Jurisdiction Commons^™

Aspen American Insurance Co. V. East Coast Precast & Rigging Llc Et Al., 252 A.3d 249 (R.I. 2021), Corey Sherman

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

28 U.S.C. § 1331 Jurisdiction In The Roberts Court: A Rights-Inclusive Approach, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

In this symposium piece, I argue that the Roberts Court, whether intentionally or not, is crafting a 28 U.S.C. § 1331 doctrine that is more solicitous of congressional control than the Supreme Court’s past body of jurisdictional law. Further, I contend that this movement toward greater congressional control is a positive step for the court. In making this argument, I review the foundations of the famous Holmes test for taking § 1331 jurisdiction and the legal positivist roots for that view. I discuss the six key Roberts Court cases that demonstrate a movement away from a simple Holmes test and …

Is Partisan Gerrymandering Unconstitutional? Rethinking Rucho V. Common Cause, Barnett J. Harris

University of San Francisco Law Review

No abstract provided.

Returning To The Start? Federal Bipa Claims After Transunion V. Ramirez, Michael Goodyear

Articles & Chapters

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, more commonly known as “BIPA,” was the first statute to protect biometric privacy in the United States when it was passed in 2008. Although Texas and Washington have since passed their own biometric privacy laws, and other states have protected biometric information as part of more general data privacy legislation, BIPA remains the most powerful such law in the country due to being the only biometric privacy law to contain a private right of action. BIPA has also proven to be an important precedent for other states, such as New York, that are currently …

Ford's Underlying Controversy, Christine P. Bartholomew, Anya Bernstein

Journal Articles

Personal jurisdiction—the doctrine that determines where a plaintiff can sue—is a mess. Everyone agrees that a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant with sufficient in-state contacts related to a plaintiff’s claim. This Article reveals, however, that courts diverge radically in their understanding of what a claim is. Without stating so outright, some courts limit the claim to a cause of action or its elements, while others understand it to encompass the controversy underlying the litigation. What is worse, few have noticed that these discrepancies even exist, much less explained why. This Article does just that. We show that …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Federal Courts’ Recalcitrance In Refusing To Certify State Law Covid-19 Business Interruption Insurance Issues, Christopher French

Faculty Scholarship

Over 2,000 COVID-19 business interruption insurance cases have been filed in state and federal courts the past two years with most of the cases filed in or removed to federal courts. The cases are governed by state law. Rather than certify the novel state law issues presented in the cases to the respective state supreme courts that ultimately will determine the law applicable in the cases, each of the eight federal circuit courts to issue decisions on the merits in such cases to date has done so by making an Erie guess regarding how the controlling state supreme courts would …

Keynote Address, Christopher J. Buccafusco, Jeff Kosseff

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

The article discusses the evolution and impact of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, highlighting its role in shaping internet speech and liability. It traces the law's origins, key court rulings, and current debates about its future. The speaker emphasizes the need for informed discussion to address concerns about harmful content, platform moderation, and free speech.

Intangible Justice? Intellectual Property Disputes And Canadian Small Claims Courts, Anthony D. Rosborough, Reagan Seidler

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

This article investigates the jurisdiction and institutional competence of Canadian small claims courts and tribunals with respect to complex claims, and in particular, intellectual property (IP) claims. Recent research points to an increase in these types of claims. A doctrinal analysis finds small claims bodies have wide jurisdiction over intellectual property infringement, contract, and licensing disputes. They can also rule on issues of validity, though they cannot affect registrations in the databases of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. Remedies including damages, accountings, and the recovery of infringing goods are available in many provinces. As to their capacity, the article assesses …

Admissibility Of Hearsay Gathered Under Mlat: A Tempest In Canada, Robert Currie

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

One of the most pervasive and longstanding problems in the practice of mutual legal assistance in criminal matters between states has been ‘form of evidence’–specifically, can the requested state provide evidence in such form as will be useful and admissible under the criminal evidence laws of the requesting state?It tends to be common law states that have difficulties with admissibility of MLAT-sourced evidence, and these often develop ‘work-arounds’ in their laws which attempt to relax admissibility standards. Canada is one such state, but a series of recent prosecutions has revealed judicial resistance to the tools employed. This note examines these …

Editors' Note, Robert Currie, Neil Boister, Masha Fedorova, Sabine Gless, Cecily Rose, Sara Wharton

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

No abstract provided.

State Responsibility For International Bail-Jumping, Robert Currie, Elizabeth Matheson

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Over the last decade, there has been a spate of incidents in Canada and the United States involving Saudi Arabian nationals who, while out on bail for predominantly sexual crimes, were able to abscond from the countries despite having surrendered their passports. Investigation has revealed evidence supporting a reasonable inference that the government of Saudi Arabia has, in fact, assisted its nationals to escape on these occasions. This article makes the case that this kind of conduct amounts not just to unfriendly acts but also to infringements upon the territorial sovereignty of both states and serious breaches of the international …

Abortion Rights Beyond The Medico-Legal Paradigm, Mariana Prandini Assis, Joanna Erdman

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Abortion rights in international law have historically been framed within a medico-legal paradigm, the belief that regulated systems of legal and medical control guarantee safe abortion. However, a growing worldwide practice of self-managed abortion (SMA) supported by feminist activism challenges key precepts of this paradigm. SMA activism has shown that more than medical service delivery matters to safe abortion and has called into question the legal regulation of abortion beyond criminal prohibitions. This article explores how abortion rights have begun to depart from the medico-legal paradigm and to support the novel norms and practices of SMA activism in a transformation …

Judicial Workbook On Bill C-92 — An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit And Métis Children, Youth And Families, Hadley Friedland, Naiomi Metallic, Koren Lightning-Earle

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Objective: Based on the purpose, history, textual wording and relevant interpretative principles, these are the approaches to the provisions of the Act that we believe will best achieve its purpose, which Canada has identified as “to protect and ensure the well-being of Indigenous children, families and communities by promoting culturally sensitive child welfare services, with the goal of putting an end to the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in child and family services systems."

Same As It Ever Was : The Tijuana River Sewage Crisis, Non-State Actors, And The State, James M. Cooper

Faculty Scholarship

Sewage—a scary mixture of human waste and industrial toxins—flows into the Tijuana River Valley, an environmentally sensitive watershed that straddles the United Mexican States ("Mexico") and the United States of America. Treatment plants, a deteriorating one in Punta Bandera with limited capacity south of the border, and another in San Diego County completed in 1997, are inadequate to process the volume of sewage. So much sewage made its way into the Tijuana River that CBS 60 Minutes broadcast a special report on the binational environmental disaster in 2020.

Border factories and a population spike contribute to the sewage. Maquiladoras, …

Rule 4(K), Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction, And The Civil Rules Advisory Committee: Lessons From Attempted Reform, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

On multiple occasions, I have advocated for a revision to Rule 4(k) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that would disconnect personal jurisdiction in federal courts from the jurisdictional limits of their respective host states—to no avail. In this Essay, I will review—one final time—my argument for nationwide personal jurisdiction in the federal courts, recount my (failed) attempt to persuade the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to embrace my view, and reflect on what lessons may be drawn from the experience regarding the civil rulemaking process. My aim is to prompt discussion around potential rulemaking reforms and to equip …

The In Rem/In Personam Distinction And Partitioning For Persistence, Shyamkrishna Balganesh, Leo Katz

Faculty Scholarship

In the second of his two famous articles, Hohfeld seeks to do for the in rem/in personam distinction what he did so persuasively in his first for the terminology of rights, claims, duties, privileges, powers, immunities, and disabilities, which was to identify their essence, and to thereby describe the “natural kind” (in more modern parlance) lurking beneath the thicket of confused juristic rhetoric. The thesis in this second article, however, is a simpler and in some way more beguiling one than in his first. He claims that what the distinction between in rem and in personam jural relations comes down …

A Cost To Bear—Environmental Contamination And Eminent Domain, Evan C. Heaney

Seattle University Law Review

This Note advocates for Washington courts to adopt a system that universally allows evidence of environmental contamination on the private property taken in eminent domain proceedings. Part I of this Note discusses the history and progression of eminent domain and the broader constitutional roots of the Takings Clause. Part II explores Washington’s environmental remediation statute. Part III details the various approaches jurisdictions around the county have formulated to deal with this issue. Part IV argues Washington courts should adopt the inclusionary approach, which allows the introduction of environmental evidence in eminent domain proceedings.

Madison 2.0—Applying The Constitution’S Taxing And Spending Clause To Revitalize American Federalism, Mohamed Akram Faizer

Seattle University Law Review

This article introduces the proposal entitled Madison 2.0 which calls for an enlightened federal government to enact legislation—using its broad ability to tax and spend for the general welfare—to revitalize, as opposed to undermine, American federalism. Part I discusses American Federalism today and the need for an updated approach. Part II explores the government's dysfunctional response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Part III proposes how to revitalize American federalism through the Spending Clause. Part IV discusses how to claw back funds in situations of state recalcitrance and replacing funds with a basic income. Lastly, this article concludes by explaining why the …

Ford's Underlying Controversy, Christine P. Bartholomew, Anya Bernstein

Faculty Scholarship

Personal jurisdiction—the doctrine that determines where a plaintiff can sue—is a mess. Everyone agrees that a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant with sufficient in-state contacts related to a plaintiff’s claim. This Article reveals, however, that courts diverge radically in their understanding of what a claim is. Without stating so outright, some courts limit the claim to a cause of action or its elements, while others understand it to encompass the controversy underlying the litigation. What is worse, few have noticed that these discrepancies even exist, much less explained why. This Article does just that. We show that …