Of Major California Juvenile Law Decisions With Brief Analyses, 1979, Michael T. Lubinski, Robert M. Triplett
A Compendium Of Major California Juvenile Law Decisions With Brief Analyses, 1979, Michael T. Lubinski, Robert M. Triplett
Pepperdine Law Review
Society has been plagued with the problem of whether the police, the courts and the correction agencies are to administer juveniles for their protection and treatment, or for their punishment. To facilitate a better understanding of juvenile administration the authors have analyzed the California juvenile law cases for the year 1979. The article consists of six major area of interest; parent-child custody, sentencing, procedure, jurisdiction, evidentiary and constitutional which will be used to highlight some of the more significant decisions in the past year, thus enabling the reader to assess changes occurring in the juvenile system.
Status Offenders Should Be Removed From The Juvenile Court , Luke Quinn, Peter M. Hutchison
Status Offenders Should Be Removed From The Juvenile Court , Luke Quinn, Peter M. Hutchison
Pepperdine Law Review
Inadequate financial resources and overcrowded juvenile placement facilities have frequently been cited as grounds for the abrogation of the juvenile court's practice of retaining jurisdiction over status offenders. In this article, Judge Quinn suggests the existence of even more compelling reasons which support diversion of status offenders to programs better suited to their particular needs. The author contends that the juvenile court's jurisdiction should be confined to matters of fact-finding and adjudication, rather than intruding into areas within the domain of the parents, and into areas in which the court lacks the necessary expertise. It is argued that diversion of …
A Rationale For The Abolition Of The Juvenile Court's Power To Waive Jurisdiction , John Gasper, Daniel Katkin
A Rationale For The Abolition Of The Juvenile Court's Power To Waive Jurisdiction , John Gasper, Daniel Katkin
Pepperdine Law Review
The juvenile court's power to waive jurisdiction which entails the transfer of juvenile offenders to adult courts presents a topic of longstanding controversy. It's rationale, one of protection of the public, has been labeled by the authors as untenable. Moreover, it is asserted that waiver of jurisdiction in such cases contravenes the very cornerstone of the juvenile court process--the doctrine of parens patriae. Three methods of transfer are seen to exist--legislative, prosecutorial, and judicial. Focusing on the latter, the authors posit an argument advocating the abrogation of the concept of waiver. Justification for this proposition is seen to flow from …
The Invalidation Of Mandatory Cable Access Regulations: Fcc V. Midwest Video Corp., Robert L. Clarkson
The Invalidation Of Mandatory Cable Access Regulations: Fcc V. Midwest Video Corp., Robert L. Clarkson
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Muko And Conex: The Third Circuit Responds To Connell , Robert A. King, Melvin L. Moser
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
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 …
Aviation Litigation: Federal Preemption And The Creation Of A Federal Remedy As A Means To Extinguish The Current Confusion In The Courts, Deborah J. Olsen
Aviation Litigation: Federal Preemption And The Creation Of A Federal Remedy As A Means To Extinguish The Current Confusion In The Courts, Deborah J. Olsen
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Supreme Court Continues Its Journey Down The Ever Narrowing Paths Of Section 1983 And The Due Process Clause: An Analysis Of Parratt V. Taylor, Robert E. Palmer
The Supreme Court Continues Its Journey Down The Ever Narrowing Paths Of Section 1983 And The Due Process Clause: An Analysis Of Parratt V. Taylor, Robert E. Palmer
Pepperdine Law Review
After nearly a century of quiet slumber, the Supreme Court awoke the sleeping giant. In the past two decades, 42 U.S.C. §1983 has evolved into a judicial Frankenstein monster. Unable to control the beast, the Court has attempted to restrict the creature's movements by unnecessarily limiting its constitutional source. If followed to its logical conclusion, the Court's narrow reading of the Constitution may ultimately demote all due process violations to state tort remedies. This note traces the legislative and judicial evolution of section 1983 as well as the statute's present interaction with the due process clause. The vehicle for this …
Federal Discretion In The Prosecution Of Local Political Corruption, Andrew T. Baxter
Federal Discretion In The Prosecution Of Local Political Corruption, Andrew T. Baxter
Pepperdine Law Review
Federal prosecutors' awareness of political corruption at the state and local levels has recently increased concomitantly to the incidence of disclosures and prosecutions of similar corruption at the federal level. Because local law enforcement officials have frequently been unable or unwilling to pursue local political corruption, federal prosecutors have increasingly assumed responsibility for the policing of non-federal political criminal activity, even in the absence of definitive statutory grounds. In this article, the author examines the legal basis upon which federal prosecution of local political corruption is conducted. It is asserted that existing federal judicial and legislative limitations provide an inexact …