Jurisdiction Commons^™

The Application Of Federal Common Law To Overcome Conflicting State Laws In The Supplemental Disgorgement Proceedings Of An Sec Appointed Receiver, Gauhar Naseem

ExpressO

In spite of the Erie doctrine, the application of federal common law has survived to overcome conflicting state laws in diversity actions where a federal law, interest or function is implicated. A federal court’s authority to substantively implement a federal common law rule over state law is clearest when the party to the action is a federal entity, namely an agency of the U.S. Government deriving its authority from the Constitution or some source of federal law. Analyzing such authority becomes more difficult in circumstances where parties to a diversity lawsuit are private citizens (not necessarily possessing any direct federal …

Brand X And The Wireline Broadband Report And Order: The Beginning Of The End Of The Distinction Between Title I And Title Ii Services, J. Steven Rich

Federal Communications Law Journal

This Article traces the development of the FCC's distinction between "telecommunications services" subject to common carrier services under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act and "information services" regulated under Title I of the Act from the Computer Inquiry line of cases through the Brand X decision and recent Wireline Broadband Report and Order. The Author pays particular attention to the Brand X decision and the FCC's Wireline Broadband Order and its implications, suggesting that the Order may be subject to reversal when it is challenged in court and proposing how the Commission might react to a reversal. The Author …

Prevalence Of Substantive Consolidation In Large Bankruptcies From 2000 To 2004: Preliminary Results, William H. Widen

Articles

No abstract provided.

Justice & Foreign Affairs: Taking The European Neighbourhood Partner Countries To The European Court Of Justice, Lior Zemer, Sharon Pardo

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The article argues that the European Union (EU) should extend the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to cover disputes arising from agreements with Neighborhood Partner Countries (NPC) under the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). This extension is essential for upholding the EU's constitutional principles, ensuring judicial review, and maintaining the coherence of EU external relations. The authors advocate for the ECJ as the most suitable judicial forum to address these disputes, emphasizing its role in reinforcing the EU's legal identity and capacity building.

The Role Of International Arbitrators, Susan Franck

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

With the advent of the global economy, arbitration has become the preferred mechanism for resolving international disputes. Today international arbitrators resolve billions of dollars worth of disputes.' Arbitration has taken on such prominence in the international context that commentators express "little doubt that arbitration is now the first-choice method of binding dispute resolution" and has "largely taken over litigation."'

United States' Moral Authority Undermined: The Foreign Affairs Costs Of Abusive Detentions, Jeffrey K. Cassin

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The note argues that the United States' engagement in abusive detentions, notably at Guantanamo Bay and in cases like *Hamdi v. Rumsfeld* and Padilla, has severely eroded its moral authority on the global stage. These practices, including indefinite detentions and the denial of due process, contradict U.S. rhetoric on human rights, undermining its credibility and strategic influence. The Supreme Court's rulings in Rasul v. Bush and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld emphasize the necessity of judicial review, yet the U.S. continues to face criticism for hypocrisy, diminishing its ability to promote democracy and human rights internationally.

Exorbitant Jurisdiction, Kevin M. Clermont, John R.B. Palmer

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Exorbitant territorial jurisdiction in civil cases comprises those classes of jurisdiction, although exercised validly under a country's rules, that nonetheless are unfair to the defendant because of a lack of significant connection between the sovereign and either the parties or the dispute. The United States, France, and most of the rest of the world exercise a good deal of exorbitant jurisdiction so defined. In the United States, an emphasis on power derived from territoriality has led to jurisdictional restraint in some respects, but has also allowed general jurisdiction based solely on transient physical presence, the attachment of property, or extensive …

Jurisdiction To Adjudicate: A Revised Analysis, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

Personal jurisdiction doctrine as articulated by the Supreme Court is in disarray. As a constitutional doctrine whose contours remain imprecise, the law of personal jurisdiction has generated confusion, unpredictability, and extensive satellite litigation over what should be an uncomplicated preliminary issue. Many commentators have long lamented these defects, making suggestions for how the doctrine could be improved. Although many of these proposals have had much to offer, they generally have failed to articulate (or adequately justify or explain) a simple and sound approach to jurisdiction that the Supreme Court can embrace. This Article revises the law of personal jurisdiction by …

Perpetuities Or Taxes? Explaining The Rise Of The Perpetual Trust, Max M. Schanzenbach, Robert H. Sitkoff

Cardozo Law Review

By abolishing the Rule Against Perpetuities, twenty-one states have validated perpetual trusts. The prevailing view among scholars is that enactment of the generation skipping transfer (GST) tax in 1986 prompted the movement to abolish the Rule by conferring a salient tax advantage on long-term trusts. However, an alternate view holds that demand for perpetual trusts stems from donors' preference for control independent of tax considerations. Proponents of both views have adduced supporting anecdotal evidence. Using state-level panel data on trust assets prior to the adoption of the GST tax, we examine whether a state's abolition of the Rule gave the …

Multi-Tiered Marriage: Ideas And Influences From New York And Louisiana To The International Community, Joel A. Nichols

ExpressO

This Article contends that American society needs to hold a genuine discussion about alternatives to current conceptions of marriage and family law jurisdiction. Specifically, the Article suggests that the civil government should consider ceding some of its jurisdictional authority over marriage and divorce law to religious communities that are competent and capable of adjudicating the marital rites and rights of their respective adherents. There is historical precedent and preliminary movement toward this end -- both within and without the United States -- which might serve as the framework for further discussions.

Within the United States, the relatively new covenant marriage …

The Action Bias In American Law: Internet Jurisdiction And The Triumph Of Zippo Dot Com, Richard Greenstein

ExpressO

American law reflects the stories we tell ourselves about who we are as a nation. To illustrate the effect of America’s stories on the law, I identify and describe in this essay a particular characteristic of American law: an “action bias” – a propensity to bestow disproportionately greater legal significance upon affirmative acts than on failures to act – and I argue that this bias reflects, in turn, a powerful myth at the core of the self-image of the United States, a myth I call the “Immigrant’s Tale.”

To illustrate this thesis, I give a number of instances of the …

How Do You Take Your Multi-State, Class-Action Litigation? One Lump Or Two?, Daniel R. Karon

ExpressO

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which essentially federalizes all multi-state class-action cases, has introduced the class-action bar, and necessarily the judiciary, to myriad substantive and procedural issues never before envisioned in class-action litigation’s history. While some of these issues have already surfaced, many others haven’t but will as newly federalized multi-state class-action lawsuits move through litigation to the class certification stage. A major and unavoidable issue involves whether federal judges, when deciding multi-state claims’ class certification under Federal Rule 23, may consider well-developed, state class-action jurisprudence applying a single state’s substantive law or whether doing so violates the …

When Worlds Collide: Federal Construction Of State Institutional Competence, Marcia L. Mccormick

ExpressO

The federal courts routinely encounter issues of state law. Often a state court will have already analyzed the law at issue, either in a separate case or in the very situation before the federal court. In every one of those cases, the federal courts must decide whether to defer to the state court analysis and, if so, how much. The federal courts will often defer, but many times have not done so, and they rarely explain the reasons for the departures they make. While this lack of transparency gives the federal courts the greatest amount of discretion and power, it …

Certifying Questions To Congress, Amanda Frost

ExpressO

As many academics and some judges have openly admitted, no technique of statutory interpretation can settle every question of statutory ambiguity. Sometimes Congress enacts legislation containing gaps or inconsistencies that cannot be resolved through the application of a canon of construction or other interpretive rule. This article proposes an alternative approach for these hard cases. When a federal court is faced with a statute that leaves important issues about its application unclear – particularly issues that implicate the statute’s constitutionality – the court could stay the case and refer the question to Congress, much in the same way that courts …

An Emerging Uniformity For International Law, David H. Moore

ExpressO

The status of international law in the U.S. legal system has been hotly contested. Most international law scholars maintain that customary international law (CIL) is federal common law immediately applicable in federal courts. A minority of scholars has responded that CIL may be applied by federal courts only when authorized by the political branches. The Supreme Court’s decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 124 S. Ct. 2739 (2004), stoked the debate. In Sosa’s wake, scholars have overwhelmingly concluded that the Supreme Court endorsed the majority view that CIL is federal common law.

This Article asserts that Sosa has been both misperceived …

Essay For The In-Print Symposium On The Myth Of Moral Justice, Stuart A. Scheingold

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

Stuart Scheingold responds to Thane Rosenbaum's The Myth of Moral Justice, agreeing with the aspiration to infuse law with moral imagination but critiquing Rosenbaum's oversight of existing moral energy within the legal profession, particularly through cause lawyering. Scheingold argues that Rosenbaum's approach is overly simplistic, failing to account for institutional obstacles and the contested nature of moral discourse, which can lead to conflict rather than harmony. He emphasizes that while moral advocacy, as seen in cause lawyering, can drive positive change, it also faces significant challenges and backlash.

Congressional Striptease: How The Failure Of The 108th Congress's Jurisdiction Stripping Bills Were Used For Political Success, Laura Fellow

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Remarks, Henry T. King Jr.

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Never Again" Promise Broken Again. Again. And Again., Kelly Dawn Askin

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

No Welcome Mat, No Problem?: Federal-Question Jurisdiction After Grable, Rory M. Ryan

ExpressO

For nearly 20 years, the Supreme Court’s federal-question jurisprudence was muddied after the Court’s decision in Merrell-Dow. Last term, the Court issued a much-needed clarification in Grable. But that clarification needs clarification. In this Article, Professor Ryan endeavors to provide a candid synthesis of what the law is after Grable. While this area is rich with debate about what the law should be, a candid post-Grable synthesis is needed both to guide courts and to provide a common ground for these debates. Even such a modest task, however, is formidable. Federal-question jurisdiction is not a concept that can be viewed …

Brief For Petitioner Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Hamdan V. Rumsfeld, No. 05-184 (U.S. Jan. 6, 2006), Neal K. Katyal

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Jurisdiction To Adjudicate: A Revised Analysis, A. Benjamin Spencer

Scholarly Articles

Personal jurisdiction doctrine as articulated by the Supreme Court is in disarray.A s a constitutional doctrine whose contours remain imprecise, the law of personal jurisdiction has generated confusion, unpredictability, and extensive satellite litigation over what should be an uncomplicated preliminary issue. Many commentators have long lamented these defects, making suggestions for how the doctrine could be improved. Although many of these proposals have had much to offer, they generally have failed to articulate (or adequately justify or explain) a simple and sound approach to jurisdiction that the Supreme Court can embrace. This Article revises the law of personal jurisdiction by …

Jurisdiction And The Internet: Returning To Traditional Principles To Analyze Network-Mediated Contacts, A. Benjamin Spencer

Scholarly Articles

Courts have been evaluating the issue of personal jurisdiction based on Internet or "network-mediated" contacts for some time. The U.S. Supreme Court has remained silent on this issue, permitting the federal appeals courts to develop standards for determining when personal jurisdiction based on network-mediated contacts is appropriate. Unfortunately, the circuit approaches - which emphasize a website's "interactivity" and "target audience" - are flawed because they are premised on an outdated view of Internet activity as uncontrollably ubiquitous. This view has led courts to depart from traditional jurisdictional analysis and impose elevated and misguided jurisdictional standards. This Article argues that courts …

The Hybrid Class Action As Judicial Spork: Managing Individual Rights In A Stew Of Common Wrong, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 231 (2006), Jon Romberg

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Blue Mourning: Postpartum Psychosis And The Criminal Insanity Defense, Waking To The Reality Of Women Who Kill Their Children, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 515 (2006), Jessica Butterfield

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

In The Service Of Secrets: The U.S. Supreme Court Revisits Totten, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 475 (2006), Douglas Kash, Matthew Indrisano

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress: Recovery Is Foreseeable, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1019 (2006), Jeffrey Hoskins

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Preclearance, Discrimination, And The Department Of Justice: The Case Of South Carolina, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Federalism Cases In The October 2004 Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Reconceptualizing Federalism, Erwin Chemerinsky

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.